First Class

Henry J. Bernacki, III

September 17, 1997

Paper #1

Howard Stern's Freedom of Expression

Before cable, before the VCR, and before the television, American families and their children gathered in front of the radio and tuned into the news, music, sports, and comedies. Children sat down and listened to "Little Orphan Annie," a nd the men tuned into their home sports team with hope of winning the ball game as the magical words flowed from the little box in the family room. Today, the radio still represents a major form of communication. With the use of satellites and antennae radios have the capability of transmitting anywhere. Radio stations now provide hundreds of programs from the "WPVI-Channel 6 News" to "The Howard Stern Show," which exercises the freedom of speech through the use of abusive langauge.

Although the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression there comes a problem when abusive langauge takes away another person's freedoms. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) involves itself in controversy and arg uments about regulating language on the radio, and whether or not freedom of expression and freedom of speech are to be without regulations. Lately, however, the FCC and Congress have passed laws that enable listeners to be free of abusive langauge which may offend them on the radio. Howard Stern has frequently been fined for use of abusive language on the air. After many instances of inappropriate language, the FCC has placed regulations on his morning radio program. Stern, however, resents the denia l of his freedom of expression.

Expression is defined as the "showing of a feeling, character, a look, or intonation towards or in the presence of others" (Webster 218). The freedom of expression allows people to show who they are, and what they are about intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. Many times people are judged on what they do, whom they hang out around, and also how they express themselves verbally. A person's choice of verbal expression can many times result in violations of his/her freedom of spee ch. Jermaine O'Neal, an eighteen-year-old basketball phenomenon, will be playing with the Portland Trail Blazers. However, "...these days he's dunking garbage instead of basketballs to make up for mouthing off to authorities" (Krasky 3C). Bec ause O'Neal insulted the police officers, they felt the intent to fight or start a problem was there, and O'Neal faced prosecution.

Granted to us in the United States Constitution, freedom of speech allows American citizens to voice theirown opinions on issues that affect them politically, socially, and economically. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (US Const. 1st Amendment). Although Congress grants the American people the right to exercise freedomes , responsibilities come with these freedoms. Many people do not realize that respecting others' freedoms is a key responsibility, and in fact, the first amendment does not protect all forms of speech.

John Harper, author of the book Intellectual Freedom, defines first amendment rights in regards to the freedom of speech. He categorizes the freedom of speech in two parts labeled "protected and unprotected speech" (Harper 12). H arper's protected speech "consists of activities such as news, political expression, certain forms of dissent, any objection that does not advocate the violent overthrow of the government" (12). Unprotected speech, on the other hand, is defined as "the advocacy of the immediate overthrow of the government by force or violence, proactive pseech or ‘fighting words,' obscenity, libel, and comercial speech which consists of advertising" (12). Because many American people take away others ' freedoms through abusive language, the FCC frequently engages in regulating freedomes to some extent. Abusive langauge on the radio concerns much of the population when radio DJ's and personalities use lewd comments which offend the daily listeners and their children. Although freedom of expression protects abusive language, the FCC believes that it violates others' freedoms.

Howard Stern has put himself into the radio high life by saying what he feels the radio listeners want to hear, often obscenities and rude comments. Every morning "The Howard Stern Show" airs live for over three hours, where he flies by the seat of his pants and is not too shy to say what he feels. After releasing a movie last summer entitled "Private Parts," his ratings have jumped through the roof, and he draws in new listeners daily. Evven the listeners who hate Howard Ste rn tune in every morning just to hear what he is going to say. The FCC has fined Howard Stern before for over 1.2 million dollars after using obscenities over the air.

Although abusive language in many cases is considered offensive and takes away others' freedoms, many times the accused is not prosecuted. To be prosecuted in the court of law, the offending words must contain intent to hurt or fight an individual . In Brown v. Oklahoma (1972), "Wilbert Brown was convicted in a Tulsa court for uttering obscene language and was fined one hundred dollars with thirty days in county jail" (Hurwitz 33). Another case that involves abusive language is about a man named Peter Arnell. Peter Arnell, a company employer, misused his freedoms in the work place by degrading employees through harassment and therefore suffered the results of numerous law suits. "Employees and clients also say they have heard and seen Peter Arnell use foul and abusive langauge to reduce office workers" (Steinhauer D1). Arnell, O'Neal, and brown did not act responsibility and thus faced prosecution.

