IMO, Limbaugh and hate radio have got to go

[Cyrano]

Do Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and all the other peddlers of hate and divisiveness have the right to say all the despicable things they say? A superficial reading of the first amendment to the constitution would seem to endorse their saying just about anything at all.

However, the phrase: “The constitution is not a suicide pact,” has been attributed to both Abraham Lincoln and Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson who was the chief judge at the Nuremberg war crimes trials of Nazis.

Further, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said that “… freedom of speech does not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”

The point I am attempting to make is that I believe that hate speech, such as that which has been practiced for decades by right-wing propagandists like Limbaugh over the public airways, presents a real threat to our freedoms, our constitution and our country.

Limbaugh and the others are presently doing everything possible to undermine the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. (A few weeks ago, one of these lunatics – I forget which one – was all but "suggesting" assassination. As far as I know, he was not detained or questioned by the Secret Service.)

I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, but I know that some here on DU are. However, whether you are or not, I’d like to hear your opinion on whether Limbaugh et al should face some restraints on what they can say, and if there is a legal way to impose such restraints.

Or, conversely, do you believe that there should be zero limits on what they can say?

[theboss]

1. No limits on speech

Thank you and good night.

[depakid]

2. Typical libertarian shortsightedness

along with misunderstanding of the law and public policy.

[theboss]

13. Where does censorship fall into good public policy?

And why is no one quoting Justice Black?

[depakid]

33. Private censorship and monopoly of the public airwaves in thousands of communities

is astoundingly POOR public policy.

As noted in the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Red Lion v. FCC

The fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules do not violate the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others.

Thus: Congress and the Commission do not violate the First Amendment when they require a radio or television station to give reply time to answer personal attacks and political editorials.

More here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/395/367.html

Rush, Hannity et al. can say what they like- but ought NOT to be applowed to lie or engage in vile personal attacks with impunity.

That doesn't further the goals of the 1st Amendment at all.

[wryter2000]

68. Breaking up the broadcast monopolies is a great idea

I'm with you on that one.

[defendandprotect]

153. We only have to look at radio and TV right now to see that it's being used

as propaganda -- especially propaganda of violence and violent concepts.

There's very little that the right-wing doesn't find works against their

interests in an educational kind of way -- from shows about animals as friends

of humans, to programming about topics rarely discussed from National Single

Payer Health Care to criticism of the Federal Reserve making economic decisions

that should be made by elected officials.

How many taboo topics in media -- from the Drug War to Electric Cars -- ??

Leaving things as they are simply means that you're content to have the public

uninformed. That's dangerous for democracy.

As radio began . . . the idea was to have 37% of the programming educational/

informative. That never happened.

If you look at TV today it's mainly advertising -- Reagan increased the advertising

time for broadcasters/doubled it!

There is, of course, a serious loss of viewers due to corporate-propaganda as news.

But the fare being offered is largely garbage -- with a return of boxing and wrestling!

Tattooing. Torture. Especially violence against women. Military/gun shows.

Not that I'm advocating for TV watching --- you can live without it!

I just think if it's there someone is going to watch -- and it should be balanced.


There isn't much to be said for polarization of the public -- nor polarization of

"news."

[Ex Lurker]

54. most other democracies permit free speech while restricting hate speech

I'd like to see something like the way Canada does it.

[theboss]

58. Like the guy being prosecuted in Holland for insulting Muhammed?

No thank you.

[madeline_con]

141. You mean this guy? Holland declines to prosecute anti-Islam politician

Published: June 30, 2008

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/30/europe/dutch.php

[bridgit]

41. Unless they're shouting "Fire!" in a theater that has none, that's damaging to the health of others

Been known the cause undo panic/trampling, blocks EMP personnel, etc, maybe it's time to revisit these lofty poetries; make a contemporaneous effort to understand what they meant all along.

Free Speech certainly seems to have been predicated upon the maniacal tyranny of another King George, and the terrorist' he sent forth to drag colonials into the commons and shoot them there, sometimes before their wives & children, for their spoken aversion to tyrannical monarchy itself,

Imo it was meant less an invitation for bloviated tyranny to return and divide from within undo panic & trampling but you're right...

They will cry & squeeze crocodile tears just like Nellie Olsen till they get their pissy little ways once again, it's what they do the very best with the freedoms someone else has died & shed their blood for

[OnyxCollie]

48. O.K.

You're a pedophile and a rapist.

Free Speech! Free Speech! (Slander is FUN!)

[theboss]

57. That's a half truth

Anyway, I can take it.

[OnyxCollie]

63. “My initial response was to sue her for defamation of character,

but then I realized that I had no character.”

Charles Barkley

[FiveGoodMen]

79. So Holmes was wrong?

[theboss]

111. Yes; Justice Black was right

I have my justices; you have yours.

[FiveGoodMen]

119. Not sure it's that simple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black

Justice Black is often regarded as a leading defender of First Amendment rights such as the freedom of speech and of the press.<67> He refused to accept the doctrine that the freedom of speech could be curtailed on national security grounds. Thus, in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), he voted to allow newspapers to publish the Pentagon Papers despite the Nixon Administration's contention that publication would have security implications. In his concurring opinion, Black stated,

"The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment."<68>
He rejected the idea that the government was entitled to punish "obscene" speech.<67> Likewise, he argued that defamation laws abridged the freedom of speech and were therefore unconstitutional.<67> Most members of the Supreme Court rejected both of these views; Black's interpretation did attract the support of Justice Douglas.<67>

However, he did not believe that individuals had the right to speak wherever they pleased. He delivered the majority opinion in Adderley v. Florida (1966), controversially upholding a trespassing conviction for protestors who demonstrated on government property. He also dissented from Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), in which the Supreme Court ruled that students had the right to wear armbands (as a form of protest) in schools, writing,

While I have always believed that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments neither the State nor the Federal Government has any authority to regulate or censor the content of speech, I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases.<69>

Moreover, Black took a narrow view of what constituted "speech" under the First Amendment; for him, "conduct" did not deserve the same protections that "speech" did.<70> For example, he did not believe that flag burning was speech; in Street v. New York (1969), he wrote: "It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars a State from making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense."<71> Similarly, he dissented from Cohen v. California (1971), in which the Court held that wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "Fuck the Draft" was speech protected by the First Amendment. He agreed that this activity "was mainly conduct, and little speech."

"I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases."

Doesn't sound to me like he'd agree that anyone had an absolute right to their own lying radio show.

[theboss]

123. He had issues when it came to "conduct vs speech" and "place"

And I do tend to disagree with him on those. Though I do not see how either are relevant to this discussion.

