Should radio hosts Opie & Anthony have been fired for airing sex at St. Patrick's Cathedral?

I've never heard Opie and Anthony - and I apparently won't get the chance now.

I have to admit, as someone who writes in his spare time, I am VERY uncomfortable with the pressure tactics sometimes used in these situations. People need to recognize that there are two items that come with every radio (and more, depending on what exactly you bought at the store):

* The tuning dial.

* The OFF switch.

Or, depending on the items:

* Pop in a cassette (Celine Dion, Bon Jovi, and the Top Gun and Jurrasic Park soundtracks are in my car, with some Rogue Warrior books on tape).

* Fire up a CD.

I might be a right-winger, but I'll admit right now to listening to Howard Stern in the mornings (and finding him on the hilarious side sometimes). I don't like movements to yank people off the air, even in situations like this.

Quite frankly, the whole Dr. Laura controversy is one reason for that. Can someone tell me when this will stop? Or will they yank every program except the gardening show?

 

WHAT?! There's a gardening show? On the radio?! Why wasn't I informed of this. It must be destroyed. Anyways, I've heard they've been offered a contract for a lot more money than they were making. Is this true? Anyways, the sex in public issue, talk about nasty stuff. Exhibitionism is the worst form of creative uhh...sex there is. Like the whole world really wants to see that. If you wanna see something like that, go to your local video store and watch it at home. Otherwise, keep it out of the public.

As to did they go overboard? I don't think so, if you're a 'shockjock' then that is to be expected. The radio station obviously had some inkling of what they were like before, right? So why hire them if you're just going to fire them? Makes no sense. Ohh well. Hasn't anyone ever heard of a radio tuner? You know, switches the station? This place is too soft.

 

The fact that they were fired just disgusts me.

It seems to me that whenever a religious organization, be it the church or a "family planning group" doesn't like something, they tried to prevent its dispersal for public consumption.

If you don't like the show, turn it off. It's that simple.

No, I don't think what they did was smart. I also don't think they should have been fired for it-especially on the say-so of a religious group. I guess the station was afraid of government pressure from an administration that represents the viewpoint of religious intolerance.

Oh yeah, why are the most pious people oftentimes also the most for banning things they don't like?

Who remembers the let's-get-Harry-Potter out of the public libraries movement?

Whatever happened to republicans and smaller government, individual choice?

Enough already.

V-03

 

So only uber right ring christians try to ban things they don't like?

Does PETA know that?

Vaderize given your statement I'll assume you feel christians have a special right to have their objections ignored. After all, it would be inconcievable that urging and facillitating an aciton that not only breaks the law but is a slap in the face to millions of people around the country would generate such a negative feedback.

 

I've already said this - I am non-religious, and I think their actions were innapropriate enough to warrant firing. I'd feel the same way if they had suggested someplace else other than a church.

 

R191,

As I said before, if it had taken place somewhere other than the church, it wouldn't have gotten this blown out of proportion.

I can respect your point of view, but I'm sure the Catholic League would not have gone after them had it not happened in the church. And why not? Isn't it as indecent if it was to have taken place somewhere else? Or would it not be worth their time?

If the DJs are going to get fired for such a thing, I would have liked to have seen them fired because it was against the law, and against FCC regulations, and not because of the pressure from the Catholic League.


As for farraday,

"Vaderize given your statement I'll assume you feel christians have a special right to have their objections ignored."

That's news to me!

Why do I feel like a second class citizen in the U.S. just because I don't belief in God? I am subjected to the beliefs and values of the religious right? Being told by them what I can and can't hear or see?

I understand that you can't have people running around having sex everywhere, but as others have said, if you don't like what you hear on the radio, listen to something else. Don't "push" your agenda onto others who might enjoy hearing someone have sex on the radio. Maybe not in a church, but somewhere where it is legal.

Latre!

 

They can say whatever they want, but if what they say is encouraging people to go out and violate the sanctity of a place and insult millions of Americans, then they had betetr realize there will be consequences.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to have someone else pay you to talk.

And if the Station decided that a couple hundred thousand people calling in and telling them to remove those two idiots or they'd stop listening caused those two to get their asses fired offends you, then I think you don't believe in capitalism.

 

The Catholic League doesn't seem to mind when Priests have sex with children in Church, yet throw a fit when two consenting adults do?

[cough]Priorities out of wack[/cough]

 

Mad Martigan your post is so obviously the epitome of an unbaised viewpoint that I am taken aback. Truely, I'm so happy you're here to bring forth such topics in an attempt to keep the Catholic bashing to a minimum. After all, it's a well known fact Catholics support pedophilia and encourage such people to enter the preisthood.