Although Howard Stern has never used fighting words on the radio or on television, the FCC sets regulations to safeguard children and other listeners from hearing comments which might offend them. An anonymous writer targeted the "Howard Ster n Case" as a great dispute between what is legal and not legal on the air. "Mr. Stern's program can hardly be described as everyone's idea of acceptable entertainment--to put it mildly--but the same could be said about many other talk shows tha t are readily available on the air at any time of day" ("The Howard Stern Case" A20). Many columnisdts believe that censorship has gone too far when regulating radio.

The fights over regulation and censorship concern many Americans when it comes to Howard Stern. Stern feels that he is only putting on the air what the people want to hear. In his movie, "Private Parts" he stresses the point throughout the picture that if he goes on the air and speaks what is on his mind, whether it is about his life or about sex, people will listen. Outraged by his constant denial to perform to the standards set by the FCC, the commissioner of the FCC, Duggan, is constant ly planting fines upon him no matter how good the ratings are.

Abusive language on the radio concerns much of the American population when faced with a situation where the language either offends them or their children. However, questions still linger about the problem of whether censorship is even constitute d. Howard Stern every morning airs his radio program giving the public listeners what they want to hear. The major question is whether Howard Stern should be responsible for what people hear or the people should be responsible for what they listen to. Howard Stern is guaranteed the freedom of speech from the Bill of Rights, which allows him to say what he feels about any issue without infringing upon another's freedom. Issues concerning Howard Stern's rights and responsibilities, and the radio listene r's rights and responsibilities have frequently been argued over.

The FCC and Congress have place regulations to protect the American public from unnecessary abusive language and obscenities. Abusive language, an unprotected form of speech, violates the freedoms of its audience. First Amendment rights have been granted to all American citizens, and having these freedoms results in associated responsibilities. All U.S. citizens have these rights until they violate another person's rights. Responsibility is the key in holding these rights and freedoms whether a speaker is a radio disc jockey, or a teenage professional basketball player. Speech on th radio is a protected freedom of expression; however, when the speech turns to abusive language and offends people, Congress and the FCC might legally step in and p lace regulations no matter what the Bill of Rights guarantees.

Agnes, Michael, ed. Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus. New York: Simon &

Schuster, Inc., 1996: 218.

Harper, John. Intellectual Freedom. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Inc, 1992.

"Howard Stern Case." Editorial. The Washington Post 15 Jan. 1994: 20-A.

Hurtwitz, Leon. Historical Dictionary of Censorship in the United States. Westport: Greenwood

Press, 1985: 33.

Krasky, Lou. "NBA Teen Learns New Skill." USA Today 2 Sept. 1997: 3-C.

Steinhauer, Jennifer. "If the boss is out of line, what's the legal boundary?" The New York

Times 27 March 1997: 1-D.

"United States Constitution, Amendment I." Encarta Encyclopedia. 1997.

Henry J. Bernacki, III

December 1, 1997

Paper #4

Stern for President

The world stops at 6 a.m., to listen to the American wild man speak the truth to the country. Driving to school with Mom and Dad, Johnny and his parents tune into 94.1 KROCK broadcasting "The Howard Stern Show." Mom and Dad listen to Ho ward Stern as they keep saying to the new freshmen of high school, "You shouldn't be listening to this smut." They continue to laugh at Stern as they agree with him and smile. The three word sentences pour from their mouths, "That's so tr ue," or "That is disgusting." And as they keep trying to tell the freshman with virgin ears that this is for adults, their ears and minds are glued to the four-speaker car with the road and cars passing them by as if they were not even the re. Four months later the young freshmen with virgin ears now has a new vocabulary with four letter words and uses them in every way he can, whether it be a noun, verb, adjective, and adverb, and sometimes as a preposition. The parents try to blame Hoar d Stern, but every morning they go through the same routine. The FCC regulates Stern for his action with censorship. This is hardly justice. Howard Stern should not be held responsible for parental irresponsibility. Howard Stern expresses himself thro ugh the keystone law that America has been built upon, freedom of speech.

Granted to us in the United States Constitution, freedom of speech allows American citizens to voice their own opinions on issues that affect them politically, socially, and economically. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads , "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (US Const. 1st Amendment). Although Congress grants the American people the right to exercise freedo mes, responsibilities come with these freedoms. Many people do not realize that respecting others' freedoms is a key responsibility, and in fact, the first amendment does not protect all forms of speech.

