Contact Us    
The Howard Stern Moment

Why Christian conservatives must defend shock radio.

by James Leroy Wilson
April 22, 2004

Bookmark and Share

The years of 1989-91 were remarkable. Beginning with free elections in Poland the summer of 1989, to the opening of borders between Austria and Hungary which precipitated the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the election of Vaclav Havel to the Presidency of Czechoslovakia, the freeing of Nelson Mandela, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991, I was persuaded that we were beginning a new age. Perhaps not "The End of History" as Francis Fukyama called it, but I did anticipate an increasingly freer, better world. These changes were brought about not through war, but through statesmanship and peaceful social revolution.

Who'd have thought that the counter-revolution against freedom would emerge within the United States? I don't know if it began with instituting the death penalty for "drug kingpins," or other draconian measures like Mandatory Minimum Sentences, leading to an explosion of the prison population. Or maybe the invasion of Panama or the Persian Gulf War. At the time, I was either indifferent to these developments or even supportive. But the seeds of our ever-growing Imperial State and Police State were planted

Then came the siege at Ruby Ridge, provoked by a man buying the wrong kind of gun from an undercover cop. Then came Waco, an atrocity for which we have yet to repent. Over time, new pointless government interventions, at home and abroad, stepped up in frequency. The Iraqi sanctions which punished the Iraqi people but not Saddam Hussein. Haiti, Bosnia. Bombing raids on Iraq. The Tobacco Extortion. Kosovo, a war waged on false pretenses without even a United Nations "mandate." The kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez from his relatives in Miami so that he may enjoy life as a slave in Cuba.

Criminal acts by both sides in the 2000 election - uninvestigated and unpunished. No one getting fired for obviously massive failures on September 11. The Patriot Act. Guantanamo Bay. The Department of Homeland Security. The McCain-Feingold Censorship of Dissent Act. Freedom Fries. The invasion of Iraq. The persecution of Martha Stewart. The War on Obesity. Ballooning the federal Departments of Education and Agriculture.

Right now, the optimists' view would be that things can't get any worse. But they can get much, much worse. Think of re-instituting the draft. Or being forced to carry a National ID card to get anywhere or do anything. Think of Uncle Sam replacing Big Brother, watching your every move.

Something almost as bad as the draft (I don't know how anything could be worse than a draft) will be an inevitable government attempt to control the Internet, cable, satellite communications, and - yes - the traditional press itself. If the Right acquires these powers, then the Left, once they get in control, will use those powers against non-egalitarian religions such as Evangelicalism and Catholicism. Their universities are already servile to the State; next will come punishing their broadcasting content. And then their internal operations, ministries, and policies.

Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, have a unique opportunity in history. They can defend their own freedom today, and roll back the tide of the Secular Police State, if they do one thing: defend the freedom of speech of Howard Stern and the freedom of radio station owners to broadcast his show. If religious conservatives don't do this, now, then they will lose. The Culture War will be lost. For the Culture War was never really against pornography, or homosexuality, or feminism, or drugs. The enemy was never Howard Stern, or Hugh Hefner, or any capitalist trying to make a buck pleasing an audience.. They were never the threat. The enemy has always been The State. The State is a shark, craving more and more power and not caring what it devours along the way. Using the State to persecute indecency, is a license to let advocates of indecency, once they control the State, to persecute Christianity.

Janet Jackson's breast-baring during the Super Bowl halftime show started the current fiasco. Congress and Chairman Michael Powell of the Federal Communications Commission exploited that silly episode into an opportunity to grab more power, even though the backlash was immediately felt in the free market. More stations started instituting seven-second delays of live broadcasts to delete offending words and scenes. MTV was fired from producing the Super Bowl halftime shows. Ms. Jackson was disinvited from performing at the Grammy Awards. The American people said, "This went too far" and the market corrected itself.

Even so, the House passed legislation which would hike fines over ten-fold for each and any instance of "obscenity" - so that it could punish even each affiliate station for network content the affiliate's managers could not control. On Monday, April 19, the management of Chicago's WLS-AM 890 sent a memo to its hosts regarding what words and phrases might now be considered worthy of fines by the FCC. Ultra-conservative morning drive co-host Don Wade explained to the listeners, and felt he was taking a risk in doing so, that uttering the word "tool" might be risky if someone interprets the use of the word in an offensive way. Afternoon drive host Roe Conn was looking forward to referring to the Vice-President as Rickey Cheney.

This is called a "chilling effect." When nobody knows what the rules are - if the FCC's position is, "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I hear it," and the fines get so high that station owners do not want to take the risk of airing controversial hosts, then freedom of speech has disappeared.

And there are three, at least three, things wrong with this whole process.

