Rush Limbaugh has a right to his views. Just as important, his fans have a right to hear him...
Limbaugh's audience has a right to hear him.
Another way to get Limbaugh off the air is to try and pressure his syndicator or his advertisers -- gathering people of like mind to use their collective economic power to force Limbaugh off the air. This is constitutionally tolerable, but morally wrong. If you disagree with someone who is on stage, it is wrong to stand up and yell to drown out his voice. This improperly interferes with your fellow citizens' right to receive information.This seems like the exact right way to deal with a radio personality you disagree with. Isn't it? ???
I despise Rush Limbaugh. I despise almost everything I have ever heard him say. I wish that he were no longer on the air. That is why I write today to defend him against those who call for him to be silenced.
He said trying to put mass public pressure on advertizers to withdraw support through boycotts is totalitarian.
So a sad lack of understanding of what free markets are?
I am given to understand that using economic coercion to violate someone's constitutional rights is very, very bad and should be illegal.
No, a more nuanced understanding of what free markets are not.
Those who hire the offensive ones have the right to fire if they wish for their own reasons. It should not be because of fear of groups attempting to bankrupt companies who sponsor public venues.
Please explain that to me.
Last I checked, an individual has a right to avoid purchasing products - for any reason at all.
Don't like how Apple treats its workers? Get a Samsung.
Don't like the shape of Ruger's revolvers? Get a S&W.
Don't like that NYT is anti-gun? Don't subscribe.
This is the most freedom-enhancing thing yet: vote with your wallet.
And yes, there is nothing wrong with refusing to consume a companies products if they advertise in a venue you disagree with.
MB, if you wish to avoid buying Gary's Great Gadget because they advertize on Limbaugh, then don't.
As I tried to point out, O'Reilly boycotted Pepsi. BUT he did not try to organize his followers on TV to emulate him or also boycott the company.
There is a difference.
What's been going on is liberal organizations have been trying to apply pressure by convincing their nimrods to stop purchasing products that advertise on Limbaugh, thus "scaring off" Limbaugh's sponsors. This is an organized leftist attack, it is not a matter of individual conscience.
Please try to understand the difference.
And not only is this an inherent human right, but maybe if people learn they can affect the behavior of corporations without resorting to the state, they might actually figure out they don't need the state that much. I am not holding my breath though.
MB, if you wish to avoid buying Gary's Great Gadget because they advertize on Limbaugh, then don't.O rielly is smart enough to know that a one person boycott is pointless.
As I tried to point out, O'Reilly boycotted Pepsi. BUT he did not try to organize his followers on TV to emulate him or also boycott the company.
There is a difference.
That's like saying you have the right to own an AR-15 but not to get together with your buddies who also own AR-15s, because that's kinda like a militia.
"There's a difference, damn it!"
O rielly is smart enough to know that a one person boycott is pointless.
If he is talking about on his show, then he is trying to get his listeners to partake, whether he asks directly or not.
Given the fact that his opinion carries no real wait, Pepsi is sill alive and well.
O rielly{sic} is only an entertainer, like limbaugh, looking to make money from his show.
Nothing more, nothing less.
People organize to do things.
That's the American way. That's what de Tocqueville wrote about.
When Glenn Beck tells his listeners "Hey, this book is epic, go bounce it to the top of the Amazon best-seller list" - that's people freely organizing to exercise market pressure.
It's the same the other way around. You might disapprove of the leftist organization - and perhaps they may even deserve your disapproval, and certainly I am not a leftist - have an inherent right to to tell their members, or mailing list subscribers, or whatever, not to buy P&G products.
And not only is this an inherent human right, but maybe if people learn they can affect the behavior of corporations without resorting to the state, they might actually figure out they don't need the state that much. I am not holding my breath though.
Are the Ar owners trying to put Limbaugh out of business?
What if they were? AR owners got Jim Zumbo fired. Did you have a problem with that? What if AR owners boycott Walmart for not selling ARs. Would that be bad?
