Here's more on Howard Stern:

This ain't Orlando. Or Pittsburgh. Or Miami. Or Rochester. This is Washington DC. The city that gave Howard Stern his big push toward fame. It was Stern's stint at DC101 in the early 1980s that caught the notice of some radio execs, who brought the "shock jock" to NYC - and eventually national distribution. And, for the past two decades, Stern has been a morning radio staple. Yeah, some of his humor is on the edge. But like or dislike Stern's brand of rant, as long as he generates ratings he deserves to be heard. Now, there's increasing talk that the FCC has targeted Stern for removal from the airwaves. Why? Too anti-Bush? Too potty-mouthed? Vulgar? Whatever. That's not important. What is important is that like Rush Limbaugh and Tom Joyner and Sean Hannity and Diane Rehm and G. Gordon Liddy and Tavis Smiley and Dr. Laura and Elliot Segal and Russ Parr and Michael Savage and Don Geronimo and Doug Tracht, Stern must not be silenced by a group of spineless corporate radio suits that seeks favors from fat-cat Capitol Hill politicos. If Stern is taken off the airwaves, we all lose. Our freedom. That's why it's important for us to "be prepared." Make a mental note of the sponsors on Stern's DC radio station - WJFK-FM. Especially the local ones. The car dealers. The jewelry stores. The cell phone and beer companies. And get ready to spread the word that if Stern is dropped from his DC radio perch, we're not afraid to use our economic "stick" to show our displeasure. Also, we must use the ballot box to throw out politicians who are using this so-called "indecency" campaign to silence popular radio personalities. Even in this age of "big media," the power still rests with us. You. The voter. The citizen. The listener.....

And Jeff Jarvis shares the following observation (with which I wholeheartedly agree:

Being "offended" may by the height of victimhood of the age but it must not become the standard by which we gauge who may and may not speak.

I am offended by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. But they have a right to speak, even on my/our/public airwaves. Some are offended by Coulter others by Moore or Franken, but I don't want them shut up, certainly not by government. Some are offended by The Sopranos or Queer Eye or even Friends but if they are, then they should change the channel.

Offensiveness is not a crime and it damned well better not be. I don't need anyone -- especially not government -- to tell me what is offensive or to protect me from it; I can handle both jobs just fine myself, thank you.

This is the age of offense and that offends me.

If thine radio offends thee, TURN IT OFF!

Jeff Jarvis also links to this from Doc Searls:

Cards on the table: I trust what Howard says about what's going on more than anybody else out there. Even when he exaggerates, throws out red herrings and otherwise wrings entertainment value out of everything he does. Why? Not just because he's honest (that's part of his rap, as well as his rep), but because he knows, better than anybody else in the business, both how it works and what he's talking about. How else could he play the whole industry like an instrument for the past 25 years, getting advertisers their money's worth through a show that runs (sometimes as long as an epic movie), every day?

Also, his sense of the prevailing political winds, especially as they blow through the broadcast regulatory regime, is extraordinarily acute. We've been watching those winds blow through other regimes — on trade, on the environment, and so on. And now we're about to see them blow through broadcasting. Whether you like or hate the man, listen to what he's saying about the politics around broadcasting today. The deeper subject is what you're not supposed to be hearing. And not just on the Stern show, either.

If he is silenced, it will be bad for the country. It will make my life just a little bit more miserable, my already cynical outlook even more cynical. And as I tried to point out, it will hurt millions of Stern fans, who use the guy to get through their days. The war against Stern is part of the damned Culture War, and I think it is mean-spirited, dour, humorless, and evocative of what was done to Charlie Chaplin.

To the people on the other side of this war, I say, if you don't like Howard Stern, fine. I am not making you listen to him. But when you prevent ME from listening to him, you violate the Golden Rule, and steal something from my life that I once had.

I might not be as sympathetic to complaints about things like religious "persecution" as I generally am, and I might not be as inclined towards compromise.

And I suspect I am not alone.

MORE: Jeff Jarvis has another post up about Howard Stern (who he thinks should start a "SternSpace.... to mobilize fans and followers") Highlight:

Once the government gets in the business of content [and to answer one particular commmenter, no, I don't mean the finance of content, I mean government turning into everybody's editor] then there is no stopping them. Slide down that slippery slope. Today, Howard Stern is offensive. Tomorrow, Sandra Tsing Loh on knitting is. Tomorrow, they try to regulate cable and not just broadcast. The next day, they go over the Internet (where, after all, there's lots of dirty, nasty, offensive stuff). This isn't about Howard. It's about you.

UPDATE (3-10-04): Glenn Reynolds offers a reminder of the bipartisan, even populist nature of the reaction against indecency (including, of course, Senator Kerry's support of the dropping of the Howard Stern Show), and adds this thought:

the unanimous passage indicates that there are a lot of people out there who want this. You may think that's a bad idea (in fact, I do) but it's not a sinister plot by a theocratic Republican minority. And, in fact, I think that opponents of the indecency ban have hurt their cause by engaging in Bush-bashing instead of addressing genuine popular sentiment head-on.