Jello Biafra (AKA Eric Reed Boucher) is known, to the extent that he is known, for being an “anarchist” and the former lead singer for the punk band Dead Kennedys. In 1986 Biafra was put on trial for obscenity due to the liner art for their album Frankenchrist. It ended in a mistrial, and since then Biafra has drawn on that harrowing experience to make a second career as an anti-censorship advocate.
Well, he just threw all that out the window. He’s now calling for the censorship of insane radio talk show host Michael Savage, who recently played Dead Kennedy’s anthem “California Über Alles” as part of a sick “tribute” to Ted Kennedy’s cancer diagnosis:
Biafra replied, telling the Boston Phoenix:
I haven’t read the details yet, but I’m aware of what Michael Savage did. Obviously he took my song way the hell out of context and did it deliberately…
It scares the s*** out of me that the most popular radio talk-show hosts are all foaming-at-the-mouth, ultra-bigoted blabbermongers whom only North Korea or the Nazis could love.
But like it or not, Savage is the third-most popular radio-talk show host in this country behind Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Nobody from the other side is represented or promoted well enough by the big right-wing-owned radio networks to compete…
The real issue here is why aren’t the big candidates calling for media reform? Once upon a time there was a law on the books called the Fairness Doctrine, and it said that if somebody like Savage or Limbaugh or that skull woman Ann Coulter said something completely f***** up and dishonest on the air, somebody else was allowed to come on the air and reply to them without being told to shut up every 15 seconds by a power clown like Bill O’Reilly.
That’s right: The free speech advocate wants the government to intervene in the free speech of others. Censorship is completely wrong, unless it’s being levied against someone you disagree with! Then it magically transforms into “media reform.”
Whatever you might think of Savage (I don’t like him either), he has the right to be stupid, sick, and mean. He has the right to offend people. Just like Biafra had the right to put out album art that offended people. The government should stay out of it in both cases, and Biafra is a complete hypocrite for wishing it on somebody he doesn’t like.
Not to mention that he named his band Dead Kennedys. That pretty much revokes his right to be offended by any Kennedy-related humor whatsoever. I did like the “power clown” line, though…
(Hat tip to the Radio Equalizer)
P.S. Click here to listen to Jello vs. Tipper Gore and the PMRC on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 1990. He was still against censorship back then, but I guess it was a long time ago.
Related posts:
- Disney Sends Miley Cyrus to Her Room Miley Cyrus made an appearance yesterday at Walt Disney World,...
- Mark Cuban, Blogger, Bans Bloggers From His Locker Room Billionaire bad-boy and NBA team owner Mark Cuban recently...
- Crusty Utterance Nettles Today (Warning: The following clip contains strong language and Jane Fonda)...
- Perez Hilton Accused Michael Jackson of Faking It So you’ve likely heard that Michael Jackson was rushed...
- Being a Kennedy Is a Gas Cape Cod Today has what they say are pictures of...
As a Dead Kennedy fan I was also a huge Jello fan in the late 80’s while in high school. Then I actually started listening closer and realized he is just another typical lefty loon with their illogical arguments. Shame though as he was a great lead singer back in the day. He foamed witht he best of them on his spoken word albums. They just aren’t popular as liberal ideas can’t stand the light of scrutinization.
Ah, and if I recall, that failed experiment of Air America was so hyped there wasn’t a person in this country who didn’t know about that station. It certainly didn’t fail due to lack of backing from the powers that be. It failed due to the emptiness of the ideas being put forth and by the failures of the “talent” hired.
I’m with Hurricane. Isn’t that what Air America was for? Is it still around? Why doesn’t Jello get his own show on there. I’m sure he’ll be willing to work for free since I’m kinda sure they won’t be paying him. Unless there’s another boy’s and girl’s club they can rip off to pay for their unlistenable radio station.
Leftys are always all for censorship if it is something “they” disagree with.
I also love how he invokes the Nazis. That always seems to be the first line of attack. NAZI!
I invoke Godwin’s Law on him.
