I was speaking with some students and media professionals at a Catholic university campus recently. They were quite concerned about the censorious pressure being applied to radio shock-jock Howard Stern.

They fear the government is forcing giant radio conglomerates such as Clear Channel and Infinity to drop Stern from their stations. This, they say with heavy condemnation, is government censorship of the airwaves!

It is not only so-called liberal academics who condemn what's happening.

Some self-professed conservatives are likewise nonplussed. I have heard both Rush Limbaugh and his San Diego-based fill-in, Roger Hedge-cock, rail against any “censorship” of the airwaves beyond individual listeners switching stations or hitting the off switch.

Howard Stern is popular. For years he has drawn large audiences for scores of radio stations. The self-proclaimed “king of all media” also has an apparently successful presence on late-night cable television, and his movie, Private Parts, was a financial success. If people are watching and listening — “voting with their feet,” as we say — is it wrong for congressional leaders to pressure stations into dropping Stern? Or canceling “Bubba the Love Sponge?” Does commercial success mean an entertainer should not be held accountable by the government licensing authority for what he says?

Does congressional brow-beating amount to a violation of constitutionally-protected free speech? Is a sudden ten-fold increase in the maximum limit for indecency fines an abuse of power?

As a sometime broadcaster and student of the media, I argue No.

First, I argue as a parent. Consider Stern's standard fare. How does one describe it for a family-oriented Catholic publication? From what I have observed, Stern's program largely consists of schemes to lure young women into his studio so they can remove their clothes. He has done this so much and for so long that the young women now apparently seek him out as a way to gain media, um, exposure. Which is apparently considered a good in itself.

As a parent, do I want my son driving to school, flipping on the radio and having Howard Stern fill his imagination with lust? Of course not. Do I as a parent have any control over what my son would listen to in my absence?

Of course not. I have even less control over what my son or daughter would hear if he or she were carpooling with someone else's child.

The argument that I can simply “turn off the station” is a fantasy. As much as I try to keep the media my children consume consistent with the Catholic, Christian values we foster in our home, I lose all power in that regard as soon as they are out of my sight. Let us not forget that a short generation ago, our parents could trust that with very rare exceptions, we could watch television or listen to the radio without putting our innocence at risk. Now? No way.

I would be more than delighted if indignant congressmen could get us back to that day. I'm afraid it will take the power of about a zillion rosaries.

Second, I take issue with the notion that popularity equals acceptability. In a sense, this is what we're stuck with ever since the Supreme Court decided that matters of indecency are essentially undefinable impressions. They determined that the only viable criterion is “local community standards.”

Standards for one community, such as the New York City metro listening area, are certainly a far cry from the standards for my home, my church, my children's school — in effect, my community. And yet the omnipresence of the media renders the standards of my community meaningless. Harumph.

Finally, there is the brilliantly common-sensical logic of Aristotelian ethics. Stay with me on this one. Aristotle says we develop virtues or vices according to our habits. When a person always does what is good by habit and loves to do so, that person has acquired a virtue. If someone knows the good and does it but still struggles with temptation, that person is what Aristotle calls “morally strong.”

If a person knows what is good but does what is bad, he is “morally weak.” And when moral weakness becomes a habit, he loses any sense he is doing wrong. He has a vice.

If I listen to or view indecent programming, at first I can sense it is bad. But if I am morally weak and stay with it, it can easily become a vice. Then I lose any sense that there's a problem with the indecency I consume.

Do the federal authorities that grant broadcast licenses have any responsibility to me as a parent? You bet they do. They have an obligation to help me raise my children — or at least see that public airwaves are not abused in a way that threatens my parenting. There are plenty of other media outlets — heaven knows how many! — where indecency can have free reign. Congress and the FCC, let's please put an end to the senselessness of a broadcasting culture blinded by its own (and its viewers’) bad habits.

Jay Dunlap writes from Hamden, Connecticut.