John Harper, author of the book Intellectual Freedom, defines first amendment rights in regards to the freedom of speech. He categorizes the freedom of speech in two parts labeled "protected and unprotected speech" (Harper 12). H arper's protected speech "consists of activities such as news, political expression, certain forms of dissent, any objection that does not advocate the violent overthrow of the government" (12). Unprotected speech, on the other hand, is defined as "the advocacy of the immediate overthrow of the government by force or violence, proactive speech or ‘fighting words,' obscenity, libel, and commercial speech which consists of advertising" (12). Because many American people take away other s' freedoms through abusive language, the Federal Communiations Commission frequently engages in regulating freedoms to some extent. Abusive language on the radio concerns much of the population when radio DJ's and personalities use lewd comments which o ffend the daily listeners and their children.

Although freedom of expression protects abusive language, the FCC believes that it violates others' freedoms. A person's choic of verbal expression can many times result in violations of his/her freedom of speech. Jermaine O'Neal, an eighteen-yea r-old basketball phenomenon, will be playing with the Portland Trail Blazers. However, "...these days he's dunking garbage instead of basketballs to make up for mouthing off to authorities" (Krasky 3C). Because O'Neal insulted the police offic ers, they felt the intent to fight or start a problem was there, and O'Neal faced prosecution.

Being a little kid and watching his father run the local radio station daily, Howard Stern dreamt of becoming a radio disc jockey. Although graduating magna cum laude from his university, Stern suffered many rejections and defeats as a radio disc jockey. The key to Howard Stern's show was to say what he feels, no matter how outrageous or bizarre, and listener's will tune in; however, many of his ex-employers felt otherwise. Stern could not understand what was so wrong with saying what he felt, w hether it was truth or obscenities, if such words were guaranteed by the first amendment and the ratings were off the charts. People listened to "The Howard Stern Show" because of its honesty and its "let it all fly" motto through his words and speech on the radio.

Howard Stern expresses himself on the radio by saying what the listeners want to hear. His theory on running a radio program includes getting on the air, saying the truth and speaking his mind, and then people will listen.

‘I think there are those who perhaps don't even listen to the show

who are detractors,' he said. ‘I think there are some who listen to it

and can't handle the honesty. Some people have said, ‘Oh gee, when

you talk about women you talk about their breasts.' What I've

always tried to do in radio and what I've always felt was very brave

was go on the air and say any thought that came into your mind.'

(Ratliff 2)

Giving the people what they want to hear, should not be a crime. Censorship of such expressions should not occur. Howard Stern says what everyone else thinks; however, everyone listening is too shy or scared to say what they feel or believe for thems elves. Stern should not be looked upon as a vulgar character for what he says or as "America's misogynist, homophobic, racist talk-show host," but rather as a role model (Goddard 1). He stands up for what he believes rather than tuck-tailing a nd running from confrontations with the FCC and Infinity Broadcasting. Howard Stern does not give up when it comes to his fighting for his rights especially "when the shock jock came to town to endorse the First Amendment and in doing this he sets e xamples for all citizens" (Kaplan).

Despite the fact that Howard Stern frequently uses obscenities and insults many people over the air, he has attracted fans from a wide spectrum, and has gained the title by many listeners and critics as "The King of All Media." After an open forum in Bryant Park, New York City, fans believed Howard Stern is a nice guy, not only because of his personal relations, but also because of his committment to his wife and his new-born child. "Howard Stern is a nice guy. This is what people know him say, and this is what his new movie, ‘Private Parts,' based on his best-selling 1993 autobiography, may demonstrate" (Clark 3). Like John Clark, fans by the thousands gathered just to get a glimpse of Stern, and cheered him on as his new m ovie was being released. The honesty Stern evokes over the air is the reason why fans love him. The fans and people crave truth not from some politician or puppet on the radio, but from a guy who lives what he speaks. Stern's honesty is his and his fan s' defense against censorship.

