How Howard Stern's problems are yours

[Strider_Hiryu]

Check this out. Have you guys really noticed the amount of censorship that's been goin' around lately? To be honest, it's alarming. I can understand censoring certain things that aren't in good taste, but I honestly think they're going overboard.

[Voice]

Yep...it's initiative (insert number here)

I heard about it last night....of all places on the daily show!

Lewis Black was talking about it.....they are extending the list of words you can't say on radio/tv.

it's bullsheeyite and I wouldn't mind kicking those motheringfawkers in their donkeyasholierthanthou faces.

[Pocky Fiend]

This is getting freakin' rediculous. The government has no right to tell me how to live, what games I can play, and what I can watch/listen to. **** George Bush, and **** censorship.

[Tosser00]

Man...Never before have I felt so helpless. This is some ****ed up, repugnant shit. Even if Kerry gets elected, will any of this change, you think?

[Cloud]

Originally posted by Pocky Fiend
This is getting freakin' rediculous. The government has no right to tell me how to live, what games I can play, and what I can watch/listen to. **** George Bush, and **** censorship.

wow...my thoughts exactly

[svosen]

This is yet another incarnation of the classic struggle between liberals and conservatives.

I found it a little ironic that this article suggests the erosion of the constitution due to the influence of the conservatives (ie - Bush and the republicans), since it is my belief that liberal judges have been gnawing away at it for the last 40 years or more.

Another irony is the use of the term "oligarchy", since that same label has been placed on these same liberal judges by the conservatives.

It seems that what is happening is a lashing out against vulgarity in our country by conservatives. While I agree whole-heartedly with the concept, I do not agree with what appears to be their approach to achieving it (as portrayed by this ONE article).

While I'm a believer in most things conservative, I do NOT believe that making a bigger, more powerful government is the correct means to achieve conservative agendas.

I'm no starry-eyed optimist, but I feel the issue of decency should be left up to the citizens, in the hope that the country as a whole will make a transition back to more wholesome values. That being said, I don't see that transition as a likely occurance, although there have been some small indications to the contrary of late.

Unfortunate, that, since I believe it will ultimately lead to the downfall of our nation's greatness. We can hardly blame these politicians and judges for being corrupt; after all, they come from among our very ranks. Unless we change ourselves, our government won't change either. As Paul Harvey says, "You can't have self-government without self-discipline."

Which is the point of this thread, really. If we are not left to discipline ourselves (that is, if we are not left to decide how moral or immoral we want our nation to be), then we are not really governing ourselves any longer. We just need to decide if we would rather wallow in filth at our free will, or if we would rather remove that filth from our presence with the hope of maintaining our strengths.

If the latter is the path we choose, it should be executed via voluntary avoidance of such filth by the individuals. Forcing the action upon the people is not equivialent with the people choosing for themselves. No real, lasting good would come from government-forced morality laws.

[Voice]

Freedom of speech and Freedom of the press.

Howard Stern should be able to say whatever the **** he wants to, and if someone doesn't like it, there are these two little knobs on your radio...one is volume and the other is the tuner...MOVE ON OF THEM.....