Do you have a radio talk show I could listen to? Could I perhaps subscribe to your newsletter?

 

Okay, for the sake of argument, suppose they chose a different public place, such as a library. Not only is it a public place, but it's very accessible to children. Do you think the couple would have been arrested then? I think so. Do you think there would have been a public outcry? I do. Do you think the DJs would have been fired? I think they would have, because concerned parents can be just as vocal as offended Christians.

As for your comment about "smaller government" -- keep in mind that the Conservatives want a smaller federal government, but many would like their states and local communities to have the power to impose strict regulations on certain activities. And in this case, all the federal government has to do (through the FCC) is require that broadcasters do not encourage anyone to break the law. That's really not too extreme a rule, if you think about it.

And it wasn't the government that got the DJs fired - it was the community (even if it was only the Catholic members of the community). If a radio station sees that the community disapproves of their programming, they will change it or risk losing their local advertising support. So it's a case of the people exercising their power to choose what they want to listen to - the radio can keep broadcasting shocking programming (as long as it doesn't violate the law), but if no one's listening then no one's going to pay them to broadcast.

 

"concerned parents can be just as vocal as offended Christians"

Yeah, and they can most likely be christians to boot!

As for the community choosing whether or not they want them on the air. Do you really think that most of the people who called in to complain really listen to the show?

Most likely, it was people who are affiliated with the Catholic League who caught wind of this and started calling in, and threatening advertisers.

As I said before, they probably don't even listen to the show, so what are they complaining about? Now, if the vast majority of their listening audiance took offense to what they did, then I can see some sort of action being taken.

But for those who don't even listen to them to be the judge and jury for those who do, that is just wrong.

They don't have to listen, and probably don't.

Latre!

 

Most likely, it was people who are affiliated with the Catholic League who caught wind of this and started calling in, and threatening advertisers.

The show in question was obviously publicized enough that people who didn't actually listen to it were still offended by what they did, both in the church and on the airwaves. (Whether it was the Catholic League publicizing it - well, does that make any difference?)

Now, supposing that you heard about this incident, and found it very offensive - and then found that your favorite local restaurant was a sponsor for the show - wouldn't you contact them to complain about the content of the show they're supporting? And wouldn't you have every right to do so? People can get offended, and have every right to boycott the radio station and any advertisers related to the show as a form of protest.

Again, back to my example - a person wouldn't have to actually listen to the show in question to be offended by these broadcasters encouraging people to have sex in a public library. If a parent found out it was happening in their local library, they would probably contact the library, the police, the radio station, and the advertisers to voice their complaints. So why can't they do that if it's their local church? Or even if it's not?

 

Okay, for the sake of argument, suppose they chose a different public place, such as a library. Not only is it a public place, but it's very accessible to children. Do you think the couple would have been arrested then? I think so. Do you think there would have been a public outcry? I do. Do you think the DJs would have been fired? I think they would have, because concerned parents can be just as vocal as offended Christians.

I think this is a perfect example!

 

Say it was my favorite show, or yours for that matter.

Would you want a bunch of other people deciding for you whether or not you get to listen to it or not?

I'm also sure that there are enough businesses out their that would love to advertise with them, seeing as they are/were so controversial.

And, let me ask all of you this! How many of you would not have listened if this came on your radio? Seriously, America as a society has a warped since of indecency.

Why do we watch high speed chases? Just so we can see the speeder elude the police?

Once again, why should a particular group in America, with their own self-righteous agenda, be able to determine what others are allowed to watch/listen to, and what they are not allowed to watch/listen to?

We would all probably be watching reruns of 'Little House on the Prairie' and 'Left Behind' if they could really have their way!

Latre!

 

Maybe it has something to do with the airwaves being a public space. There's nothing to stop a kid from tuning the radio to a particular station, whereas there are safeguards on other media (you have subscribe to an X-rated TV channel, provide a credit card to access porn website, etc.). There's no V-chip for radio, and so parents are going to be concerned if they can't control what their children have access to. (If you have a problem with their desire to control what their children see and hear, well, that's a different debate. )

And still, even if you feel they have the right to broadcast as much smut as they want over the radio, that doesn't give them to break the laws by doing indecent acts in a public place. I think that is why they got fired, since as others have mentioned, Howard Stern can say just about whatever he wants without being fired.

 

But those who heard it, didn't actually see it.

I've read many works of fiction that decribe worse situations, and they are not considered indecent, well except those you buy at a XXX store.

Go to you local library or bookstore, and you will be surprised at how much stuff kids can get access to that is far worse than what was supposedly done on radio.

Latre!

