Let’s hope that greedy motherf***er Howard Stern, who undeservedly rakes in millions of dollars, gets the pants sued off him and depletes him of some of those millions and his mansions for his lack of creativity and blatant slander on his show.

these are some of the most funny audio books I have ever heard! They hella rock!!

Thats the problem in this country, people confuse 1st amendment rights and responsibility. You do not (or should not) have the right to do this kind of blatant garbage, just because we enjoy free speech. Free speech was meant to protect the right to voice opposition against ones government, not to slander people. I hope he gets nailed!!

Dolly needs to borrow William Shatner’s humor. He was on Stern this week plugging his new book and they played his altered audio-book. Shatner thought it was hilarious and started playing along with the bit. Good show on Shatners part.

“Some sort of trickery…”, what a redneck

howard stern is a sick man and anyone thinks those tapes are funny, are just as sick and are perverts

Stern is a nut, Sue the pants off that ass

Damn, for an old bag Dolly Parton still has those massive jugs standing firm and full with no sagging noticeable. Hmmm, she may be up to “some sort of trickery” herself to keep them hooters standing.

i’m extremely disappointed to find that this article isn’t announcing the addition of dolly parton to the lollapalooza lineup.

re: Kman | 5/15/2008, 2:38 pm EST

“Thats the problem in this country, people confuse 1st amendment rights and responsibility. You do not (or should not) have the right to do this kind of blatant garbage,”

The 1st Amendment also allows people like you to make yourself look ridiculous when trying to interpret the constitution.

With your anemic use of parenthesis-in a weak attempt to cover your ignorance- it’s clear you don’t know what the 1st Amendment means.

Yes, Howard Stern does have (and should have) the right to express his “blatant garbage.”

The 1st Amendment doesn’t enforce taste, it enforces a right. If this right was based on taste, it wouldn’t exist in the first place.

I’m just glad you don’t have a seat on the Supreme Court!

re: Kman | 5/15/2008, 2:38 pm EST

“Thats the problem in this country, people confuse 1st amendment rights and responsibility. You do not (or should not) have the right to do this kind of blatant garbage,”

The 1st Amendment also allows people like you to make yourself look ridiculous when trying to interpret the constitution.

With your anemic use of parenthesis-in a weak attempt to cover your ignorance- it’s clear you don’t know what the 1st Amendment means.

Yes, Howard Stern does have (and should have) the right to express his “blatant garbage.”

The 1st Amendment doesn’t enforce taste, it enforces a right. If this right was based on taste, it wouldn’t exist in the first place.

I’m just glad you don’t have a seat on the Supreme Court!

I disagree with you Dana Doll, the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect againest slander and that’s what Howard Stern had done, plus violated the copyright of Dolly Parton’s audio book by broadcasting it regardless it being altered without permission of it’s owner. Yes, I feel that Dolly has the right to sue Howard Stern for both slander and copyright violations. Howard Stern is nothing but trouble…speaking of which, it sounds like to me that Howard Stern could be a racist himself by indirectly altering the audio book to his satisfaction? Hmm…I wonder!

If Dolly has a change of heart. They would get married naked and live on televison.

Keq3YA