If you don't like what someone says the proper way to fight it is with your own words. If you think someone is lying, you speak out with the truth. If you think Limbaugh is spinning, speak out with the straight stuff.
Don't try to shut down the other side because you disagree with the opponents or think their a bunch of 'tards.
OKAY?
Unless I get Overt evidence I'm still thinking O'Reilly is a straighter shooter than you.
I don't think AR owners per se, got Zumbo fired. I don't think he should have been fired. I never read anything he wrote though, so I can't comment on Zumbo's "politics" one way or another.
I'm quite the Limbaugh fan, actually.
Gun owners demanded that he be fired, and he was. And we were very happy about it. I didn't write any letters or emails, myself, but I still chuckle at the spanking he got from "us."
You ought to understand the difference between "silencing" someone, and not amplifying them. You also ought to understand the difference between people refusing to do business with someone, versus forcing other people to do things. Calling Limbaugh's sponsors and giving them an earful is not something I would ever do, but it isn't a violation of anyone's rights, either.
I didn't say it "violated anyone's rights" I just think it's a wrong thing to do.
OK.The Wal Mart thing isn't theoretical either -- they are selling ARs in some of their stores. That is neither moot or theoretical, it just isn't consistant, since other WalMarts (like MINE! :mad: ) are NOT carrying them!
So, you're not happy that Zumbo was fired? Why?
See, Zumbo had a job(jobs, really, endorsement deals, I think) where a lot of the money he made for his employers was coming from gun folks. When he made remarks prejudicial to their rights, they said they wouldn't tolerate any more of their money being used to pay for it. And the people taking their money honored their wishes. How is that a bad thing? It's a good thing; something to be happy about.
What if we put so much shame on the Violence Policy Center's contributors that they couldn't afford to keep the doors open, and Josh Sugarman had to get a real job. Would you think that was wrong, too?
Oh, and the Walmart thing isn't moot. It's called a hypothetical.
I don't know why all of you knuckleheads don't understand. We need laws to restrict every move, every word, every desire, every thought, up to and including the clothing that is worn by liberals and statist and leftist.
Rightwingedness duber alles!!!! :cool: :police:
The Wal Mart thing isn't theoretical either -- they are selling ARs in some of their stores. That is neither moot or theoretical, it just isn't consistant, since other WalMarts (like MINE! :mad: ) are NOT carrying them!
From what I recall Zumbo said something I disagree with and paid a price. It's too late to undo that now.
Fistful, a neighbor and good friend of my mother's ran a sporting goods store for over 50 years with her husband. When he did she kept on running it. At one point my mother and I were discussing guns and such (don't recall the whole conversation) and it came up that she (the gun store owner lady) doesn't carry or sell "assault rifles."
That did sort of bother me because I was, and am, very pro 2A. But it didn't stop me from being good friends with her, as I was with her husband when he was alive.
Later on after that conversation I recall stopping in her store (the branch in Decatur where I live) and noticed an M-1 carbine near a counter .... so I have to wonder how strick her edict about "assault rifles" really was, though I never did see any AR-15s there. I did see a number of Brownings and other good stuff.
Unfortunatly, the lady to whom I am refering is now retired and one branch of her store has shut down and the other is .... well, let's say it's seen "better days."
You can't always fight every fight, all the time, with everyone you know or are acquinted with. Zumbo stuck his foot in his mouth and paid a price. My mother's friend was a friend and I did not think it my place to get into a argument or debate with her. It was her store and in the end she could just point out that very fact and that would be that.
"Undoing" Zumbo is what's moot, because no one is asking you to undo it. I was just asking about your opinion on it.
On the Walmart/ARs thing. I was giving you a hypothetical in which Walmart doesn't sell ARs and some people decided to give them trouble for it.
Both of the above seemed very clear to me; but apparently not. I don't really care about either one anymore. Never mind.
Now you're just dodging. You know very well that the question was the moral rectitude of boycotting, not whether you could "fight every fight."