The release of his movie influenced thousands of more fans to enter into the realm of Howard Stern. Although obscenities and foul language were used throughout the motion picture, fans applauded not only the excellent direction of the movie but al so the honesty and truth behind the life of Howard Stern. "The movie Stern is an earnest cuddlebear, a bit outrageous, perhaps, but at worst a class clown, and at best...well, a loyal friend, devoted husband, and the most honest personality in Ameri ca" (Mathews 1). Although Stern uses his obscenities and violated his first amendment rights, people, his fans, and critics believe that he is telling the truth, and anyway he can get it done is fine by them. Fans feel that further censorship of th e Stern show would result in the loss of its honesty not to mention the loss of his freedom of speech. Stern knows that what he is saying on the air is what everyone else is thinking but the listeners are just too afraid to say it for themselves. Stern exemplifies freedom of expression and freedom of speech over the air.

Because Howard Stern frequently expresses himself over the air through abusive language and obscenities the FCC posts fines on him and his radio show. One instance occured "in 1995, when Infinity Broadcasting settled with the FCC over a numbe r of Stern complaints by paying $1.7 million to the U.S. Treasury" (Radio and Records). The Federal Communications Commission exists in America to prevent listeners and their children from exposure to obscenities that may violate their freedoms. Al tthough the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression on the radio, the FCC believes a problem arises when abusive language takes away another person's freedom of living in peace.

Equal to the number of his millions of fans, Howard Stern has accumulated radio listeners who detest him because of his outwardly rude behavior. Over the years of his career Howard Stern--according to the FCC--has violated many peoples' freedoms a nd the FCC has stepped in and fined Howard Stern severely. After Howard Stern aired his radio program for hte first time in Montreal on September 3, 1997, listeners and Montreal radio personalities blasted Howard Stern for his filth and obscenities over the air. Because the Canadian standards of language over the air are higher than those of America's, a seven second delay filled with constant bleeps in New York City, translated into sixty second bleep in Montreal (Boone 2). "At 6 a.m., CHOM liste ners had awakened to a gleefully foul-mouthed American wildman characterizing all French-speaking people as ‘scumbags,' ‘peckerheads,' and ‘pussy-ass jackoffs" (Boone 2). Becuase Howard Stern offended almost the whole population of Montreal, the FCC cited Stern and removed the show from Montreal broadcasting. The next day a Montreal radio talk show host, Galganov, ridiculed Stern for violations of the Montreal people's freedoms, and questioned the validity of freedom of speech and expression in Ame rica.

The FCC, Congress, and the people of the United States believe that with Howard Stern's lewd comments and obscenities over the air, he indirectly takes away others' freedoms. Although this may be true, this theory does not hold much validity. No one forces people to tune their radio stations to "The Howard Stern Show" and listen to it. In fact, many people who despise Howard Stern, listen to Howard Stern in the morning longer than the people who love him do.

One of the major arguments of the FCC concerns the children of the United States being subjected to these obscenities and vulgar language. Many people wrote to radio stations and governments because "he is truly a threat to the unification of Canada. Also, his objectionable material is not suitable for adult ears, much less youthful ones" (Vanikiotis 1). The FCC should have nothing to worry about. The radio program is aired from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., and at this time, children are either asleep or at school unable to listen to the radio program. The radio listeners also have freedoms, and they should exercise these freedoms by turning the station instead of complaining to the FCC and trying to censor a show that should be free.

The main problem with censorship in Ameria is the fact that our guaranteed freedoms are slowly deteriorating, mainly freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech a person loses the ability to define himself or herself. This is not democracy. How ard Stern is frequently getting censored for his words that are protected under the first amendment. He never uses fighting words towards anybody and therefore should not be censored according to Harper.

Censorship should not occur towards any radio or television show without the vote from the people of the United States. The United States is a democratic government and according to the Constitution every citizen of this great country is represent ed. Therefore a law or fines should not be placed on a radio or television program. Without representation then Contress defies the rules and regulations set forth by the Constitution. Another problem with censorship occurs when the FCC indiretly affec ts the citizens of the United States. Although the FCC believes that they are doing a great justice by censoring Stern's show and protecting their children's rights and privacy, they are taking away every other citizen's freedoms. Any citizen has the r ight to listen to what show they want and when they want. By censoring and taking Stern's show off the air the FCC throws the citizens' rights out the door.

The main problem with censorship comes along when people write and complain to the FCC, and in turn the FCC takes action and sets fines and rules down. Instead of complaining the protestors should take their own action and exercise their freedoms by turning the station. Nobody is forcing them to listen to the station or the show. Turn the station instead of crying.