Anyone calling for the fairness doctrine needs to start at the MSM - all the major news outlets to provide equal commentary - CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, (including tax payer funded PBS, NPR, C-SPAN - with fairness in program scheduling, and covered content). Education - all the way through college - equal amount of conservative to liberal teachers/administrators, and speaker guests/engagments at schools/colleges, web search returns, youtube content - accross the board “fairness”.
Are they calling for fairness in those - NO. Only talk radio - where they can’t compete via the free market. How much longer will we take this kind of crap from these hypocrits?
As many of us know - it is only “talk radio” (where they don’t dominate) that they want “forced” intervention. They want to make us listen to what they want to say, even though it is rejected time and again by the public. They can’t compete on their own merit/ideas/content, so they either ram their crap at us by mandate, or cause such a disruption the “free speech” we want to hear, or simply turn off, is taken down.
Not only are these people idiots, they are dangerous! And they are destroying our country. $4 gas & rising (but drilling/refining increases are out of the question) open boarders/amnesty & welfare for all - come get it while it lasts. Tens of thousands of pages of bills passed not even read, pork barrel spending out of control. Senators & x-pres’s bashing/undermining our President & military. Our classified security programs exposed by leftist traitors. Outright manipulation of facts, history & reality distorted to fit the hate America agenda/crowd, ect, ect..
I will stop here, otherwise this will look like a book, instead of a post.
I applauded him when he went on his spoken-word rant about the PMRC, although it was silly when he called Al Gore “one of those conservatives in Washington”. After the Dead Kennedy’s was over I tried listening to LARD which was (I think) yet another spin-off of Ministry that Jello was involved with. I wanted to like it but it sounded like he was trying too hard.
ridiculous idiot
I must confess, I was a Jello fan in the 80’s, when I was young a stupid. I since grew up, got a job and started listening to the “other” side.
This does not surprise me at all in the least.
The ling I have learned about liberalism is that they cannot tolerate (their favorite word) differing ideas. When they are exposed for the frauds they are, they start tossing out labels like Nazi, Fascist etc
You know you have hit rock bottom ideally when you need the feds to come in so you can have equal time.
Free speech for the libs, fairness doctrine for the rest of you.
Ummm…I’m failing to see how not liking your intellectual property being abused by someone to whom you are diametrically opposed and wishing for a return of the Fairness Doctrine = Call for Censorship.
I’ve re-read the excerpt you’ve quoted and nowhere in there do I see anything about censorship. A desire for our discourse to not be overwhelmingly populated by hate-spewing, truthiness-challenged wingtards, yes, but no censorship.
So, I call shenanigans on your claim of hypocrisy. Shenanigans!
Also, I find it almost ironic that all the kids I deal with on the streets as an EMT who are shooting heroin and other crap always seem to have a Dead Kennedy’s t-shirt on. What’s up with that?
Re: “A desire for our discourse to not be overwhelmingly populated by hate-spewing, truthiness-challenged wingtards, yes, but no censorship.”
And we don’t try and stop the libs/leftist from devolving into that from a free speech perspective. People like Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, ect.. have done themsleves in by just that. (It would be of no use anyway to try and stop them, as it has been pointed out in posts here (and many sites/articles/books as well) they will devolve into their vile commentary, false claims (out right lies even) not to mention an assault on logic.
How true this is from Robert: (and it is getting bad on college campuses)
“The (thing) I have learned about liberalism is that they cannot tolerate (their favorite word) differing ideas. When they are exposed for the frauds they are, they start tossing out labels like Nazi, Fascist etc
Ummm… either government intervention into our free speech is censorship or it isn’t. Jello needs to decide.
There’s an unwritten rule of internet message board that when you invoke Hitler or the Nazis you automatically lose.
But I always hear the fairness doctrine applied with the addition of the left wing to the right wing, but I’m wondering if the New York Times or the Washington Times would be forced to higher blatantly right wing columnists? I mean when Paul Krugman writes something, do we get a column next to his from a righty? Or does it only apply to one medium, during the weekdays, only between the hours of 8am and 8pm.
I agree with UltraJ, Perhaps you should look up the definition of censorship. Most dictionaries agree that it involves the actual removal or supression of steatement or ideas from any particular medium. The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t directly interfere in the actual publication of statements or ideas–it is invoked _after_ the statements are published. This is hardly censorship in the strict sense of the word. In fact it can _promote_ free speech by making accessible a platform to people who may be defamed and may not have such an opportunity to respond otherwise.