First, let's take for granted that the airwaves, by their limited space, are public property, and that private or commercial use of public property ought to be regulated. Fine. But since when is all "public property" under the ownership of the Government of the United States? Are there any high-power stations whose frequencies broadcast throughout the entire nation? Ditto for televisions stations: whose broadcast tower can reach the entire nation?

Is a schoolyard playground or city street the property of the federal government just because it's "public"?

I know that the airwaves are different because they can cross state lines. But there are scores of locations on the AM and FM radio dials, and many UHF television channels to add to the 13-station VHF channels. These are all "public" but they have limited geographical reach. There are dozens of opportunities to get information and entertainment; if one source is not to your liking, then find another. If you don't like a restaurant on a city street, that doesn't mean that the city should shut it down, even if - especially if - it's popular. In a city's downtown, there aren't unlimited opportunities to find what you want, but there is a wide variety; you should find something you'd like. If you don't enjoy anything, you have no obligation to buy. Just because you ventured downtown only to find out you didn't like anything it offered, doesn't give you the right to prevent others from visiting those same places. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean other people shouldn't like it. Likewise, if you don't like what you're hearing or watching, you can turn the knob or turn the radio (or television) off.

Second, even though I will admit that I don't believe the First Amendment applies to "obscenity" as defined by local communities, it is ridiculous to pretend that the federal government has any power to define it or censor it. There is no provision in the Constitution that empowers Congress to regulate obscene speech. If the people within a state or local jurisdiction believe that Howard Stern's radio show is obscene, they can use the pressures of the marketplace and force it off the air, or exercise their Tenth Amendment rights to prohibit local radio stations from broadcasting it. They can try to jam signals originating from other jurisdictions which air the offending content. Or they can simply prohibit people from listening to the show and try their luck at enforcing such a totalitarian measure. All of that is a far cry from any radio station owner being guilty of a federal crime for broadcasting Stern's show. What is obscene in Mobile, AL or Provo, UT might not be obscene in Las Vegas or New York City. The federal government's jurisdiction is just too wide. Uniform, "national' standards might be too "liberal" for some communities to stomach, and too "conservative" for others to stomach. This would mean injustices to both liberal and conservative areas, forced to kow-tow to a national monopoly of broadcasting regulation, instead of allowing local communities to regulate themselves.

But these are small potatoes considering the real problem with the persecution of Howard Stern and other supposed "shock jocks." And this is the problem of the FCC itself. And of the Federal Elections Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration. These are lawless, unaccountable bureaucracies whose very existence fly in the face of the rule of law, especially the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

The Fifth Amendment reads, in part: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

The Sixth Amendment reads, in its entirety:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."

These two Amendments, taken together, altogether refute the "judicial" power of the FCC and many other regulatory agencies. They simply do not have the power under the Constitution to levy fines.

In the Constitutional system, Congress passes bills, including what it considers to be federal crimes. The President, if he agrees with the bill, signs it into law and his executive branch investigates apparent violations. The accused is put on trial before a local jury.

This is what the Constitution mandates. Even under the dubious notion that Congress has the right to control the public airwaves all over the nation, and under the even more dubious notion that Congress can define and prohibit obscenity - still, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments mandate without doubt that fines or other punishments for violating federal "obscenity" laws must come from a guilty verdict of a jury, not from a bureaucracy of unelected officials like the FCC.

A radio station owner, under the threat of fines from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, deserves his day in court. The FCC and similar agencies who make up their own laws ("regulations") and then serve as their own cop, prosecutor, judge, and jury, are renegade agencies. They are unconstitutional monstrosities in our government and are unworthy of a free society.

That is the issue here. If religious conservatives do not defend Howard Stern and the stations that air his show, they are not only letting go of their own First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion, they are also giving away their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a day in court.

This isn't a matter of defending the content of Stern's show, but merely of asserting our rights as Americans, much as the Apostle Paul asserted his rights as a Roman. This is simply asking the government to play by its own rules, the rules set out by the Constitution. If radio stations that carry Howard Stern's show are guilty of a crime called obscenity, take the case to a jury.

By the same token, if Leftists try to persecute Christians for airing "obscene" views, Christians will then have the same right, to take the case to a jury. Juries are elements of a democratic society. Federal regulatory agencies are not.

Will conservatives defend the Constitutional rights of Howard Stern and the radio station owners that air him? I sincerely doubt that they will. Nevertheless, they should. For just as Christians might view Stern's program as scandalous and foolish, so do many view Christianity the same way. The bloodthirsty teeth of the State doesn't care either way, it will as soon devour the one as the other, preferably both. The enemy hadn't been secularists using the State against conservatives, or Christians using the State against liberals. It was always about our common enemy, the State, dividing us all against each other so that it might increase in power. The obligation of us all is to fight that power.

