Why Do I Support Howard Stern?
Protecting Howard Stern’s right to interview strippers and discuss flatulence may not seem like an important political project, but it is. The Bush Administration's attempt to fine and otherwise harass Stern constitutes a serious threat to our democracy.

First of all, it is impossible to give a clear definition of “indecency.” We can provide lists of “dirty” words (a rather lame and provincial solution that just leads broadcasters to say “f” and “c-sucker” and to partially “bleep” words in songs), but that doesn’t seem to satisfy the Speech Police. They claim to want to restrict all “indecent” speech, but I defy them to clarify their position in a way that would censor Howard Stern while still allowing for a free-exchange of ideas on topics related to health, sex, and relationships.

Besides, why should we censor Howard Stern? The argument is that we need to protect children, but isn’t that the job of parents? Furthermore, do we really need to protect children from public speech? Michael Powell wants to protect them from words (or in Stern’s case, words and sound effects), but do we really need to protect children from speech, or should we give them the critical skills they need to analyze, evaluate, and respond to what they hear, including the dribble, half-truths, and all-out lies for which the Bush Administration itself is now famous? As a parent, I choose to monitor what my children view on television and listen to on the radio, but I also choose to engage them in serious discussions about what they see and hear. Janet Jackson’s so-called “wardrobe malfunction” gave me an opportunity to discuss with my two oldest children (ages 8 & 11) the role of nudity in artistic expression. (They’ve also seen this same issue discussed in a very good episode on “The Simpsons.”)

But the central issue in Stern’s case is that we can never know the real reason why the FCC is persecuting him. There is no doubt that the pursuit of Stern represents an example of selective enforcement. Not only are our public airways filled with Stern imitators, but many radio and television programs (on PBS, Oprah, Nightline, etc.) are “guilty” of the same infractions for which Stern is being fined. This tends to bolster his claim (see www.howardstern.com) that he was fired from six Clear-Channel stations because he withdrew his support for President Bush and began voicing his support for Kerry (eventually). Stern claims Clear Channel President Lowry Mays’ close relationship with George W. Bush was behind the decision, and I think he's right.

Certainly a media organization has the right to fire its talent . . . for any reason, but the problem is that we cannot know why Stern was fired. If he was fired because of his political views, might Stern's political views also explain Michael Powell’s decision to pursue Stern and ignore other offenders (like Oprah)? Perhaps, and that is the problem. The vague nature of “indecency” definitions, the selective enforcement of these vague policies, and the chilling effect of the fines levied by the FCC (and proposed by new legislation) represent a serious challenge to free speech.

Sure, Stern is a comic and he may seem frivolous, but these days, the only mainstream media opposition to the Bush administration is coming from comedians. If we begin targeting them for indecency we will be silencing an important voice of dissent. This is waht the Bush Administration wants--to silence dissent--and their persecution of Stern illustrates the disturbing totalitarian impulse of this regime. One of the first acts of the Nazis was to purge the country of “degenerate art.” This was a first step on their journey to silence dissent. If “indecent media” is silenced by the Bush Administration, where will their second step take them?