 

But public indecency is still illegal. Because let's face it, you'd have to be looking for that sort of thing to find it in a book in the library. On the other hand, if your kid was just walking through the shelves and came across a couple... well, you get the picture. Kids have access to plenty of information (if you actually let them go to the library unattended ), but no one's supposed to be in there demonstrating the technique for them.

 

Who of you want to be subjected to the rules of some kid's parents?

Just because parents don't want their children to hear sex on the radio, I and other adults are treated just like their kids, and must adhere to their judgement?

Latre!

 

Well, I don't mean for it to sound like it's always about children, because it's really not.

If you have no problem with people having sex in a church, or a public library, or the local McDonald's, or whatever, then you are at odds with the generally accepted codes of public conduct. Now, of course, not everyone has the same opinions about what should or should not be allowed in public (some people would prefer that no one ever kiss, or even hold hands, in public!), but there is a certain sense that some things (like sex) belong in private. That's why there happened to be a law against having sex in public, which is really the reason why a group of people could pressure the radio station to fire the DJs - they had the FCC to back them up.

And honestly, do you think they'd ever allow X-rated content on the radio? The web porn industry would be in an uproar!

 

I hope I'm not sounding like I am in favor of public acts of lewdness.

As it has been stated, there is a law against that. Fine, I rather support that.

But, these laws seem to have a funny way of migrating to other issue.

Back to the library. As we have agreed, unless attended to, children have access to many "lewd" and "indecent" materials. And there have been many attempts to remove these items from libraries, and usually these attempts fail.

Parents should try keeping a better eye on what their children watch and listen to instead of infringing on my rights to CHOOSE what I want to watch and listen to.

Latre!

 

Then what was your problem to begin with? The DJs encouraged public lewdness, they publicized it over the radio, they broke the law, and they got fired.

If your issue is that they were providing sexual conduct over the radio, that is different; what they did was illegal. They were in faver of public acts of lewdness, they encouraged it, and they got punished (if you can call it that) for it.

Now, if your real issue is with the regulation of the airwaves, that's a different debate. And as I said, I don't think it's always about children, but that's usually the argument I hear from people asking for regulation of public media. They seem to feel that anything done on TV or the radio or the internet might as well be in their front yard, because it's just as accessible and sometimes just as much in their face. (Or at least, they want you to think so.)

 

Well, my initial argument was that such swift justice and a public outcry for the "heads" of these two DJs over this incident, was brought about by the church and the Catholic League.

But, at the same time. Catholic priests have been engaging in lewd acts that are far worse than this, and yet the same community that wanted the "heads" of these two DJs just covered it up, and pretended it didn't happen. Even now, after it has all come out, it still isn't being addressed properly. From last that I heard, the priests still have a "one strike" before you're out.

That's what I was trying to point out in the very beginning of this thread. The distinct difference between the religious community's lack of punishment, or swiftness to punishment amoungst themselves, but within a few days they can have people arrested and people fired for something that might not even have happened.

But knightwriter thought I was "bashing" the church, so I changed to a different argument.

But, I still don't think this is the worst thing in the world to have happened.

Our former president had sex in the White House (the people's house) and was not even fired. So, to fire these two DJs for this to me seems a bit over the top. A fine would do just fine ( ) for me.

Earlier I was accused of not being able to see the other side a this argument. Perhaps I see it all to well, and don't like the way it defends its self.

Latre!

Edits: I hate spelling!

 

But, at the same time. Catholic priests have been engaging in lewd acts that are far worse than this, and yet the same community that wanted the "heads" of these two DJs just covered it up, and pretended it didn't happen.

You are being incredibly oversimplistic with the molestation scandals. Things are far, far more complex than that. It wasn't just a simple coverup. To hear you talk of it, it was just a simple if-then situation, and that just wasn't the case. With the DJs, it *was* a much simpler situation.

but within a few days they can have people arrested and fired for something that might not even have happened.


The same is true of priests who are accused without any truth. Don't oversimplify.

 

I didn't even mean to bring that all back up again!

Simple or not, the chuch has a "Good old boys" mentality. How difficult would it have been for priests to report on other priests who molested, instead of shipping them off to another parrish? Really difficult, or fairly simple? Did they choose to, no.

And with that, I will try again not to approach that argument, unless provoked.

By the way knightwriter, thanks for keeping this open.

Latre!

 

Simple or not, the chuch has a "Good old boys" mentality

It is a brotherhood (and a sisterhood, as the case may be). This has its strong points and its weak points. I'm afraid there's a lot of emotion and other elements into the equation that you're leaving out.

In the case of the DJs, it's a much simpler case. They did something wrong, the public knew about it, and they paid the price for it.