Probably the big question that arises with Stern is why do people like him and stick up for him so much? The answer lies in the fact that he stands up for what he believes in, he gives the listeners what they want to hear, he is a gentlemen and ho nest man, and he is loyal to his wife and children. Although he may be lewd and sometimes vulgar he is telling the truth. This should not be considered a crime.

Censorship in many cases, including the radio, has gone too far. Although the FCC and Cngress believe they perform justice by regulating "The Howard Stern Show," Stern still stands up for his freedoms by saying what he feels, and he will not have them violated through censorship. Like Thoreau, Stern believes in breaking and disobeying laws if they are unjust. Fired from numerous jobs throughout his career for not complying with the rules and regulations set by his bosses and the FCC, H oward Stern does not get mad, but rather moves on to the next job. He does not disobey because he feels like it, but because he stands up for what he believes in, that freedoms should not be censored. The FCC, indirectly affects the general public liste ners when regulating "The Howard Stern Show" also. If the listeners want to listen to Howard Stern, and he becomes censored, then not only are the rights of Howard Stern are lost, but so too are the radio listeners'. Many times the FCC has not considered other people's rights. The American public has the right to listen to what show and programs they want to listen to.

Howard Stern and the people who listen to him should have the freedoms that have been granted by the United States Constitution. Censorship of freedoms, an issue in today's society, may not seem like a big deal now. Certainly it does not c ompare to the magnitude of the national debt or the nuclear proliferation of other countries, but in fact, it could be the starting point of things greater than the loss of freedom of speech.

The censorship of Howard Stern has gone too far. Howard Stern has the right--the First Amendment right--to say what he feels. By censoring his rights, the government is in clear violation of regulating first amendment rights that are guaranteed i n the United States Constitution. This is a major issue in the United States because it not only affects the people being censored, but also the American public with regards to the First Amendment rights in the United States Constitution. The United States Constituion is a binding agreement between the government and its population that freedoms are absolute and guaranteed and should not be used responsibly. Although amendments and articles may be changed, it has to be voted on and agreed by the American population. Until that is done, a law must not be changed, and therefore censorship should neither. Freedom of speech distinguishes a person. Censoring speech controls the way one grow mentally; this hardly represents a democrat ic government, and the United States citizens should take a stand.

Author Unknown. "CBS Fights Fine Aainst Howard Stern!" Radio and Records. Online.

Internet. 20 Sept. 1997. Available FTP: http://www.koam.com/cbs_fights_fine.html.

Boone, Michael. "Dirt Flies as Stern Show Hits Montreal!" The Montreal Gazette 4 Sept. 1997.

Online. Internet. 20 Sept. 1997. 2.

Clark, John. "Call Him Mr. Nice Guy." 1 Sept. 1996/ Electronic Library. Online. 20 Sept.

1997. 3.

Colford, Paul D. "The Howard Stern Files." The Los Angeles Times 23 June 1996. Electronic

Library. Online. 14 October 1997.

Goddard, Peter. "Stern Set to Take Toronto By Storm." The K.O.A.M. Newsletter, 26 August

1997. http://www.koam.com 14 October 1997.

Harper, John. Intellectual Freedom. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Inc, 1992.

"Howard Stern Case." Editorial. The Washington Post 15 Jan. 1994: 20-A.

Kaplan, Lisa, "Stern: and the Crowd Signed On." Gannet News Service. 30 Sept. 1994.

Electronic Library. Online. 14 Oct. 1997. 1.

Krasky, Lou. "NBA Teen Learns New Skill." USA Today 2 Sept. 1997: 3-C.

Mathews, Jack. "Howard Stern, Mr. Nice Guy/Some Raunch, but Cruelty's Gone." 7 March,

1997. Electronic Library. Online. 20 Sept. 1997. 1.

Ratliff, Larry. "The Public and Private Howard Stern." San Antonio Express-News

http://www.expressnews.net/auth/ent/showtime/ratliff/1997/hstern.htm 14 October 1997.

2.

Vanikiotis, Lucie C. "Canadian Broadcast Standards Council Already Shows Bias Against Stern!"

The K.O.A.M. Newsletter. 5 Oct. 1997.

http://www.koam.com/canadian-complaint.html. 14 October 1997. 1.