I have a question about Limbaugh for all you legal eagles.

[Road Scholar]

He is just a subversive as Tokyo Rose. How is it that he (and others) are allowed on the air waves? Don't tell me about free speech. They are continuing to do as much damage to our country as if they were bombing. They're job is to spew divisiveness that continues to divide this country.Is the fairness doctrine the solution?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. "Don't tell me about free speech."

Could you cut the crap?

Thanks.

[Road Scholar]

3. Please explain.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. No.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

15. Good for you

Well done...........

[Road Scholar]

25. Yes, well done. Free speech is of course the obvious and simple

answer, requiring little or no thought.I was hoping you might have an original thought like calling him out on some of his garbage.
I think I expected too much. Sorry.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

40. Your expectations?

Do you honestly think, after you set up such a silly straw dog, that people would take what you posted seriously?

Do you really think people are here to live up to your expectations?

Snap out of it.

Open your mind.

[Road Scholar]

46. I have found that most here are

very intelligent and it is very interesting to get their point of view. I certainly have learned a lot from them.
There are a few pseudo-intellectuals,however, that use Du as a forum to entertain each other and to display their attitude.Their only success is to disappoint.You don't charge for all that advice do you?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

47. Again,

about your expectations?

What, exactly, were they, and are you really using this forum as a means of learning something, because your OP suggested quite the opposite?

I must, though, tell you that if I were to give you serious advice, it would not be on a message board, and, more likely than not, you couldn't afford me.

Now, go use all that new knowledge you've gleaned to figure out why your OP was so thick.

[The Straight Story]

12. so we should only have one view?

What do they call that?

[Taverner]

2. 1st ammendment

Fairness Doctrine will help, but there was hate radio during the days of the Fairness Doctrine

[BOSSHOG]

8. Ergo

the purveyors of today's hate radio have nothing to fear if the doctrine was reintroduced. Their first amendment argument leaks like a sieve.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

4. Free speech. Sorry. That's how it works.

Unless he's out there ordering his minions to rise up and overthrow the government or otherwise actively inciting violence and disorder, he's not doing anything illegal.

Remember, there's a difference between breaking the law and being an idiot. Generally.

[nini]

5. "Don't tell me about free speech."

That's the tough part of our rights - they apply to those we don't agree with too.

You're giving that asshole far too much attention and validity - he's a pathetic hateful POS - no more.

[NeedleCast]

61. This N/T

[Clear Blue Sky]

6. Those on the right would say the same about MSNBC.

Free speech is just that. It was mainly to protect political speech, which in England was punishable under the law.

[old mark]

9. Rush is free to reveal the true depth of his scumminess.

He is a traitor to the US, and against decent people everywhere.
His supporters/followers are fools at best.

He uses the first ammendment to vilify his nation and become rich doing so.

mark

[billybob537]

10. The best way to handle DOPEY THE MENTAL DWARF

Is to ignore him and just laugh out loud whenever his name is mentioned. You know just like Annie rexic Coulter.

[Posteritatis]

11. Maybe we should tell you about free speech and you can just suck it up (nt)

[OregonBlue]

13. He should be removed from Armed Forces Radio. Sedition against Commander in Chief.

[onenote]

43. I don't think you understand what "sedition" means

nor do you have much of an understanding of the First Amendment, apparently.

Rush is a tool. And I don't listen to tools. That other people may choose to listen to tools is their right, just as its my right not to listen.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. He's show business, not political commentary

Quit giving him that kind of credibility. He's nothing but a trained monkey, doing the same routine over and over to some organ-grinder music in his brain that only he can hear.

All he wants is attention, and people like you are giving it to him by behaving as if he were some sort of serious entity. He's a joke, a bad comedy routine, and if you ignore him, he's lost one listener already.

Waste of time, that's all he is.

But your comment about free speech makes you just about as stupid as he is, I must say.

[cherish44]

64. Perfectly said! n/t

[Codeine]

16. WTF?

We have the presidency for two days and already we're trying to accuse political commentators of sedition and treason?!

Get a clue, you whining dumbfucks -- the freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment works for both sides. Put on your Big Girl Panties and deal with it!

[NeedleCast]

63. You've missed an exciting day

of "liberals" trampling the 1st.

I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but your posts are always full of win.

