And it really makes my point about the kind of people who may be listening.

I understand your point. But perhaps this kind of behaviour is a moral issue and the reason why some folks find it disgusting.

But here's another question. If this kind of choice becomes so prevelant in society then when does it become a choice for those who don't want to hear it?
Another issue is the question of why would someone consider what we have been discussing moral entertainment?

Finally; What do we mean by "land of the free"? Does that mean anything goes and if you don't like it change the station? How do you change the station on an ever increasing immoral society that breeds an air that contaminates everyone else.

I guess the example (as poor as it may be) might be a neighborhood of beautiful homes and one neighbor who decides that rats, cockroches, broken down cars, a house in disrepair, and a lots of pets defecating all over the property might be the homeowners right and the rest of the neighborhood should just live with it. (change the station so to speak)

I submit that those who make bad choices do not have the right or the freedom to do things that adversly affect others and that indeed we do live by a moral code that others do not have the right to violate.

You're correct in saying "Removing choices that aren't immoral is bad for this, the so-called land of the free" But we're not talkin about a moral choice are we. We talking about people who wish to contaminate society by broadcasting their immoral opinion, and commentary. I for one wouldn't miss any of them if they were gone from the media tomorrow.

__________________
"What you hear in a great jazz band is the sound of democracy. “The jazz band works best when participation is shaped by intelligent communication.”
Harmony happens whenever different parts get to form a whole by means of congruity, concord, symetry, consistency, conformity, correspondence, agreement, accord, unity, consonance…….