And why does Jello need to decide whether or not “government intervention into our free speech is censorship”? Your’re the one who used the word first.
Even the real Daniel Webster was never that pedantic.
P.S. You might want to tell Jello that according to your definition, he was never censored either.
Tipper is the Anti-Christ!! The only reason the PMRC ever got any footing was because Tipper was having sex with a politician (i.e. Al). She slept her way to infamy. Yes, she is a conservative hack.
I guess right-wing radio is so popular because people who like it depend on RADIO for their information. Zing! Meaning, they’re old, backwards and irrelevant. At least a lot of them are old enough to die soon.
Let ‘em have it. We have the Universities, as so many have pointed out here. And the Interweb. Groups like Moveon.org prove that you *CAN* be partisan without being a total dick about it.
Any media outlet purporting to be a news organization should be ashamed of the level of vitriol and tastelessness M. Savage and his colleagues descend to. Yes, the New York Times and Washington Post lean left, but they do it with a modicum of civility.
I still like Jello. Using his song that way was uncalled for. And it doesn’t make his campaign against censorship any less right.
Either that or they spend a lot of time in their cars. Commuting to work.
I’m just saying …
When Savage croaks (hopefully from choking on a swig of Rockstar) I’m going to put a video montage of Pig Boy Mikey’s funeral up on YouTube accompanied by a soundtrack of Kool and the Gang’s “Celebrate.”
And there it is. “Meaning, they’re old, backwards and irrelevant.” It is exactly that kind of condescension that turns people off to left leaning people. And to believe that Moveon.org aren’t total dicks is laughable.
See? It’s not so hard, folks. Free speech must be met with more free speech. It’s not the government’s business to stop the mean people who hurt your feelings.
“I guess right-wing radio is so popular because people who like it depend on RADIO for their information. Zing! Meaning, they’re old, backwards and irrelevant. At least a lot of them are old enough to die soon.”
For someone who’s so ‘with it’, you’d think you would know that most nationally syndicated talk radio programs get at least 35-45% of their listeners over internet broadcasts. I managed to catch all my favorites on a laptop all the way over in Iraq. I know it’s a shock, but there are those of us who are young and conservative - we’re just not as whiny and vocal about it as the left.
And really, calling moveon.org civilized is like calling Pat Robertson a gay rights leader.
You Neocons here need to go back to school a little… and I’m not just talking about your lack of writing and spelling skills (though you might work on that). The Fairness Doctrine, when it existed, applied only to media of limited, and therefore of inherently public interest. So it would apply to OTA television and radio, which use our limited radio spectrum. It would not apply to print or internet media, which are effectively unlimited. It would probably not apply to satellite or cable television, which are also effectively unlimited (at least technologically, if not as a practical matter).
So AM Talk Radio: yes. CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS: yes. Sirius, XM, Fox News, MS-NBC, CNN… probably not.
This is much the same as the areas that the FCC holds sway, versus those where it doesn’t. There’s an issue of limited resource for satellites, true, but that’s an orbital slot allocation (for geosynchronous satellites), not an RF bandwidth allocation.
Right wing radio began life when the ultraconservative media company Capitol Cities Communications purchased ABC (at the time, four times larger than CapCities) for $3.5 billion in 1985. ABC has a string of AM stations across the company, pretty much all of them losing money… AM was dying. ABC itself was at the time liberal leaning, though of course, forced by the Fairness Doctrine to present both sides of arguments of a political nature.
However, thanks in part to the efforts of conservative media companies, Ronald Reagan appointed FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, a man who had publically promised to kill the Fairness Doctrine. After the 1987 case “Meredith Corp. v. FCC”, it was ruled that the Fairness Doctrine was simply an FCC rule, not mandated by Congress… and was thus dissolved my Fowler later that year (Congress has tried to restore it several times, which is certainly possible, but was vetoed by both Reagan and Bush II).