Comments (5)

Post a Comment

vela from Chicago, IL writes:
May 3, 2004
If the Right acquires these powers, then the Left, once they get in control, will use those powers against non-egalitarian religions such as Evangelicalism and Catholicism.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, James. Many followers of the Catholic church might be considered Left as would members of denominations that that use the term Evangelical. (Evangelical isn't necessarily a synonym to the term Fundamentalist Right.) I am a member of a church that has Evangelical in its name who might be considered left-leaning in social policies (as I feel Christ has called me to be) while demanding a more strict code of ethical and financial conduct from institutions, especially corporations (where I have served as a consultant to Boards of Executives for 15 years).

When we are speaking of our brothers and sisters in Christ on both sides of the political aisle, is it appropriate to speak in terms of powers? Must there be winners and losers as WE here on earth determine them to be?

That doesn't sound very Christian.

(p.s. Catholics ARE Christians.)

Michael H. Thomson from Merritt Island, Florida writes:
May 4, 2004
I think both JLW and Vela have very good points - both comments combined give a very balanced view. Now for my own:

When Ho Chi Minh was fighting the French in Vietnam with his band of guerillas - he was very effective. The French's military defeat at Dienphienphu in 1954 by a bunch of ragtag rice farmers and former plantation workers is studied at every military college in the world. This same group of militia - known as the Viet Minh became the ruling party in North Vietnam.

It was through their aid and assistance that another ragtag bunch of rice farmers armed with Ak-47's became the Viet Cong who kept the U.S. military occupied in South Vietnam for over 10 years until the North Vietnamese moved into the country in force in 1975.

So...whatever happened to the Viet Cong? Did these brave fighters who risked and sacrified their lives for Uncle Ho move into to positions of power at the war's end?

It didn't happen. The Viet Cong after the war were persecuted as fiercely as any South Vietnamese who supported the Americans. They were thrown into concentration camps, tortured and executed. Those who could - escaped. Guess where they came?

They were on the same boats that brought masses of Vietnamese refugees to the U.S. and other Western countries during the late seventies and early eighties.

In Westminister California, New Orleans, Houston and other large Vietnamese communities in the U.S., these same people who were our former enemies scratch their heads and wonder why the North Vietnamese rewarded them so poorly for their valiant efforts in defeating the Americans.

In a word - they were competition. The North Vietnamese once in control did not want another revolution on their hands. The Viet Cong's agenda and the North Vietnamese government's agenda were in competition. So back to this very interesting discussion between James Leroy Wilson and Vela.

Governments are about power and the consolidation of it. Free speech dilutes power because it offers alternatives.

Governments will woo anyone, group, organization or movement to gain power. But once power is gained -watch out. During the consolidation of power, governments only want one voice -theirs.

Christian groups who put their faith in a man or a government, may find out - like the Viet Cong did - that they are walking a dangerous path. Mainly, because in any context - Christians are competition to governments - and always have been. The Chinese for example see this very clearly.

Christian voices for the most part are moral voices that need to be heard and will be heard

as long as they stay separate from the government and not in league with it. Unfortunately, I think a great number of Christians today have missed this point and need to look to the example of Billy Graham.

Billy Graham for his entire ministry has been close to the seats of power. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon... and up to the present time.

Unless my perception of Graham is wrong - I've never felt that he was a suck-up to any of these guys. He witnessed to them, prayed with them, and gave his counsel, but never used his faith as a billy club to push his own agenda.

When Christians throw their hat in with a president, king, or government that they perceive is in line with their viewpoint - what happens when that president, king, or government start doing things that go counter to their Christian values?

Because they are perceived as being aligned with that president, king, or government - their voices are not listened to by the people who need to hear them ...and if they speak TOO loudly - that very government may stifle their own speech. History for over two thousand years is replete with examples of this.

A friend of mine who is one of the strongest Christians I know - but who also comes from a strong Democratic political tradition complained to me the other day that she is afraid to mention politics in the Baptist church our family founded one hundred and fifty years ago. The church she said has become so politicized that she doesn't enjoy going there anymore and hangs on merely because of family tradition.

Christians need to do as they have always done - speak out against injustice, poverty, repression, corruption, and all the other moral ills around them, but the voice they speak with needs to be INDEPENDENT and strong, not aligned with a president, king, or government.

A writer at the PO recently bemoaned how the President had deserted his constituency in support of a candidate who did not support Christian values. I'm not going to say the writer is naive about politics - but honestly, what did he expect? Every preacher, priest, or rabbi who delves into politics needs to read Machievelli's, The Prince!

James Leroy Wilson writes:
May 6, 2004
All I meant is that it is foolish for any group of people to advocate censorship of the airwaves, because those same powers could be used against them later on.

I'm not sure what else to say in response to Vela's letter, as the post-script insinuating that I implied that Catholics are not Christians is hard to fathom. Just to clarify, I'm not a conservative, and this is not a conservative site, most of the evangelicals and Catholics I know are not necessary on the political right. And that I am a libertarian distusting the advancement of government power for either left-wing or right-wing ends.

vela writes:
May 7, 2004
James--Points well taken and I find your independent point of view refreshing.

