In this particular case, no.

But that is a national secuirity issue, not one of censorship on moral grounds.

However, TV and radio are, first and foremeost, commercial enterprises.

If ABC-TV, for example, decided that they wanted to show hard core pornography, they should have that option.

Except that first of all, it's questionable how large a viewershp such programming would attract. Which means that ABC could get higher advertising rates for their latest stupid reality show.

And second of all, what would happen, of course, is that no sponsor would want to associate themselves with such programming anyway. A movement would certainly arise to boycott at least the sponsors of such programming, and possibly the network itself, which would affect the rates they could charge the sponsore of their more bland regular programming.

The point is that it would not be the government making the decision, it would be ABC-TV, bending to the will of their viewership.

The people would be making the decision.

That's the beauty of the difference between broadcast Tv and cable.

Broadcast TV, which must depend on sponsors for revenue and large viewerships to determine their rates, air programming which appeals to the lowest common denominator - the majority.

The majority doesn't want obscenity or nudity or the depiction of sexual acts on TV, and they don't get it, and that's fine with me.

Government regulation is unnecessary. It basically regulates itself because the TV networks are in business to make money.

Cable TV, on the other hand, is a different animal. The non-commercial channels which we pay for, like HBO or The Playboy Channel, derive their revenue from subscriptions, not advertising.

So their programming reflects something else.

"Sex and the City" is a quite critically acclaimed show (altho I will add that personally I don't care for it), and it features partial nudity, obscenity, and the simulation of sexual acts.

Same thing for "The Sopranos". Throw in a hefty dose of violence there, for good measure.

And people eagerly pay extra for HBO, and happily watch both programs.

But if HBO decided they were gonna start showing hardcore porn, I'm sure they would suffer a backlash and start losing subscribers.

So, to answer your original question"

"you're saying we should just let TV and radio be a free for all?"

I say, excepting matters that affect national security, yes. The economic forces at work, which are controlled by the majority, do a fine job of regulating it already without government interference.

As I say, it basically regulates itself through the market forces at work.

Howard Stern, who, I might add, I don't particularly care for, attracts a huge audience on both radio and TV and many sponsors who pay top dollar to advertise on his programs.

What makes him so popular is his raunchy style.

Clearly there are a great many people who are interested in listening and/or watching him. Certainly not the majority of Americans, but except for the Super Bowl, is there anything that a "majority" of Americans watch or listen to?

I think the disturbing thing about Howard Stern's persecution by the FCC is the fact that it may very well be politically motivated.