Howard Stern is very well known for being, well, Howard Stern.
Stern broadcasts in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech. The U.S. has traditionally been very protective of the First Amendment right of people to publicly state their opinions, whatever those opinions may be.
However, Stern’s radio programs are offensive to many, as his material often reinforces some dangerous messages about various identity groups in society. Now, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has fined Stern for violating decency clauses concerning the sexual content in his show. Meanwhile, Stern has rightfully pointed out that certain segments on The Oprah Winfrey Show also contain similar content, and escaped penalty.
A decade has passed since Stern’s first battle with the FCC over ‘indecent’ content, and recently a fight has been brewing since a certain Super Bowl vixen bared a breast at half-time. With conservative fundamentalists and family rights watchdogs frothing at the mouth, Howard Stern is an easy target. But Stern is not only controversial, he’s also extremely popular.
The attack on Stern raises questions as to when legislating decency turns into blatant state censorship. Who is watching what our censors are censoring? The FCC, by trying to fine Stern into oblivion, has turned themselves into a de facto morality barometer of what is “in the public interest.” However, the way this mandate of protecting public interest is carried out must be re-examined.
When the FCC threatens to fine Stern, radio stations must consider whether he is a business risk worth taking, which in turn may drive him off the airwaves.
The FCC, and the public that the FCC is accountable to, need to re-examine the potential political motivations that may be driving the FCC’s selection and enforcement of their decency ruling. Some licensing should exist to monitor content, particularly material heard and watched by children, but this should be evenly and carefully enforced. As it stands, the FCC fines people inconsistently.
Individuals define decency differently, and it should not be used only as a buzzword by those clamouring for a crackdown of ‘loose’ moral values. In the end, freedom of the airwaves may reside in leaving all controversial content intact, no matter how distasteful it may be.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.