Is vomiting on Stern show legitimate protest or just disgusting?

[Armstead]

Poll question: Is vomiting on Stern show legitimate protest or just disgusting?

Today Howard Stern had, probably one of the most disgusting episodes inthe history of his show. He had a guy on who has a fetish about being puked on by women, and Stern brought in a woman to acconodate him on air.

Had I come across this before the recent flap over Stern and censorship, I would've just dismissed it as his usual garbage that went beyond funny to just being gross.

But in the current context of Clear Channel's hypocritical pulling of him, and the rest of the current drive to surpress free speech, it seemed more like a protest. Like Stern was deliberatly pushing the envelope further at the very time he would be expected to reign himself in and behave.

Which leads to the question of whether this is somthing that is worthwhile, albeit truly disgusting? Is this a stand of principle and courage on Stern's part? Or is it just more pandering, and publicity? Should the tests of free speech be for more responsible causes, like political speech? Or is this exactly what free speech is supposed to be about?

[Indiana Democrat]

1. What's next?

Golden showers? Fecies eaters?

I like Howard because he makes me laugh but this stuff needs to be left to the far reaches of the internet, where you have to go searching for it...Not on public airwaves where little kids can easily find it.

[trumad]

2. Another poll should be titled

Do you think there ought to be an off and on knob on a radio?

[Armstead]

5. There is but you miss the point

I used to listen to Hopward Stern in the 1980's, but gradually he went beyond funny and clever to just crude and boring. So I exercised the On/Off button.

The problem with censorship is that the on/off button could become irrelevant if everything is censored into blandness.

I have mixed feelings about it myself. I like sex, and bad taste as much as anyone. But the whole media culture has become so crude and oriented totally to bad taste and cruel values that something has to change. But it shouldn;t be through censorship.

[KoKo]

8. That's always the question. People will push the "crudeness" envelope

to the limit when there aren't any standards. But, who decides what the "standards" are? Without any rules or standards folks can be free to do what they want, but in the current environment it seems the "Crude Police" are censoring the other voices. And, I include Limbaugh and that garbage on Faux in my definition of "crude." But then MY standards of crude are not what anyone elses might be, so here we go with the conundrum.

If we always go for the lowest common denominator, though, then every thing gets dragged down to the level of the Sterns, Imuses and whatever else passes for entertainment. Look at the rush to follow Faux instead of trying to create an oppostion?

We need to bring back the "Media Fairness Doctrine." At least to mandate some kind of "equal time." But would equal time against Stern be a Martha Stewart (poor thing) programmed opposite Stern or Limbaugh talking about "how to design a Victorian basket or nifty tips for the back yard barbeque?"

And, telling folks just to "turn it off" doesn't work because frankly I have turned it off, but that means that there's non music radio or television I can watch that doesn't have either RW stuff or something I find offensive. What's left is religious programming or re-runs. Having to Turn it Off just means there's nothing left for folks like me to watch or listen to. Surely I can't be THAT strange that there's no programming for ME.

What to do? :eyes:

[GainesT1958]

3. While most of me thinks it's just plain gross...

Of "Harrd' to do that on the air, another part of me is glad if he is, indeed, purposely pushing the envelope even harder than usual to spite those jerks at Cheap Channel--and Michael Powell's FCC. Since he would, indeed, be snatched off the air if he just told them to "F**K OFF!" live, this is, I guess, to him, the next best thing.:eyes:

B-)

[CaptainClark23]

4. Lets see...

On-air vomit, or being blown to pieces while practicing your religion...hmmm...

Freedom means acceptance of things we might not agree with or understand.

All things considered, I'll stick with Stern on this one, vomit and all.

[Atman]

6. Please show me the definition of "legitimate."

I think that is the problem right there. Who is to say? You? Bush?

[Armstead]

7. That's why I asked.

[maggrwaggr]

9. he should be ignored but too many people are just fucking JUVENILE

and will watch/listen to his immature antics.

He's disgusted me for years and years now.

I do NOT understand the appeal.

[jeffrey_X]

10. He's had this guy on before a few times....

nothing new here.

Honestly, his show has not changed a bit with all the new publicity and attention. He has talked about the situation and the possibility of going to satellite radio. All his other content, bits, etc. is business as usual.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. what's worse?

Vomit as a sexual tool, or graphic torture and bloodletting of a man nailed to a cross available for public consumption?

Eye of the beholder , my friend.

[FDRrocks]

12. its both.

[justsam]

13. he should be taken

off the air completely, America doesn't need an idiot like him carring on for kids to see or here about. We want to clean up our kids, start by cleaning up the garbage that they see. I know that there are some real weirdos in the world, but we don't need to put them on a show like Sterns or Springers either.