I think my comments were in reaction to this original statement (which is why I stated, I don't understand... and asked some questions.):

If the Right acquires these powers, then the Left, once they get in control, will use those powers against non-egalitarian religions such as Evangelicalism and Catholicism.

Let's break it down:

If the Right acquires these powers...

then the Left, once they get in control...will use those powers against non-egalitarian religions such as Evangelicalism and Catholicism.

Or, as I was editing in my head...

If the Right acquires these powers, the Left may someday grab them and use them against us Christians.

Perhaps a perfectly understandable interpretation based upon word choice and words left out.

1) There wasn't a mention of what the Right would use these powers for...

2) But the language that came after the Left, once they get in control...will use those powers...

Such as:


--non-egalitarian religions!

--such as Evangelicalism and Catholicism!

The Left would use the media against Chrisitians?

This doesn't make complete sense to me as there are plenty of progressive, independent and left-wing Christians I know who would love to grab that microphone of media power.

Probably isn't what you meant. But it was what I heard and I was asking for clarification.

Tough media, this web thing, eh?

James Leroy Wilson writes:
May 11, 2004
Actually, that was exactly what I meant. Yes, there is variety of religious views and differences of opinion on the Left. But the drive for absolute secularism, the promotion of hate speech laws, and desire for government to control content on the airwaves are all inherently left-wing phenomena. In Europe and Canada, hate speech is banned, and it is often banned in American universities. Also, the movement toward driving out any mention of God on public property has picked up steam, with the under God and Ten Commandments controversies. On top of that, the gay marriage issue has heightened tensions between the secular left and Christian right. Not to mention the Left's triumph of the McCain-Feingold bill, which severely undermines the free speech clause of the First Amendment. And their pretense that the airwaves are public property.

All of this, taken together, is ominous for anyone from James Dobson to Rush Limbaugh, who are no doubt already considered guilty of hate speech by millions of leftists.

That's why I think the Right ought to defend Howard Stern. Take away his right to be on the airwaves, and they could be next.

Send Us Your Opinion
(Comments are moderated.)
Your Name:*

Your E-Mail Address:*
(Confidential. Will not be published.)


Note: In order to control automated spam submissions, URLs are no longer permitted in this form.

Please type the letters you see above.


Bookmark and Share

Ron Paul Is a Nut (and So Am I)
Published September 10, 2008

Forget about red states and blue states. Wilson's unique take on political topics is refreshingly not politics as usual.

» Buy Now
» More Information
RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson: RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson
Sign up to receive an e-mail notice when new articles by this author are published. Your address remains confidential, and you may cancel at any time. A confirmation email will be sent.

Your e-mail address:
The Howard Stern Moment
po Books
Now Available!

Teachings of a Three Year Old... Turned Tyke,
by Hal Evan Caplan.

A father learns from the wisdom of his toddler.

More Information.

More by James Leroy Wilson
47 for 46 for 45
My favorite movies since when I was born
by James Leroy Wilson, 3/15/16
Hired Gun Quarterbacks
They rarely win the Super Bowl.
by James Leroy Wilson, 2/9/16
Fixing Football's Overtime
Get rid of the coin toss!
by James Leroy Wilson, 1/19/16
Solving the NBA's Conference Imbalance
Get rid of them!
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/26/15
The Problem of School
We develop differently, but arbitrary age rules punish us.
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/19/15
Deflating and defaming Tom Brady
Punishing without evidence
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/12/15
Should Floyd Mayweather be allowed to fight?
The Nevada Athletic Commission is wrong, but not for the reason you think.
by James Leroy Wilson, 4/28/15
» Complete List (565)

RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson: RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson

Recently Published
View Article Remembering a Lesser-Known Carroll
A tribute to Carroll Spinney
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 12/13/19
A Godwink Defined
Making sense of the coincidences of life
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 12/6/19
Making Deposits in the Blessing Bank
A grateful heart is a great investment
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/27/19
A Shepherd in Sneakers
Celebrating the ministry of Fred Rogers
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/22/19
Feeding Our Nightmares
The dangerous diet of late night news
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/15/19
Saluting Puget Sound Honor Flights
Pledging allegiance to our Veterans
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/8/19
The Tale of the Flameless Taper
An All-Saints Day Reminder
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/1/19

Get the Partial Observer's
'recently published' headlines via RSS.

RSS Feed for Recently Published PO Articles    What is RSS?

Reproduction of original material from The Partial Observer without written permission is strictly prohibited.
The opinions expressed by site contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
Copyright ©2000-2019 partialobserver.com. All rights reserved.
Home · Site Map · Top