(By the way, where I leave the reservation is free speech in schools. So, no one is an absolutist).

[FiveGoodMen]

125. My post concerned the when and where issues as well.

I bolded them for your attention.

[mzmolly]

82. We needn't limit speech, but we should expand it

by restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Limbaugh would simply have to sit alongside Rhodes or Ed Schults, imagine. ;)

[theboss]

112. That would be awesome in that I would listen to nobody!

For the record, I am not in favor of the fairness doctrine. If the public doesn't want to her you, the public shouldn't have to hear you.

[mzmolly]

131. They're welcome to plug their ears.

;)

[Virginia Dare]

85. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre...

there are SOME limits.

[theboss]

113. That borders on action to me

If your speech is going to pose an immediate threat to someone, then yes...there are some limits.

I don't see how yelling "Fire" on the radio crosses that line though.

[FiveGoodMen]

121. You don't think that Rush's radio shows have produced material damage?

[theboss]

122. No

No I do not.

Propaganda is what it is.

[FiveGoodMen]

124. Then propaganda has no actual power?

[Marr]

88. Right-- and that means big money interests should not be allowed to control all speech.

The radio is filled with right-wing voices even thought the country is not right wing. It's because these are voices that corporate America is comfortable promoting. They should not be allowed to so dominate the public's airwaves, and regulation in this area would be very much in keeping with defending free speech.

[Hugabear]

98. So you think it should be okay to openly advocate violence?

No limits, right? So I should be allowed to advocate violence or murder of particular people. I should be able to incite violence against a group of people? Should I be allowed to call for someone's assassination? No limits, right?

[theboss]

115. I think advocating violence is acceptable to the point where talk becomes action

If the Klan wants to march saying that we would better off without "Niggers and Kikes," that's fine with me. If they start inciting a riot - however - that's the line.

[Hugabear]

140. So then you DO agree that freedom of speech has limits

Using your example, it's okay for a KKK member to say "We don't need those n*******s". But if that same KKK member says "Go kill that n*******" then it becomes a crime - even if the speaker doesn't actually commit the murder.

Every right has limitations. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that you can engage in human sacrifice, or even engage in polygamy. The right to KBRA doesn't mean that you carry a loaded shotgun into a crowded shopping mall. Freedom of press doesn't mean that you can libel somebody.

[theboss]

171. I don't think saying "Go kill that ---------" is always a crime

I think the context of the quote and the liklihood of it happening is a key. It really is when talk becomes action, and that is largely a question of fact.

[Hugabear]

172. In what context would it NOT be a crime?

If a Klan leader tells a crowd of people to go out and commit violence against random minorities, and they follow his instructions, is that a crime? Or is it only a crime if the violence immediately precedes the speech?

[GA_ArmyVet]

180. I don't seem to recall any

instance or Rush or Hannity ever calling for that, granted I don't listen to the show, but pull up a reference or a transcript or something that documents that happened before calling to censor them.

I am sorry, but, I am suspicious of anyone who wants to limit what can be said by anyone.

[Lorien]

139. You can't make a public call for the death of the President or all liberals

and both Colter and Limbaugh have done the latter (at least).

[dysfunctional press]

3. ZERO limits, of course.

ever hear of the first amendment? it's worth a look-see.

[depakid]

17. Ever hear of the public airwaves and media regulation?

or read any cases interpeting and applying the 1st Amendment?

Unlikely.

[dysfunctional press]

28. the other side is part of the public as well- they have just as much right to the airwaves.

sorry.

[reggie the dog]

99. i agree with you

if someone lies about someone else let that person sue the liar for slander, I live in a country where it is illegal to say racist things, so the racists talk in code, which makes it harder to criticize their racism. It is also illegal to advocate smoking cannabis, even telling someone who has AIDS that cannabis may help them is illeagl according to French law. Luckily EU law says we can advocate drug use. But racism is still illegal according to the EU

[Cyrano]

20. Ever hear that George Carlin's "seven restricted words" can't be uttered on

radio or TV?

[dysfunctional press]

26. specific words, perhaps- deemed 'vulgar' by society...but not the content.

nt

[bluestateguy]

4. I regard any criticism of the president in a time of war to be nothing short of treason

nt

[robcon]

31. That's an anti-American slur.

bluestateguy wrote: "I regard any criticism of the president in a time of war to be nothing short of treason"

I have not been a traitor to this country over the last 6-8 years. Your post, that dissent is unpatriotic and illegal, is stupid, IMO.

[wryter2000]

67. It's sarcasm

And an example of the kinds of restrictions they could impose on our free speech if we can eliminate theirs.

[hughee99]

34. You shouldn't have needed to add the sarcasm tag for this. n/t

[Clear Blue Sky]

62. If so, then most of us here are guilty of treason.

[Regret My New Name]

128. R U SERIES???? err guys?

Clearly you couldn't be making a point or anything. ;)

[NJmaverick]

5. I would bring back the equal time policy, but I would not attempt to limit their speech

I would have been very unhappy (and rightful so) if Bush had tried to stifle the speech of left wing pundits and I would be a hypocrite to approve it happening to the right wingers.

[paparush]

6. Limbaugh Hopes Commander In Chief Fails to Keep America Safe

Pound this meme people. Limbaugh talking/acting like a terrorist.

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. Obama's success at fixing stuff will silence those bastards without

having to do anything else. People will reject that shit once & for all.

[Howardx]

8. liberals need to quit talking about limbaugh period

why give him power over you? he's irrelevant.

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. Well said nt

[NeedleCast]

103. Yup

You win at the internet!

[defendandprotect]

155. Right . . . who is his audience? O'Reilly's audience is 70 year olds--!!!

Maybe the better question to ask about Limbaugh is who is keeping him on the air?

Clear Channel isn't exactly progressive ---

This reminds me of GE pushing Pat Buchanan into spotlight everywhere ---

a sexist, racist, homophobic fanatic. And, then there's also Bay Buchanan!

As far as I can see that's the only way that Pat Buchanan got onto TV -- GE.

More right-wing than the John Birch Society!!

IMO, they loosened up the right-wing reigns for Olbermann because they saw that

the tide was turning and wanted to be sure their bread would still get buttered

in new administration.

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. There should be zero limits on what they say

Limbaugh and Hannity, stupid as they are, have been hamstrung and castrated. Limbaugh HAD to say he
hoped Obama fails, because he has to distinguish himself from the other a-holes. It's marketing. He
might have an enormous contract, but he still has to market himself.

Now, if they incite actual illegal activity, then someone can bring suit. Otherwise, the First Amendment
is there for a reason.