Capitol Cities jumped on this as a chance to do _something_ with their AM stations. Rather than worry about profits, they decided they could now use these as an outlet to spread the “gospel of the far right”. And they did a brilliant thing… they didn’t simply get talking heads yacking away, they made it a dust-up, a “them vs. us” fight that would appeal to the uneducated masses. Much like Professional Wrestling, it was the drama and the conflict that drew in listeners, not anything like, say, truth. Ultimately, it not only spread the right wing gospel, it made nice and regular profits for Capitol Cities (and eventually, Disney Corp, who bought ABC/Capitol Cities later on)… and of course, all the clones. This was the dawn of infotainment, and the beginning of the end of real journalism in the major media outlets.
Yeah, those dirty neocons sure are lousy spellers when they’re “yacking” away…
Wow. Hazeydave is really up on the Fairness Doctrine. And his spelling is impeckible. So duz the Fairness Doctrine applie to Air America too? Or just to “right-wing” radio.
(FYI I’ve never heard even one second of a “right-wing” radio show)
“and was thus dissolved my Fowler later that year” GRAMMATICAL ERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you mean dissolved BY Fowler?
Check it out….
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/99-grammar/
OK, I’ll make this real simple. Savage was tasteless and rude, but the theme here is celebrity hypocrisy. My favorite part - this oh so offended punk rocker named his band THE DEAD KENNEDYS.
uhm. I read this twice…nowhere does he call for censorship.
Maybe you could quote? Probably not, because he never actually called for censorship. Keep spewing Co2 though. I need more moronic entertainment…
I also like how comments here are censored. Hypocrites everywhere, rejoice!
You should say “uhm” more. It makes you sound very smart.
Oh, and the people who hassled Jello in the ’80s never used the word “censorship” either. Nobody ever CLAIMS to be in favor of censorship, genius. It’s always for “the public good.”
Yeah, nobody can read what you wrote, dude.
The Fairness Doctrine was meant to promote diversity of opinion on the public’s airwaves; to counter the problem referenced in the maxim, “freedom of the press is for those who own the presses.”
That is not censorship. It is meant to reduce censorship by private and powerful interests. Media ownership has become more concentrated over time. A few corporations control a large percentage of outlets. We are in danger of hearing ONLY the corporate view;point on any issue. This is destructive to democracy.
Hazydave: It is the left/libs that are in need of education. Spelling means nothing compared to rights granted by our constitution & the Bill of Rights. It is the libs/left that deny conservatives free speech on college campuses across the US. While they demand theirs. And since most college administrations are leftists – guess who wins?? The idiotic left. Deny the right by labeling theirs hate speech. Yet, the left is entitled under free speech to say whatever; hate is not relevant in this context, only applicable to the right.. We see time and again where these young brainwashed nitwits – aggressively/forcefully disrupt “freedom of assembly” and “freedom of speech” of conservatives. And, are afforded protection, solidarity even from the leftist faculty and administration. While conservatives are threatened, including in their charters from administrations.
You can talk about the “intent” of the original fairness doctrine all you want – but, that does not comport with today’s Democrats. Which see & hear their side represented on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR. There is not even CLOSE to a fairness in airing both sides fairly on any of them. These huge media sources grossly, and visibly favor the Democrats. And they know it (anyone that doesn’t certainly has mental deficiencies, as the bias is/has been admitted even by the left, themselves.
The only thing they “Dems” want legislated is talk radio where the “market place” – people’s choice - is made clear as to the preferred content in that forum. If the Dems want a piece of that pie – they must earn it. And that they can’t is no one’s fault but their own. So, what do the Dems want – to legislate only against conservative talk radio.
There is nothing fair about this, or them. As I stated – if it is “fairness” they want, and demand – then only a hypocrite (actually a deceitful, lowlife) would demand it in the one forum where they can’t compete “freely” – while allowing multiple other forums which “favor hugely” themselves, remain biased in their favor.
If you can’t see the insaneness in this position – I don’t care how educated you claim to be – you flunk basic logic right out of the gate. Hence, your subsequent premises collapse from such a flawed foundation.