[Codeine]

68. I'm blushing! :)

Thank you for the compliment. :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. As much as you hate it, it IS about free speech

just as Father Coughlin back in the day was allowed to spew his hate too

As much as I don't like them... I'll defend THEIR RIGHT to spew it, in the full knowledge that they'd rather shut me up

[alfredo]

19. He is being paid using tax payer money when he is on Armed Forces Radio.

Don't we have a say on that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. That is AF management, that has a say on that

But the OP means well beyond AFR and you know that

[alfredo]

36. I know. let's get him off the government dole, and go after his

commercial clients. Go through advertisers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. We've been trying for years

but it appears Clear Media Channel makes money regardless

When they stop making it... that is when they MIGHT drop him

(AAR and San Diego come to mind)

[alfredo]

38. clear channel is in trouble and is cutting back. Now's the time to go after

advertisers.

[onenote]

18. Here ya go: don't ask us legal eagles to ignore the Constitution

You have a question for us "legal eagles" but you don't want us to refer to the Constitution in answering it.

Sorry, but that's the classic definition of FAIL

[backscatter712]

20. Tighten up the defamation laws.

Make it easier to deliver legal smackdowns on assholes like Limbaugh - every time they lie about Obama or any of our guys, they should get sued, and if that lie was broadcast over the air, the damages should be in the millions of dollars.

Hell, I'm all for introducing the crime of criminal defamation. If you say something defamatory about someone on the air, and it's a provable lie, and there's enough evidence of malice, you go to jail.

There's clear room Constitutionally for turning up the penalties for slander and libel.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

48. They already exist.........

There are, as I'm sure you know, different standards for public figures.

Thankfully, we live in a society where anyone can say just about - just about - anything about our President without fear of punishment. I want it to stay that way. The more noise these assclowns make, the easier it is to keep them right where they belong.

[Raskolnik]

21. You want to suppress political speech, but you say "Don't tell me about free speech?"

What is with the anti-free speech posts on DU today?

[Codeine]

23. I'll tell you about Free Speech all motherfucking day and night.

Because I love it even when it pisses me the fuck off. So you douchebag fascists can take your "sedition and treason" rhetoric and fuck right off.

[TNOE]

29. Its the LYING

not so much the "free speech" and Faux Noise is guilty of it too. Reasonableness is fine - fair discussion of differences of opinion is reasonable - but look how many people STILL believe all the lies that were told - all the W's were removed from the keyboards, Clinton's trashed the place, on and on and on. Its pathetic to hear these callers call in on CSPAN still spewing these lies. You almost have to feel sorry for their ignorance.

[TNOE]

24. Education/Awareness is the answer

The people that listen to Rush unfortunately do not know that he is an "Entertainer" and not a journalist. He garners the big bucks for his contribution to the dumbing down of Americans. We can only hope that people will continually wise up. We can give Bush/Cheney credit for one thing - and that is they fucked things up so bad, apolitical and nonpolitical people began paying attention.

Having said that - I do not know or understand why he would be allowed on Armed Forces Radio - except to keep the grunts pissed off.

[4 t 4]

26. Why exactly can't you

yell FIRE in a crowded theater

[Fire1]

27. No matter how divisive, it's not 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre'

[4 t 4]

31. Well it sure is close

these are not normal times If Obama fails we all fail if we fail from here where are we-really ? People are losing their lives everyday due to our financial condition. These aren't normal times there are Tent Cites all over the place with women children and pets. These condition are so extreme

[onenote]

41. Its not even remotely close

Consider the words written by Justice Holmes after he wrote the "crying fire" line:


“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."

If you think that Rush Limbaugh is a threat to the nation, you are severely -- and I do mean quite severely -- overestimating his impact.

[Terran]

28. We're not legally at war with anyone

so I doubt there's any treason angle there. Pity.

[Orsino]

30. He knows how to damage the country legally...

...in ways that, for the most part, the Constitution requires that we permit.

Limbaugh, though, is merely a tool for the Big Money that employs him. It is possible to limit their access to bandwidth by enforcing some sort of equal-time measure--but bogus Supreme Court "decisions" such as money=speech will make it difficult.

[stillcool]

32. People choose to tune in..

same as they do to Fox, CNN etc. It reinforces their concept of reality. Generation kill is so soothing to some.