Hate speech doesn't threaten the Constitution - it's more like the other way around.

[defendandprotect]

156. "Hate speech" has repercussions . . .

and hate speech is what organized patriarchal religion has been about for thousands

of years -- and look at how their enemies have fared!

Women, Jews, Native Americans, African Americans, Homosexuals, Pagans --

We can see still how effective "hate speech" is in the mouths of someone on a pulpit

and how it can influence members of religions to move from intolerance to violence against

those being labelled "inferior."


And, "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" which have given license for

exploiting nature, natural resources, animal-life -- simply for monetary gain and power.

[Dreamer Tatum]

165. Gee, I claim Limbaugh has 1st Amendment rights

And you indict thousands of years of Western tradition.

[Warren DeMontague]

183. There is a small, yet vocal, pro censorship brigade on DU.

There are people who believe the 1st Amendment only applies to speech and material that doesn't, personally, offend their sensibilities.

[texastoast]

10. I don't know how the Fairness Doctrine could trump the First

But it would be so nice if spirited debate could actually return be the norm. The way they speak is unpatriotic, impolite and un-Christian, you know. Maybe that is the way to frame it.

[depakid]

37. See post #33,

[PDJane]

11. Well, I am a Canadian.........

and we have laws against hate speech. No, I don't want to get into an argument about free speech. While I see both sides, I believe that there are things that people should not be allowed to say on air, on teevee....or in public.

[harun]

14. Having asshats like these around actually helps our cause

Reminding people how hideous, hateful and hypocritical their ideology is.

[guitar man]

15. I want to see them gone as much as anyone

But IMO they must go by the market, waning interest in what they have to say not paying off for their advertisers. As much as I hate every vitriolic word that comes out of their hate filled mouths, we do NOT want to martyr them. My god if that happened, the outcry would would continue until it wore the wheels off the waaambulance. "Persecution" is exactly what they want, I say don't give it to them, let them self destruct.

[supernova]

16. They'll shrivel from lack of interest

Their audience is much smaller than it was six months ago, and it will continue to fade as the President continues to push through his agenda.

I predict Rush will be broke in about three years. You read it here first.

[qazplm]

18. unless they are inciting riot

speaking slander, or formenting sedition, then no limits.

You dont classify speech as hate speech just because you personally dont like it.

[MadHound]

19. Sorry, you start putting limits on what Rush et. al. can say,

You immediately start putting limits on what everybody can say. Yes, what Rush and others speak about is horrible and despicable, in our opinion. Look over at the other side however and you will find that what Olberman, Maddow and others say is as equally horrbile and despicable to them.

If you want to continue to have free speech, then you've got to allow others to have free speech, and let people sort it all out in the marketplace of ideas. Anything else is simply unAmerican.

[ima_sinnic]

21. political opponents are a nasty fact of life, & shutting them down would be antithetical

--it would go against everything that the country stands for.

Believe me, I agree with you! They SHOULD be tarred & feathered and returned to the wild--some remote, uncivilized place -- but dissent is a cherished American tradition and right --

Can they be made to conform to some kind of standard of truth? I don't know how that could work or be enforced.

Their own dumbness should eventually sink them. They ought to become more and more irrelevant and unnoticed if Obama's administration does succeed in transforming not only the way things are done by government but also the quality of U.S. life, the economy, and the quality of the discourse.

[specimenfred1984]

22. Anyone stupid enough to believe what those jackasses have to say...

deserves it. I've go no pity for anyone that dumb and make fun of them directly to their faces.

[tritsofme]

23. Would it have been alright for Bush to lock you up because

you "undermined" the legitimacy of his presidency?

Liberals trying to squash free speech are just as dangerous as the conservatives that do the same.

[robcon]

24. There should be zero limits on what they can say.

Absolutely free political speech is essential.

[scheming daemons]

25. Sorry... I disagree.... ZERO limits on political speech

Shine a light on 'em....

Don't give them an excuse to become martyrs.

Because SOMEDAY, Republicans will be in charge again.... and they'll be coming for YOUR speech when that occurs.

[depakid]

36. Just make sure there are accountability methods in place

to correct lies and set the record straight.

This applies- and SHOULD apply to political advertising too- as in initiative campaigns where one side has TONS of money- and the other never gets to be heard on the public airwaves.

[COStorm]

56. What are you talking about??

That makes no sense at all.

Free speech but you have to someone checking your content to make sure it's "accurate"?? Accurate to who's standard??

Ridiculous.

[tuckessee]

27. Free speech for everybody!

(Except those I disagree with.)

Right on! Sieg Heil!

[adarling]

29. no matter how much i don't like him

its free speech, he hasn't physically hurt someone with his speech...yet. but even if i don't agree AT ALL with the crap he spews, i want it protected so i can say whatever the fuck i want to say. his rights end where my rights begin.

[hughee99]

30. If you can't trust the government to tell it's own critics

what they can and can't say, who can you trust?

Personally, I'm happy to see the constitution make a comeback in Obama's first few days. I'd like to see it stick around for a while.

[MindMatter]

32. I strongly disagree. Cnsider this.

If we force them underground, they get stronger.

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, the entire Faux crew, and all the other village idiots do us a great services by displaying their feeble mental abilities in plain sight.

We are beating them at their game. We have the advantage of truth working for us. They have only reached their plateau because we game them 20 years without any real challenge. We are not mobilized to take them on every day. Every time they say something stupid, put that in front of a million people.

How many millions of Americans caught on to that reality just in 2008? Once we raise a person to a new level of political awareness, they will be with us for decades. We must continue this mission, to enlighten every one of the poor slobs that have been under the spell of these demagogues.

This is not the first time we have had this cycle. In the past, people had to mobilize to turn back the McCarthyites and the John Birchers -- two groups that were every bit as moronic as the Limbaugh crowd.

And with each victory, we are permanently shifting the commercial demographic that has sustained them. With every radio viewer who wakes us to the realization that Limbaugh is nothing but an ignorant blowhard, that is another dollar of advertising revenue we take away from his syndication.

Honestly, folks, we aren't that way from starving these guys out -- using that wonderful free market they are always crowing about. We have already vaulted MSNBC above the Faux evening programs, and nobody would have ever believed that possible.

We simply have to continue on that path. We are winning.

[depakid]

42. Considered and found lacking

both in fact and analysis.

If you cross the country, you'll find that hate radio is almost ALL that there is on every channel- and people haven't and won't change their political views and false perceptions so long as they continue to be propgandized with impunity.