That's three instances where you obfuscate the point, instead of giving a good explanation for your point of view. Seems like a pattern. =|
Sorry if pointing out some Wal Marts carry ARs bothers you. I was just pointing out that they do. Some gunstores don't carry Colt handguns as many around here think they're overpriced.
I really think I've explained my opinion on boycotting quit sufficiently. If you don't understand it then it's your problem. I'm not going to keep 'splainin' myself to someone who seems unable to grasp remarkably simple concepts.
I'm not trying to "obfuscate" any of your points. I really don't know what the ***** you expect of me regarding the Zumbo matter. Do you really think I should pick a fight with a near 80 year old lady about whther or not her store should have carried ARs? No thanks.
I tried to point out O'Reilly boycotted Pepsi as a personal protest. That's fine. Others were trying to boycott Limbaugh in order to suppress free speech, that's bad.
In an essay title "Self Reliance," Ralph Waldo Emerson pointed out "a foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen philosophers and divines."
I suppose I could point out, if you really need to have it pointed out, that a lot depends upon the ends the boycotters' intend. If you don't get that then maybe you can start quoting Hobgoblin.
....or little minds. >:D
The only consistency I can wring out of your posts is that boycotts and market actions you agree with are good, and boycotts and market actions that you disagree with are bad.:facepalm:
That's not consistent in any real logical sense. It's simply bias-clouded judgement.
Do YOU REALLY THINK IT IS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF BOYCOTTS TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH?
Be kinda dumb to boycott Wally world for not selling ARs since they in fact do.
What if they were? AR owners got Jim Zumbo fired. Did you have a problem with that? What if AR owners boycott Walmart for not selling ARs. Would that be bad?
Fistful, what do you think the lefties were trying to do to Limbaugh through their attempt at using boycotts?
Be kinda dumb to boycott Wally world for not selling ARs since they in fact do.
They...were...trying...to...get...people...to...stop...paying...for...his...radio...show.
And, to you, that's suppressing free speech? I thought it was called "the free market."
And, to you, that's suppressing free speech? I thought it was called "the free market.":facepalm: Just :facepalm:
:facepalm: Just :facepalm:
It's not our fault you can't understand simple concepts.
(on March 26, 2012, 11:09:37 PM) What the Sam Hill is so damned hard about understanding a particular action may be justified under some circumstances and not under others?
Bias clouded judgement my *expletive deleted*ss. You show me someone without bias and I'll show you a damned liar.
Do YOU REALLY THINK IT IS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF BOYCOTTS TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH?
Keep in mind I am NOT asking you if it's constitutional or not.
The first amendment only protects Rush from the government. It does not allow him to extort money and airtime from other individuals or companies, and the right to free association means that other people have the right to decide whether or not they're going to continue to give him money and airtime or not.
1. making your text big and bold only makes you more annoying. It doesn't make your point any better (also, neither does calling people "sanctimonious twit" ;/).
2. I never claimed Rush tried to extort anything. I only stated that he has no positive right, constitutionally, ethically or morally, to his show and his sponsors, and that it was NOT a contradiction of the free market for people to try to get him off the air by pressuring his sponsors, a concept you seem to have a problem with. Thing is, that's how the free market works. That's how you keep companies in line in a market devoid of government interference (aka the "free market"). It's called voting with your wallet.
So, to answer you question, I see absolutely no problem with the boycott. I do not agree with the boycotters, but they have EVERY right to refuse to patronize companies that associate with someone they dislike. If what Rush does continues to serve a market function, he will continue to have his show because sponsors will see more to gain with buying ads than not. If Rush becomes too radioactive, he will lose his show. That's the reality of being in show business, and I'm betting Rush understands that point perfectly.
If you're not talking about the first amendment, then quit using the terms "suppress," "suppression," and "free speech." It is your fault that people think you are talking about the first amendment; bad choice of words.
If you want to be taken seriously, quit using big fonts and funny colors. It makes you look stupid. And that's not an insult; it's advice.
Regolith, the people are NOT trying to "keep Rush in line," they're trying to suppress the conservative viewpoint. This isn't about a corporate bad apple.
You don't seem to get this, do you?