[LittleClarkie]

33. If we used that against Limbaugh, they'd use it against Mike Malloy when they got back into power

But more than that, it is indeed the free speech thing.

Hello, and welcome to America

[Odin2005]

34. Free Speech. I may hate what he says but I will defend his right to say it.

Speech is not free unless it is TOTALLY free. Unless his sick screeds can be directly linked to the incitement of, say, an act of domestic terrorism, he is free to spew whatever he wants.

[Kansas Wyatt]

35. Easiest way for ordinary Americans to deal with and eliminate Limbaugh...

Everyone who knows someone who listens to Limbaugh needs to laugh at them and unmercifully ridicule them for being so stupid.

[libodem]

39. I sure hope he's being wiretapped

and monitored for sedition. Any threats against this Presidency should be taken seriously. Remember that nut who was inspired by this type of BS...went on a killing spree. IMO, it's not just the hate they spew but whom it influences. It gives those Neonazi-types, White Supremacist, jack booted thugs and Skinheads, a reason to act on the rhetoric.

[onenote]

42. Yay! More demands that the Constitution be shredded rather than repaired!!

[libodem]

45. sorry if I offended you

but I was in the video section today watching about how legitimate reporters have all been monitored during the past administration. Just thinking what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Of course I believe in the first amendment. Electronic eavesdropping without warrants and listening in on private conversations because they are on your enemies list...well, not so much. I have a good bit of sarcasm and cynicism in my commentary. Put me on your ignore list if I'm too much of a bitch for you.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

49. No. That sauce goose gander thing

does not work here.

We're not them.

We respect the Constitution and the rights and privileges it affords us.

Free speech is exactly that - free - and the most disgusting speech requires the most protection.

That's my America, and that's the land I love.

[yodermon]

44. Corporate Personhood. Media companies are so large that they wield goverment-level power.

So even thought the 1st amendment only applies to Governments, Corporations *can* "suppress free speech" but it's ok because they're private entities. We've been trained like puppies to accept that this is OK (just read the thread).

The solution is not to suppress or curtail free speech; it is to break up the media monopolies & pass legislation that won't let them get so powerful.

(same for banks that are "too big to fail" but that's another thread. It all goes back to Corporate Personhood however).

[guitar man]

50. How about a simple disclaimer?

We do it for paid programming on TV, why not require it for political satire?

The following program segment is satire. It is for entertainment purposes only and should not be substituted for factual information in actual news broadcasts.

play it at the start of every segment? :shrug:

[onenote]

52. Because the government has no business labelling content of speech

Do you want someone putting the same label on Michael Moore's work?

[guitar man]

54. not the government

not required by the government, but a requirement by the broadcast companies themselves. If they want to avoid the fairness doctrine, maybe they could police themselves a little bit.

[Road Scholar]

55. I agree. If they can broadcast to the public, then certainly

some standards for truth should be applied or be labeled as entertainment only.

[onenote]

57. nonsense.

If its mandated by the government, then its policed by the government, and its the same as having the government decide what the label applies. No difference at all.

The first amendment, which you really should study up on, protects anonymous speech. FOrcing labelling of speech, directly or indirectly, is a complete affront to the first amendment, as is the notion that speech easily falls into little cubbyholes of entertainment or commentary. What is Jon Stewart? What were the Smothers Brothers? What was MASH?

The views of many on this board regarding speech are among the least progressive views I've ever seen.

What's next -- the "let's pass a ban on flag burning" forum?

[guitar man]

60. I agree

I agree that the government shouldn't require the labeling. I was suggesting the broadcast companies do it voluntarily. It may save them a libel suit someday. I know our corporate policies on running disclaimers before infomercials is really strict.

but in effect, we are already labeling content . TV-G, PG, M etc. etc.

[onenote]

65. Sorry. I misunderstood

I thought you were suggesting that the government pass a rule applying the fairness doctrine to any programmming that did not "voluntarily" label itself. That wouldn't, obviously, be very "voluntary."

However, I'm not a big fan of self-censorship when its based on a threat from government either. I've seen it all the time in the efforts of the government to get content creators to "self censor" in order to avoid regulation of "indecent" speech -- whether its the ratings system for movies, or the voluntary offering of a "family" hour on tv, or of a "family tier" on cable. If it makes business sense, I have no problem with it. But to do so simply in order to avoid to lash of the state -- not so much.