[Raskolnik]

45. What would your suggestion be to stop people being "prop[a]gandized with impunity?"

[Cyrano]

51. My suggestion would be universal free education through college for everyone

That doesn't mean there wouldn't still be idiots willing to buy snake oil. But it would sure as hell help.

This suggestion isn't economically possible under current conditions. But if we ever again become a prosperous country, it's something that should be seriously considered.

[OnyxCollie]

55. Busting up media ownership would be more practical and effective.

The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html

[Cyrano]

71. Good post, blackops. Thanks for the link.

[MindMatter]

130. Uuuuuuh, did you even notice ...

that we WON THIS ELECTION?

How did that happen?

We did it by winning over a couple million of those people you are describing. And this year, we will win over a couple million more, and the year after that.

As their corporate sponsors come to realize they have a dwindling number of listeners, and most of them are in the 90-and-below IQ group and $20K-end-below income group, the corporate guys will finish them off for us.

[TNOE]

92. Very well stated

and I feel you are correct - I feel pity for their followers, but those who spew their lies and crap are nothing but thieves, who gladly sell their soul for 30 pieces of silver.

Hey - where was Blackwater on 9/11?

[Z_I_Peevey]

35. When they do indeed GO, let it be due to widespread ridicule,

but not any restriction on their right to free speech.

[endless october]

38. no limits on political speech.

otherwise, the pendulum swings, and it's your opinion they want to restrict.

[specialed]

39. The pamplete press at the time of the drafting of the constitution

was the then equivalent of talk radio, tabloid press of today. This is the very type of speech that the framers sought to protect fro the tyranny of those in power. You have the right to publish whatever you feel like about Rush Limbaugh. I suggest hit pieces on each talking head ala Al Franken.

[Contrary1]

40. Yes and no.

Any person who promotes violence should be fined heavily and/or imprisoned, depending on the subject matter.

Expressing a personal opinion (even on the radio) that one disapproves of an individual or policy should never be a crime or discriminated against.

Just remember...to the right-wingers, Olbermann spews hate too.

[Dukkha]

43. radio is a dying format, clear channel is doing mass layoffs

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162009/business/clear_channel_plans_revamp_150374.htm

His whole base of listeners now are the ones divorced from the reality of the modern age and are so stubborn and narrow-minded they wouldn’t move on the tracks from a speeding train if they though it would compromise their way of life.

Let the pile of shit spew his hate. He and Coulter have done a lot of good by making their side look so bad by association.

[KharmaTrain]

116. Bingo....This Is Nothing But Desperation

Democrats won a large victory last November DESPITE hate radio. They threw their best and not only lost the White House, but none of their candidates...Rudeee, Thompson and Hucklenutz never made it. They had little influence over their own listeners.

IMHO, it's the Rushbos that have been HELPING Democrats when they open their pieholes. Rushbo spews slime at Michael J. Fox and the GOOP loses their ass in '06. His "operation chaos" was a total bust or else we'd be "saluting" president McCain. His audience has shrunk...as has all of hate radio. Yes, the format...and sadly, the medium are in their death throes.

The strength of a democracy is the ability to deal with the demogogues. Sure, they get attention and are a threat, but in the end, they always find a way to make themsleves irrelevant or alienate more than they influence.

Cheers...

[Raskolnik]

44. “The constitution is not a suicide pact” is utter rubbish, and without fail

someone using that tripe as a part of their argument is seeking to undermine the constitutional and erode our rights.

[slackmaster]

46. Expression of opposing points of view is essential to a vibrant, healthy democracy

The only acceptable limits on speech IMO are the ones that are presently codified, i.e. not threatening the President, incitement to riot, etc.

[Forkboy]

47. I honestly find what you say here to be as dangerous as anything Rush says.

And like I do with Rush, I'm going to defend your right to say it anyways. ;)

Before you take one more step, I have to know exactly what you consider hate speech. And how some of the things that have been said right here on DU about Bush, Cheney, etc (by me, most likely) wouldn't qualify at the same time.

And if it does qualify and what I've said is considered hate speech, where do you go from there? Do you excuse mine because I'm on your side? Do you punish me more to show that even those you agree with don't get a pass? Do you imprison me? Take away my internet rights?

And lastly, how will you enforce any of this?

I don't ask these questions to be a dick, just taking some of the thinking a few steps ahead, because if we start making certain types of speech illegal we'll be taking those steps toot sweet. :)

[COStorm]

49. ummm...

Or, conversely, do you believe that there should be zero limits on what they can say?

You mean do I believe in the first amendment?

When I read the OP I was reminded of a couple historic events.

1. In 1838, Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs signed what was known as the "Extermination Order". Which made it legal to kill "Mormons" in the state of Missouri. 8000 deaths are attributed to that order either directly or indirectly. There were two main reasons; 1. Local "christian" clergy felt threatened. 2. Political. Mormons were as a voting block considered anti-slavery. Therefore they would have made the state a non-slave state. The order stayed on the books until 1976.


2. Sir Thomas More was beheaded in 1535 because someone testified to a court that they heard him say something criticizing the king.


History is filled with examples of intolerance to opposing views. I wonder what Salman Rushdie would think of your slippery slope...

[4 t 4]

50. Rush Mst Go NOW!

[Raskolnik]

53. You have the power to turn your radio off NOW. n/t

[COStorm]

59. Are you channeling?

Well.... I'm sure there are plenty of restrooms in his office... :shrug:

[ItNerd4life]

52. So you don't tolerate people with differing viewpoints? Am I next?

As some posters have noted, have you ever studied history and what has happened?

Do you understand why the first ammendment is the FIRST Ammendment.

Your statements are far more dangerous.

[Cyrano]

60. You, like so many other posters here, read only my OP headline and not

the full post.

My OP stated a few historic rationales as to why the 1st Amendment is not an absolute. I then went on to ask people to kick in their opinions.

Therefore, rather than attacking my supposed "intolerance," or telling me how "dangerous" I am, do you have an original thought to add?

Sorry to pick on you, ItNerd4life, but I've finally read far too many knee jerk statements in this thread, where those who wrote them automatically decided I was some kind of fascist out to destroy the constitution, along with everyone's rights.

My original statement was not an absolute. Yours seems to be. Could you please make a credible, thoughtful argument for your point of view?

[Raskolnik]

61. The body of your text is just as ridiculous as the headline.

You are advocating for legal restraints on political speech with which you disagree. That is a fact, and that is a constiutionally unsupportable position to take.

[Cyrano]

66. Please point out exactly where in the OP text I'm advocating for legal

restraints on political speech.

The headline aside, my post is more a question to solicit opinions than it is a declaration that political speech must be retrained.

