By now it’s obvious that Uncle Sam is out to destroy Howard Stern’s radio show. Under pressure from the Federal Communications Commission--pressure defined as a $495,000 fine--the Clear Channel media conglomerate has fired the renowned/reviled radio-talker from the six of its stations that carried his program. Meanwhile, Congress smells a political opportunity to score some easy political points. However, it might be Stern who, in the end, racks up the most points on the political scoreboard.

      Stern is now carried on just 35 stations, down from 70 just a few years ago. Of course, it’s not just Stern that the FCC is going after: in January the Commission fined Clear Channel $775,000 for airings of the “Bubba the Love Sponge.” And in March, the Commission fined Clear Channel $247,500 for indecency violations committed by another radio personality, Elliot Segal, of “Elliot in the Morning.”

      But Stern is the Big Kahuna. He’s famous; he’s written a best-selling book, starred in a movie about himself. And in addition to being extremely recognizable, he’s long been extremely political--he flirted with running for governor of New York in 1994 on the Libertarian ticket. All of which explains why he’s been under so much scrutiny for so long; in the 1990s, the FCC fined Infinity more than $1 million for Stern’s alleged “indecency.”

      We might pause here for a moment to consider just what “indecency” means. Inherently, indecency is defined in the eye and the mind of the beholder. And so “beholding” is inherently personal and subjective--we al have a different view. And so the fact that Stern has been harassed is the result of a series of subjective judgments by individuals in positions of power. But others would make different judgments. As the comedian Chris Rock recently told The Vanguard, the student newspaper of Bentley College in Massachusetts, “If you're listening to Howard Stern, and masturbation comes up, it's in the context of Howard Stern, and not indecent.”

      But the federal government, setting aside the First Amendment, thinks different. Right now, the FCC is getting ready for a final smackdown of Stern. As The New York Post put it recently, “Many radio observers think the FCC isn’t done using Stern as a piñata.” The paper adds that even as it levied the latest fines, the Commission “left the door open to going after other stations that broadcast the shock jock’s show.” For its part, The Washington Post calculates that the FCC could easily fine Infinity $2.9 million--just for a single on-air incident that the FCC didn’t approve of. And meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation that would raise the maximum fine by 10-fold.

      And Stern seems to know his radio goose is cooked. As he said on April 13, as the fines came cascading down on him, “I am going off the air.”

      A few--too few--voices have been raised in protest. Legendary radioman Don Imus, himself shocking at times, called the FCC’s suppression of Stern “a dangerous precedent.” And Michael Harrison of Talkers magazine was even more blunt: “When the government starts to restrain artistic speech, it’s the same as restraining political speech.”

      For his part, Stern says, “I am facing a “McCarthy-type witch hunt.” But he is going to fight back, in two ways.

      First, he is going to carve out a new niche for himself on Internet radio, which is beyond the reach of the FCC--at least for now.

      Second, he vows to lead a political movement against President George W. Bush (although interestingly, it’s a Democrat on the commission, Michael Copps, who has been the leading champion of a crackdown on “indecency.”)

      As Stern says, anticipating his own media-martyrdom, “I look forward to the day because those guys will make me bigger than life . . . I am ready to be bigger than I've ever been.”

      Will Stern pull it off? Will he get a political movement off the ground? It’s possible. After all, he has some eight million listeners. But most of those listeners are young working-class white males, a traditionally apathetic group without much of a record of voter-participation. Stern’s challenge is to mobilize them--such political kingmaking is task worthy of the talents of the self-proclaimed “king of all media.”

      And one more thing. While it might seem sappy to say that Stern has right on his side, I’ll say it: Stern is right. He might be obnoxious to many, but his free speech is our free speech. If his goes, ours could be next.

      And Stern has another thing going for him: fear. The fear that all of us should feel about the future if Stern loses. Chris Rock, the comedian known for his own salty tongue, said recently, “If Kerry wins . . . if we’re lucky, there will be some more regulations and things will go back to normal.” But, Rock continued, “If Bush wins, Howard Stern will probably be off the air and everything like it.” And that would be a defeat for free speech, and for freedom.

      We’ll see how Stern does. But all of us who value our First Amendment rights should under this about Stern’s fight: it’s our fight, too.


###

Contact PCGK@ivote2004.com