[KharmaTrain]

51. Fairness Doctrine Never Applied To Talk/Hate Radio

I worked with the Fairness Doctrine. It had ZERO to do with program content...more with political advertising (making sure all candidate could get on the air...so the station doesn't favor one candidate) and on then mandated Public Service programming (wiped away with Dereg'96). Rushbo has always claimed he was an "entertainer" cause that classification fit OUTSIDE any "Fairness" parameters.

Right Wingers are all agog about the "restoration of the Fairness Doctrine", but that's a pile of uniformed bullshit. The real game here for GOOPers is to write legislation preventing a hate radio station from changing a format no matter how poorly the station is doing financially or undergoes an ownership change. They're afraid of losing their little pop stands...and it's not because of the laws, it's because the radio industry is dying...imploding...a victim of their own greed and arrogance.

Regarding your question. Tokyo Rose (I met her in 1975...Iva Toguri was her real name) is an interesting story. She was stuck in Japan during the war, couldn't return to the U.S. Afterwards she was tried as a war criminal...and many will contend she deserved it as she did work for a declared enemy of the U.S. Jimmy Carter didn't think so...he gave her a pardon.

Now what damage has these asshats done that hasn't happened already? Or that they can do? They and their party has been discredited. Hate radio had ZERO influence over the last election. If anything, it was a liability for the GOOP as most who listen now are the lunatic fringe...the moderates were chased away long ago.

This country has outlived demogouges in the past, and we will in the future. Let him blab, our demcracy is far stronger than a bunch of dead-enders.

[Occam Bandage]

53. Shockingly, it is not against the law to say things others find politically subversive. nt

[onenote]

58. Even more shockingly, a lot of DUers today seem to think that's a bad thing

and that there should be all sorts of such laws.

Some of the swill spewed here today is goes beyond pathetic to frightening.

[Occam Bandage]

59. "The inalienable right to dissent for me, but not for thee."

[NeedleCast]

66. Goes to show, authoritarians are pretty much the same

no matter which side of the left-right spectrum they fall on.

[cherish44]

56. I disagree that Limbaugh's comment constitutes hate speech

Yes he's an obnoxious turd but saying he hopes Obama fails is first amendment protected IMHO. Now that crap he did encouraging his listeners commit voter fraud back in the primaries was possibly illegal. I was pissed that nothing came of it. A fas as it being played on Air Force Radio...I'd like to think our fine men and women serving overseas have more important things to worry about and enough intelligence not to take him seriously. In fact just about everyone I know in the service are NOT Rush fans and don't pay attention to him.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

62. This is a true story...

I attended a a small intimate birthday party about fifteen years ago, right around the time this asshole's "career" was taking off.

He showed up in a limo, tuxedo and with a young blonde woman. This was a casual party so it was such a sad statement of how insecure
the man is. The woman he came with didn't know anyone there so I approached her and started chatting. Turns out she was a paid escort,
had just met him a few hours earlier.

This guy was a marketing tool for the right. He was manufactured and owned by the RW media. I give him a year and he'll be history.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

67. Whoa................good story!

That is exactly what I would have imagined, had I been insane and bored enough to have daydreamed about Limbaugh.

He's an utter failure at everything he tried before (sound familiar, fans of GWB?), and now he's wealthy beyond belief because he speads hate and lies.

Somewhere inside that twisted mind, there must be, although I am not optimistic, that there is some sense of shame that overwhelms him every time he closes his eyes.

Oh, and RUSH? My doctor gives me a GREAT BIG PRESCRIPTION FOR OXYCODONE EVERY MONTH!!!! AND THEN MY INSURANCE PAYS FOR IT. I GET TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY OXYCODONE FOR ONE DOLLAR.

AND THEY'RE LEGAL!!!!!

(I'm sorry - I seem to have lost control here............)

[shintao]

69. HERE IS THE QUOTE FROM RUSH

My first trip to Rush site, but I feel we need the quote in context & he supplies it for us.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

[Sanctified]

70. Maybe we should take lessons from Cuban Radio?

I hear that it works wonders when you lockup dissent. Of course this could set a bad precedence since we don't have a dictatorship and the other party could get into power again and they would love to return the favor by locking up some of our Liberal Radio personalities for not Ra, Ra, supporting their President.