[Raskolnik]

69. Oh, don't be coy. Your post speaks for itself, and to pretend you weren't advocating

for legal restraints on political speech is dishonest.

[Cyrano]

72. Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion.

[COStorm]

73. ...

Further, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said that “… freedom of speech does not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”

My OP stated a few historic rationales as to why the 1st Amendment is not an absolute.

Not be rude, but you presented some feeble redherrings as "rationales".

You fail to raise the comparison of content with motive.

anyways...

[Forkboy]

95. My "dangerous" comment wasn't aiming for originality, yet it still holds true.

You say below you aren't advocating for legal restraints, but you sure seem interested in whether there are any that can be applied. It's hardly a kneejerk assumption to think you might be interested in them, seeing as though you asked about them in an OP titled "IMO, Limbaugh and hate radio have got to go". :shrug:

where those who wrote them automatically decided I was some kind of fascist out to destroy the constitution, along with everyone's rights.

Get off the cross for a minute. Saying that your thinking on this is dangerous isn't calling you a fascist. It's saying you're going down a slippery slope.

Maybe the kneejerk reaction was from you to my post? Those questions are easily as valid as yours, and in light of the seeming desire in your OP's title, seem rather appropriate. And even if they don't apply to you directly, they certainly apply to the conversation in general, no?

[FiveGoodMen]

83. Suppose that someone with a large audience goes on the air and calls for all n*****s to be shot

Suppose some start following that directive.

Hey, it's just an opinion, right?

Let them say whatever they want ... right? (Really?)

[Raskolnik]

93. Oh, my. You really don't know what you are talking about here.

Incitement to violence is already illegal. If someone gets on the radio and calls for anyone to be shot, they may be prosecuted.

[wryter2000]

64. Sorry

I sympathize, but they can use the same arguments against liberal broadcasters.

If you find instances that can be proved to be inciting to violence, you can go after those statements. The only solution for Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. is to let them die out because of lack of interest.

[Clear Blue Sky]

65. Silly

First amendment protects political speech. Fairness Doctrine is nonsense.

If you don't like Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc, then don't listen to them. The market will ultimately punish them for their hot air.

The recent election demonstrates that most Americans aren't interested in their arguments or hate speech and their ratings should be declining.

[G_j]

70. take for example, Rawanda

look at the effect hate radio had on that country!

[Raskolnik]

75. Incitement to violence is already illegal.

Do you think there should be more restrictions?

[G_j]

132. I think many of them get away with racism,

slander also.

Should there be more restrictions? Not really.
I am just commenting on how dangerous hate radio can be.

[Codeine]

74. Welcome to Fascist Underground. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Sorry, they absolutely have the right to do what they do under the 1st amendment.

Whether or not they have the right to completely dominate airwaves which are increasingly concentrated into few & fewer corporate hands is another matter.

But you are walking down an extremely dangerous path. This is America, and we don't criminalize speech or opinion. Period.

That's the sort of crap the GOP would *like* to do- tell people that dissent is 'dangerous', tell adults what they can read or watch or look at on the internet.

Fuck Censorship.

Yes, I believe there are zero limits on what they can say, as long as they're not issuing threats and the like. Whether or not they belong on the air is another matter.

[treestar]

77. There is some legal limit but Rushbo is likely too smart to

cross it - I think he'd have to call for out and out rebellion - getting together with guns or something.

[Dinger]

78. Yup

Fairness Doctrine anyone?

[BrklynLiberal]

80. I hope they wither away due to lack of interest because this new govt will

be so good, that so many of those who used to listen to those asshats are simply no longer interested. See how they do when all they have is the fringe nutjobs as their audience.

[mzmolly]

81. Not to mention the internet radio kooks who lend their programs to disturbed

lying, criminals in order to capitalize on hate.

Indeed, RESTORE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE NOW!

[conscious evolution]

84. Let the ICC have them

Poisoning peoples minds the way they do is considered a crime against humanity.
Don't believe me? Ask Julius Striecher.
Oh wait.You can't.He was executed for his actions after WWII.

[OnyxCollie]

86. First they came for Limpballs,

Then they came for the Shamwow guy.

Both are trying to sell a product. Both are being paid to do so. What people need to understand is both are getting paid by corporations to sell products. They aren't your friends or family, they aren't offering unbiased information. They're getting paid. They can lie all they want, it's up to consumers to make the effort to see if the claims are true. (Notice that on the Shamwow commercial, the spokesman holds up the shammy in front of his mouth while the words "ten years" are overdubbed.)

The example I use when talking to people about is to say, "When you order fast food, and the cashier asks if you would like something to drink, do you think the cashier is doing so because they think you look parched? Or that liquid would help you in the chewing of your food? Hell no. They ask you if you want something to drink because it's got the biggest profit margin; five cents worth of syrup with some water and ice." Caveat emptor. Or, as St. Raygun would say, "Trust, but verify."

[malaise]

101. I agree

People will turn him off on their own. Indeed his numbers have been falling steadily. On the other hand he should not be on Armed Services Radio.

[onenote]

87. I share the view of Justice Brennan; and of Justice Holmes

Brennan wrote: "If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment,
it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea
simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."


That same thought was expressed numerous times by Justice Holmes, whose statement quoted in the OP was never intended to be a license to regulate speech, but rather was an expression of the narrowness of the circumstances in which the government can dictate what can and can't be said.

As Holmes explained in later cases:

“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate....I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country."

Finally, I would pose the following question to the OP: How do you respond to those who claim that flag burners and others who speak out against the government "presents a real threat to our freedoms, our constitution and our country"?

[FloridaJudy]

89. Boycott him.

Boycott his advertisers. Start a letter writing campaign. Pressure the stations airing his program to drop it. When he crosses the line, sue him for slander. If he appears to be inciting violence, report him to the police or the secret service.

But do not ask for legislation prohibiting him from expressing his opinions. Yes, they're vile: you'll get no argument from me. But our Constitution guarantees his right to express them.

It's taken eight years, but we're finally seeing an Administration that shows respect for the Constitution. That's a huge step out of the shadow. Let's not go back.

[Cleita]

90. Meh, they always cite his First Amendment rights, but there has to

be a limit. Either we pass laws that he has to state that his show is for entertainment only and the opinions expressed are his bias only. Or if he insists that his show is fact based, then he needs to have fact checkers verify his truths before he goes on the air or he will be subject to fines for spreading lies and propaganda. As far as I'm concerned this could apply to all talk radio hosts including the left leaning ones. Then will we get the truth on the air once and for all from every side.