From Dick Durbin: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” says the assistant majority leader. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
- So, where is his proposal to make ALL political/social discourse fair to Americans by implementing an across the board fairness in discourse/reporting? And why not education of our youth, if he is so concerned for fairness in learning/understanding?
- He, like many others with this idiotic mindset, who think they can lie and deceive – are the epitome of hypocrites.
What is he referring to is only “talk radio”. Which only reaches a small portion of people compared to the MSM. – and conservatives for the most part. This man, and there are many others, including women in the Dem party, stand in stark contrast to free speech.
If this were the case, they would be all over colleges to correct their imbalance, all over the MSM, to correct their imbalance. Yet, are they? – NO. They want to go after talk radio.
“To begin with, for five decades, there was a Fairness Doctrine–a Federal Communications Commission regulation, not an act of Congress. But in due course it came to be regarded as a relic of its time (1934) and, more important, an impediment to broadcasting as a public service. The Fairness Doctrine was repealed during the Reagan administration (1987); the courts have since upheld the repeal. And therein lies a tale.
When the FCC was established early in the New Deal, there was concern that the size limitations of the broadcasting band, and public ownership of the airwaves, would discourage discussion of public issues on the radio. So the FCC instituted the Fairness Doctrine, requiring stations to air both sides in debates; in 1949, the commission expanded the Doctrine, mandating stations to provide a specified amount of public-issue discussion in order to retain their license.
As often happens, this particular initiative had exactly the opposite effect from what the FCC intended. Over the years station owners grew so wary of attracting the scrutiny of federal regulators that they largely banned discussion of political issues on the air, and mandatory public service programming was deliberately anodyne.
All that changed once the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. A half-century of pent-up free speech was suddenly liberated, and talk radio came into its own. Rush Limbaugh became a household name, paving the way for other entrepreneurs of the air, and radio went from being almost devoid of substantive content to a new, and unpredictable, factor in American politics.
By just about any measure, the Fairness Doctrine was an unfair impediment to free speech, and a public disservice in an open democracy. But it was something else as well: It was a federal regulation that had kept Rush Limbaugh–and Laura Ingraham and William Bennett and Sean Hannity and others–off the air. That is why Democrats have been seeking (in Dick Durbin’s word) to “reinstitute” the Fairness Doctrine: It would require any station that carries Limbaugh to offer equal time to his critics.
Never mind the wisdom of the marketplace, or freedom of choice for radio listeners: Revival of the Fairness Doctrine is not intended to facilitate “both sides of the story” but to shut down conservative talk radio. Why? Because efforts to invent a successful left-wing Limbaugh have consistently failed, and what Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, and Al Franken’s Air America cannot manage on the air might be accomplished by congressional action. This has been a forlorn cause of the left since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed 20 years ago; but now that Democrats control Congress, new life has been breathed into the effort. A Democratic president could appoint enough compliant commissioners to the FCC to accomplish the mission. Or Congress could act.
Talk radio became the only alternative to the Dem promoting MSM, until Fox came along and offered counter balance. Imagine that ONE major tv news source (FOX) vs NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN. When you add PBS & NPR, and conservative talk radio – that makes 2 to 7. So, where is fairness in that, I ask?
The “..beginning of the end of real journalism in the major media outlets” began with the left dominating the media – which has led us to where we are. From and to the likes of Dan Rather, Bill Moyers, Chris Matthews (leg tingling for Obama) Olbermann, ect, ect,.. via the numerous other left/Dem shills from the MSM. Which is like Professional Wrestling in that it is obviously rigged, one sided, and inanely predictable. And, though I don’t watch wrestling, I would prefer it to watching liars, deceivers, and shills like the aforementioned.
What has happened to this discussion? I am amazed it has been dropped. As our economy, crumbling in plain view but hidden from discussion for a full three years before this Fall’s dissolutions… now that we can SEE how vastly corporatized and wholly-owned our media outlets truly are, it’s more important than ever to discuss. Heretofore, cashflow offered us the veneer of luxurious delusions; the nasty election just past revealed to those willing to practice questioning in ALL quarters the opportunity to observe sexism at work from all angles; marginalization selectively parsed and programmed. Now is the time to keep talking, kids. For now we can see more of the real body through the tatters.