[Raskolnik]

94. So Rachel Maddow should have to do the same thing?

Unconstitutional, authoritarian, and reactionary. Congratulations, you've hit the trifecta.

[Cleita]

102. Yes, she should. However, she doesn't have to worry. Her facts are

always right on and on the few occasions she was given misinformation, she corrected it on air, something you never have never heard Rushbo do. Oh, my here we are with the trifecta again. *burp* Letting Rush Limbaugh pass himself off as a news person is unconstitutional, authoritarian and reactionary. Spewing untruthful diatribe about a President is unconstitutional, close to treason and could endanger his person particularly with the mentally unstable, nut balls who are his audience.

[Raskolnik]

104. You haven't had much education re: free speech or the First Amendment, have you?

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you are just so dead wrong about what free speech means, and what the First Amendment protects, that it isn't even funny.

If you can type things like: "Spewing untruthful diatribe about a President is unconstitutional, close to treason and could endanger his person particularly with the mentally unstable, nut balls who are his audience" without irony, you are either being completely disingenuous, or are so remarkably uninformed as to make a reasonable discussion difficult.

[Cleita]

105. Free speech is not spreading propaganda and inciting weak minds

to do damage to public officials or anyone for that matter. It was not the intent of the founding fathers. What Limbaugh and Co. spew is close to what the Nazi controlled print media and radio did in Nazi Germany. It had nothing to do with free speech but controlling the message. Please figure out the difference. I really have no will to discuss this with people who can't tell the difference between a free press and a controlled one, which is what we had for the first couple of years of the Bush administration. The recent Republican National Convention, where various reporters not friendly to the RNC were arrested for doing their jobs speaks to what Rush Limbaugh and his ilk stand for. Forcing him and Fox News to actually report the facts and truth would go a long way in irradicating the erroneous notions you seem to feel you are so educated about.

[onenote]

107. you really have no idea of what you are saying.

YOu want the Founding Fathers? OK, here's James Madison:

"Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of everything, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the States, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression; who reflect that to the same beneficent source the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the ranks of a free and independent nation, and which have improved their political system ito a shape so auspicious to their happiness? Had 'Sedition Acts,' forbidding every publication that might bring the constituted agents into contempt or disrepute, or that might excite the hatred of the people against the authors of unjust or pernicious measures, been uniformly enforced against the press, might not the United States have been languishing at this day under the infirmities of a sickly Confederation? Might they not, possibly, be miserable colonies, graning under a foreign yoke?"

[Cleita]

109. I think James Madison would have a different opinion today if he

were familiar with entertainment being passed off as news and current events education today through our electronic media. What is so wrong about demanding fact checking in reporting? I can't see where it violates the First Amendment at all. Having a variety of opinions is different, as long as they are labeled as such, opinion, philosophy or ideaology. Also, isn't this why we have the genre known as fiction? This is actually where most First Amendment rights arguments came up in the past, or censorship in fiction and rightfully so. Condemning and banning books that were works of fiction happened back then and the First Amendment protects it. I don't think the founding fathers ever approved of lies and propaganda being peddled as news and commentary.

[onenote]

117. again, your knowledge of history is frighteningly off

I'd love to see the slightest support for any of the assertions made in your post. Really. Our founding fathers were revolutionaries. There have been as many or more SCOTUS cases involving political speech (including such categories as protest speech, prior restraints on politcal commentary, defamation of public officials) as cases involving obscenity or defamation of a private citizen or commercial speech.

And, while you may think you can crawl inside James Madison's head and decide what he would think today, I tend to think he was man of firmer principals than you apparently assume.

[Cleita]

146. I'm a revolutionary too. I refuse to see my first country lost through lies.

The true democracy of the country I was born in was lost through lies, American lies at that and after thirty years of hell they are trying to recuperate. Chew that for awhile and since I have other things to do between here and Monday, I will be happy to explain to you why eventually, if you really are interested.

[Raskolnik]

120. You have no historical basis whatsoever for what you are saying. n/t

[Cleita]

136. Isn't there something in the Ten Commandments about bearing

false witness? That's pretty historical. Freedom of speech doesn't spell out freedom to lie and spread propaganda as fact and truth. So I don't think you really have a historical basis either.

[Raskolnik]

170. So now we're getting our laws from the Ten Commandments instead of the Constitution?

Unbelievable.

[Cleita]

175. You didn't phrase your question very well. You asked for historical evidence.

You didn't narrow it down did you? So don't blame me for it.

[theboss]

118. Actually, it kinda is

Have you read the newspapers in the early part of the 19th Century?

[Cleita]

137. No. I'm old but not that old. However, I did read newspapers from the

end of WWII, when I learned to read, and there was a choice of good journalism or yellow journalism, what we today call tabloids. However, papers that got their facts wrong got sued. That made them honest or put them out of business. I'm only asking for fact checking without the court and the lawyers. It seems no one is screaming unAmerican, blah, blah, when it goes to court. WHY NOT? Because it's not a violation of First Amendment rights to force them to admit lies and slander and to pay a penalty for it.

[onenote]

106. I guess my view of the constitution is more along the lines of Holmes and Brennan and Douglas

Brennan: "If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment,
it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea
simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Holmes: “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate....I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country."

Douglas: "The liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected."

From the decision in Miami Herald v. Tornillo: "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated."

From Holmes again: "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market"

Finally, I suggest you read the case of Near v. Minnesota (1931), where Justice Hughes reminded us of the following words of James Madison in criticizing exactly the sort of prior restraint law you are advocating:

Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of everything, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the States, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression; who reflect that to the same beneficent source the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the ranks of a free and independent nation, and which have improved their political system ito a shape so auspicious to their happiness?

[Cleita]

108. My guess is that none of those august men had to deal with

fiction being peddled as fact. I don't care what Limbaugh says as long as he announces at the beginning of his show that his opinions and biases are his alone and that his show is entertainment and no one should take what he says as the gospel truth but should do their own fact checking. If he is not willing to do that then he should have his feet held to the fire and the truth and facts of his statements previewed by fact checkers before he goes on air.

[onenote]

110. You apparently are a poor student of history

An irresponsible press has been ever present in this country, publishing all sorts of inflammatory slurs and lies about political figures and others. What goes on today is utterly mild compared to the calumny that was heaped on politicians of an earlier age. Read up on the origins of the Spanish American War. In the early days of the nation, newspapers were highly and openly partisan, prone to exaggeration, insult, and an anything goes philosophy. Our founders knew it, but chose to live with it rather than accept the alternative, which was the state dictating what could or couldn't be said.

In his inaugural speech, President Obama reminded us that the threats we face are nothing compared to those faced by those who created this nation and authored its Constitution. Its obscene (and I use that word intentionally) to suggest that we need to impose restraints on speech that the founders of this country would have deemed unimaginable despite far more difficult circumstances.

[Cleita]

114. Look, I'm willing to look at your diatribes as long as you don't have to

throw insults like me being a poor student of history in along with it. In the past before we got radio and later television and computers, print media was just that. You paid your dime for your paper. If you didn't like what they said you didn't buy it again. You bought the competitor instead and most likely you stayed with the paper that gave you the most reliable information. Today, you can't help being assaulted by propaganda and lies no matter where you go and the commercializing of faux facts has a lot to do with how stupid people are thinking today. The fathers were working in a different era and sure "let them print what they like and smart people will sort them out" was the mentality. But surely they wouldn't consider Limbaugh's assaults on reason and facts as worthy of First Amendment protection in today's political climate as you do. It's time to make him tell the truth or admit that his product is fiction. It's not that hard to do and won't interfere with any of his rights although most likely he won't be making millions any more.

[fishwax]

142. that sounds like what bush had to say about a website that satirized him

"Clearly, there ought to be limits to freedom"

[Cleita]

145. No it isn't at all.

I'm saying there should be limits to lying. That website was not presenting itself as telling the truth but satirizing his ridiculousness. When reporters got arrested at the RNC convention for attempting to report the truth, no one got upset that their Constitutional rights were violated. Yet, when one of their minions deliberately reports lies, it his FREEDOM OF SPEECH. You RWingers really need to get a dose of truth.

[fishwax]

148. it's still limiting freedom

Freedom of speech and the press aren't, thankfully, restricted to that which passes the approval of government fact checkers.

"You RWingers really need to get a dose of truth."
Are you calling me a RWinger? Because, if so, I think you should be shut down for lying ;)

[Cleita]

149. When I lived in Chile previous to Pinnochet I had more freedom of

speech than I ever had in the USA and that is a fact. Now if you really believe what you preach, then extend freedom of speech to all the low power radio stations and independent TV outlets and newspapers who try to bring us alternative truth by caveat. Equal time for equal debate. How does that sound to you? Until then loudmouths like Limbaugh deserve the same First Amendment rights the rest of us get.

[fishwax]

151. I'm not sure what you're talking about

Of course I support freedom of speech/press for alternative news sources. :shrug:

[Cleita]

154. When our sources of truth are shut down by petty

legislation and lack of money by right wing think tanks, then they aren't getting the freedom speech the rest of the blowhard industry gets. Do you wonder why it's so hard to get a different POV on mainstream media? It's because the corporate machine has taken over our sources of information and made it really hard to get alternative truths out there and when a few do they are still really swimming uphill. MSNBC started to put a few truth shows out there, so the cable industry suddenly made it harder to get MSNBC by putting them on an extra pay package like they are porn. They haven't done the same to Fox News. I hate Rush Limbaugh with a white hot hatred because when I started traveling around the USA to see this really beautiful and magnificent country, all I could get was him and his idiot sycophants on the radio. If that wasn't bad enough every place I spent some time in didn't have anything else to listen to but him. I think he needs to be made to tell the truth.

[fishwax]

157. I'm mostly with you up until the last sentence

I just don't think limiting expression or speech by requiring truth-checkers is an appropriate (or effective) solution.

[Cleita]

158. You will never be with me because you will always object to my

last sentence, so there is no reason to continue this. The fact-checkers, (not truth checkers) are what I speak of, to make sure that the truth is presented. It is very different.

[fishwax]

159. well, as I said, I agree with you about many of the problems facing independent media

but you're right, I'm not going to get behind government-approved truth as a condition for freedom of speech or the press.

If the purpose of fact checkers is to make sure the truth is presented, is there a difference between fact checkers and truth checkers?

[Cleita]

160. Fact and truth are different.

The fact is that I saw a shell on the beach and I can document it. The truth is that the shell was on the beach and I can prove it because there is a document.

[fishwax]

161. both of those can be facts and both can be truth

But anyway, my use of truth-checker was tongue-in-cheek, of course, but if, as you said "the fact checkers ... make sure the truth is presented" then they would essentially have to be truth checkers--else how would they make sure the truth is presented? One can mislead with facts (through selective use of facts, for example).

[Cleita]

162. How old are you?

Don't answer. It's a rude question. I've been watching DVDs of "The West Wing", which was a series that started during the Clinton administration and was a fictionalized but rather informative version of what may go on in the White House. Since it was about the communications sector at first, one of the things that was important about the journalist types there was getting their facts straight and attempting to disseminate that knowledge even if sometimes they had to cover up things until further FACTS were available. They agonized over the truth. But we were so innocent back then.

[fishwax]

164. "It's a rude question"

Well, at least you acknowledge it, but whatever :shrug:

I love the West Wing, but don't see what it has to do with the issue of fact/truth or whether freedom of the press should be limited to the factually-correct -- are you saying that politicians and/or the press were more committed to facts/truth during the Clinton administration?

[Cleita]

174. They were during the Nixon administration and that's why they exposed

his criminality and moved to impeach him. During the Reagan/Bush years and through the Clinton administration was when we started getting all these lying infotainment companies and news hosts pretending to deliver news to us when in fact they had roots in the advertising industry on Madison Avenue and were delivering propaganda. This is why people listen to Rush Limbaugh and believe him. It's an almost Pavlovian response. We have to take back our news media and hold their feet to the fire to stick to the facts and whole truth when reporting the news to us. Limbaugh can still continue to do what he does. All he needs to do is admit it is propaganda and fiction and who gave him his talking points every day before his show. It can even be labeled an informercial like for a Shamway because that's all it is.

[glitch]

91. We should definitely remove him from armed forces radio. WTH should we pay good taxpayer money to

spread his hate? Even if he does have the right to shout fire in a public theater (which I don't believe he does) why the hell should we pay him to come into the theater again and again to do it?

Fire his ass.

[FatDave]

96. Psssst! (looks over both shoulders and whispers:)

We're winning.

[newtothegame]

97. Yes, and Ministry of Truth to decide what's right and wrong...

the party in power can run the Ministry of Truth!!! Oh wait....

[anonymous171]

100. Just say no to thought crime laws.

This is America, not Canada.

[spanone]

126. they are inciters of violence...limpdick is dangerous imo

[woo me with science]

127. These sorts of posts underscore the need

to reform education NOW so that people have a clue what their country stands for.

[dem629]

135. Exactly. Thank you.

[stuntcat]

129. he incites the stupid.

it's a fact.

The people who each have guns.. those load-ass haters INCITE the STUPID.

look it up, it's true. also it's how dangerous riots are started.

[Balbus]

133. Free speech for everyone!!

Not just people that say what I want to hear.

[dem629]

134. NO.

Once you start applying limits on speech based on subjective definitions of "hate" or "intolerance," where does it stop?

Let people talk. Fight speech you don't like with your own free speech rights.

If you want to live in a country where the government restricts speech, you're living in the wrong country.

[Cleita]

138. It's about telling the truth.

Whether he is reporting facts or whether he is writing fiction or opinion, he needs to be held to telling the truth about what he says. It's not that hard. Rush talked about being forced to bend over. No one forced him. That's the truth. If he wants to orate fiction, then let him say whatever cheap and perverted thing he wants to say, just make him admit that it's something coming from his very sick, perverted and drugged mind and no where else.

[Bigmack]

143. It's hard to wade thru...

all the stuff in looooong threads like this, but I don't believe anybody has yet voiced my thought on this.

I think Limpballs and Insannity need more reportage in the MSM.

I think everybody needs to hear those assholes say that they HOPE Obama fails... so people will understand how truly nutty they are. If he fails.... the country fails... and we are truly fucked.

If Bush had somehow pulled this country out of the financial mess he created, I would still hate his guts, but I'd have been glad he succeeded. I've grown accustomed to eating and having a roof over my head.

The video of Rush talking about "bending over" needs to be on every station.

[w8liftinglady]

144. then we'd have to rein in Malloy,Rhodes,The Young Turks,et al

[New Dawn]

147. The current system is all about censorship!

I see a lot of people crying about "censorship" in this thread. However, the current system already is ALL ABOUT CENSORSHIP. When the super-rich have an absolute monopoly on radio, television and print media, guess who gets censored? The left.

[defendandprotect]

150. I'm in favor of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated . . .

[Hippo_Tron]

152. Even hate speech is protected speech under the first amendment

And as I've said before the longer that the GOP associates with these clowns on talk radio, the longer it takes for them to join the 21st century and get internet savvy. That is good for us.

[Initech]

163. As much as I'm against AM hate radio I will play devil's advocate here.

They have every right to say the shit that they do, even if it is hateful shit. But you know what? Despite the fact that they're dangerous and trick people into thinking what they think (Limpballs is a master of this), you can change the station.

[timtom]

166. In the case of Father Coughlin:

He was shut down.

From Wikipedia:

"In spite of his early support for Roosevelt, Coughlin's populist message contained bitter attacks on the Roosevelt administration. The administration decided that although the First Amendment protected free speech, it did not necessarily apply to broadcasting, because the radio spectrum was a "limited national resource" and regulated as a publicly-owned commons. New regulations and restrictions were created to force Coughlin off the air. For the first time, operating permits were required of those who were regular radio broadcasters. When Coughlin's permit was denied, he was temporarily silenced."

It was temporary, as Coughlin bought air time and played recordings of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

[Brazenly Liberal]

167. How very Bushian of you. Not to mention foolish.

Clearly you don't understand Holmes. He is referring to an immediate threat to life or limb. Not the someday kind of threat of ideas. (i.e. you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but it's perfectly fine to stand on stage and tell people theaters sometimes catch fire) It isn't just a "superficial reading of the Constitution" that allows people like Rush, Hannity, et al. to vocalize their ideas - it's 200+ years of legal challenges and court decisions confirming that reading.

Stifling opposition was a hallmark of the Bush years and most of us complained about it loudly and often. To then call for it ourselves now that tables have turned is hypocritical and anti-democratic at worst and a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome at best. Democracy is easy when people act and speak the way you want them to. It's when there's disagreement that your commitment to freedom is tested. You want to think long and hard about that because this OP fails that test.

As to the foolish part: These assholes are shouting as loudly and as intensely and as hatefully as they can in a desperate attempt to set themselves up as ideological martyrs. Why on earth would anyone want to help them with that by banning them?

[Philosoraptor]

168. ----------DITTO!-----------

[Ganja Ninja]

169. When the man goes on armed forces radio and tells the troops that

he wants our new president to fail, makes racist statements and questions the patriotism of the majority of Americans then I'd say he has to go.

[Laelth]

173. 1st Amendment.

It's listed first because it's the most important. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I can not condone censorship of political speech for ANY reason.

Some speech I can understand limiting, but not political speech ... NEVER.

-Laelth

[FiveGoodMen]

176. What if the political speech contains outright lies?

[Laelth]

179. Good question.

Persons harmed by the lies could sue for slander, if the lies are about them. Persons who rely on the lies to their detriment might win a suit for fraud (though it would be very foolish to rely on anything Limbaugh says). Otherwise, if it's political speech, even outright lies are protected.

That doesn't mean that the government has to sanction and broadcast the lies, however. Nothing says AAR has to carry Limbaugh. I have no problem with the President ordering that AAR not carry Limbaugh. The government doesn't have to broadcast lies if it doesn't want to. It simply can not make any law that abridges Limbaugh's right to spew his lies. Private companies have the right to broadcast Limbaugh's lies without government interference.

Hope that helps.

:dem:

-Laelth

[lib2DaBone]

177. Free Political Speech is essential.... But....

How can you have free political speech when one corporation (Clear Channel) owns almost every radio station in the country?

How can you have free speech when right-wing sycophants and their family (Michael Powell)etc, control the FCC and all media access?

[Ladyhawk]

178. It's possible Limbaugh helped corrupt my family,

but if they weren't already in a position to be corrupted, they would never have bought into his agenda of hatred. At this point, I don't think they will be among the ones who will redeem themselves. That's sad, but it is the reality of their lives and my life trying to live among them peaceably.

Even when I was technically still a Republican, I couldn't stand Limbaugh. There was just something different about me, even back then. I couldn't go along with my family.

After having read this thread and consulted my conscience, I think the best course of action would be to give Limbaugh plenty of rope to hang himself. He's shock-jocking his ratings to death. Those who choose to embrace hatred would have embraced hatred, Limbaugh or no Limbaugh. By the time Limbaugh is finished, those who can be redeemed will be redeemed. Again, sadly, I don't think my family will be among them.

[Clear Blue Sky]

181. Change the station or turn it off....nt

[AZBlue]

182. Then say good bye to Air America, Nova M and any and every liberal radio show.

You can't just take the conservatives off the air, everyone goes.

No, a better way is to point out their absurdity, like our President did today, and continue to work to make them irrelevant. Once their listeners start abandoning them, so will the advertisers - and then so will the stations carrying their shows.