It's un-American to silence Limbaugh

[DittoHead]

I read this article a few weeks ago and parts of it have just been bugging me. While I agree that the FCC should stay out of it, this guy makes a few statements that stand out as being just as wrong and stupid as what he's arguing against. These are the parts that get me:

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.

What the hell does that mean? Do I have a right to hear the opinions of anyone I want? Will a radio, TV, internet connection, or personal visit be arranged so that my right to hear someone is not infringed? When Limbaugh retires what happens to my 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? 

[Perd Hapley]

I am given to understand that using economic coercion to violate someone's constitutional rights is very, very bad and should be illegal.

[TommyGunn]

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.

 

OK, the guy can rise past his agenda to defend the general principle .... being trained to do so from law school onward, like one of Pavlov's dogs. 
Woooooopeeeeee.   Randazza, ya learnt the lessons well.

I rather liked Bill O'Reilly's point of view on the subject.  He said trying to put mass public pressure on advertizers to withdraw support through boycotts is totalitarian.  No, I don't recall if he used the word "totalitarian" or not, but that's what his point was. 
Having said that, O'Reilly once boycotted Pepsi over some issue.  Hypocrisy?  No; O'Reilly did not ask anyone to join him, he simply said he was going to do it on principle.
That's OK with me. 
Hey: FULL DISCLOSURE:  I have stock in Pepsi.  Not a lot.  I'll never get rich from it.  But it was a gift from my deceased father, so it does mean something to me way beyond $$$$$$.

And Limbaugh?  Yes, I listen to him.  I enjoy his show.  But I don't always agree with him.  Randazza appears to nearly totally despise him and all he says.  Wow.  I wish I could find someone I disagreed with that much, or converslely, agreed with that much.
It isn't Limbaugh.
Neal Boortz?
Okay I like him, but there's a subject or two he touches upon where I think he's a puerile jackwagon of a nimrod.
Hannity?    oooops --- don't really listen to him, but I guess he's generally OK.  A sort of "mini Limbaugh," if you will.
This all stems from that Fluke gal and Limbaugh's foot-in-mouth treatment of her, infering she's a *****---oooooops, I won't say it.  You know what I mean though.  And Limbaugh apologized.   That sorta beats having all your sponsors flee, I guess.  Not that many did but it wasn't looking very pretty.

Now, I wonder how many lefties, like Bill Maher, have apologized for their assaults on the good sensibilities of the fine people of America?

*crickets chirping*

Randazza, I give you a C- and a "nice try," but too rote and rehashed to be truly insightful.

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[TommyGunn]

So a sad lack of understanding of what free markets are?

No, a more nuanced understanding of what free markets are not.

[MechAg94]

I am not sure I have any argument against people voicing their complaints, but what I have heard about lately is Democrat or liberal orgs paying people to call in complaints against stations and advertisers.  IMO, that is abusing what otherwise is not always a bad thing.

[seeker_two]

I am given to understand that using economic coercion to violate someone's constitutional rights is very, very bad and should be illegal.

....only if Rush has a gun in his car.....weren't you paying attention?..... 



 

[MicroBalrog]

No, a more nuanced understanding of what free markets are not.

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.

[grampster]

If you don't like what people say on radio, TV, innertube, newspapers, books, inter alia.  Don't listen or read.  If you wish to not purchase products for whatever reason you have, so what?  But when you attempt to organize large groups of people to support coercive actions with the end product being someone who is merely annoying or offensive is taken off the air, fired from the print media etc that may be considered to be a violation of the 1A.  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.

[Perd Hapley]

Allegedly, some of those boycotting Limbaugh are hired astroturfers. That may be deceptive, but to claim that it violates the 1A is so dangerously wrong that it is not even laughable. The boycott is an effective tool of the people, that we dare not delegitimize. It's not just that we may need it some day. Dallying with these sorts of claims chips away at a proper, negative-rights view of the BoR, and sneaks an FDR four freedoms view into its place.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

Perhaps you do not understand.

People have a right to voice their opinions on any subject, yes?

And people have a right to refuse consuming products of various kinds, yes?

And people have the right to organize peaceably, yes?

If these are all true then people have the right to organize peaceably to refuse to buy a given product as a way to express their opinion on any subject.

As an example, concerned parents have a right to organize to boycott the advertisers on a TV channel that broadcasts violent content in an inappropriate hour.

Pro-gun individuals have a right to boycott a company that does not let its delivery workers carry arms.

And liberals have a right to boycott Rush advertisers.

In the simplest words, wealthy people and corporations are wealthy because they provide goods and services to ordinary people. You cannot get rich without doing something other people want.

In this case P&G provides goods and services to ordinary people who buy shampoos and soaps. If - which I heavily doubt - enough people refuse to buy their shampoos that it affects P&G's bottom line, P&G will probably pull support from Rush's show.

[Chuck Dye]

I long ago concluded that there is only one right, the right of any organism, not just humans, to do what ever it wants with whatever power it has or can garner from others.  All else derives from exercise of that one right.  Politics and religion are the main tools in human society for garnering power from others.

Those who claim a first amendment violation in non-governmental, marketplace, efforts to remove the Baron of Bombast:  please explain how an amendment that begins "Congress shall make no law" regulates the expression of opinion through boycott by individuals.

[TommyGunn]

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.

[Regolith]

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.

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!"

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

Yeah, me either. From labor unions to non-profits to community organizing to Occupy Wall Street to Limbaugh suppression, leftists get all sorts of practice doing things for themselves. That doesn't seem to change their belief that the rest of us need to be managed and taken care of. 

[Jamie B]

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.

O rielly is smart enough to know that a one person boycott is pointless.
If he is talking about it 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 weight, Pepsi is sill alive and well.
O rielly is only an entertainer, like limbaugh, looking to make money from his show.
Nothing more, nothing less.

[TommyGunn]

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!"

Are the Ar owners trying to put Limbaugh out of business? 
There is a difference.....sorry you can't see 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.

I never said otherwise.  I'm really happy that Pepsi is still around because once in a while they send me $$$$$$.
THANK GOD O'RIELLY HAS NO WEIGHT TO HIS OPINION.
" .... he is trying to get his listeners to partake, whether he asks directly or not."  Really?  You can read his mind?  Remember this is Bill O'Reilly we're discussing, not George Noory.   You can assign all the covert motives to any broadcaster you like.  Unless I get Overt evidence I'm still thinking O'Reilly is a straighter shooter than you.

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.

True, people organize to do things.   And yes I disapprove of leftist organizations -- especially when they organize to suppress the free expression of ideas by their political opponents by putting them and/or their sponsors out of business.  If these thugs get elected they stop trying to do this through public pressure and start doing it through regulations and the law.   
They are a dangerous force in this society.
"People organize to do things."  People organize to rob banks, too.   Just because people "organize" doesn't mean what they're doing is either legal, or moral, or ethical.  In 1865 a group of people organized to assassinate President Lincoln and some other high government officials. 
Was that what you meant by "The American Way??"
I think not.
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?

[longeyes]

Boycotts are one more tool of a free people.  Too bad the American people, drunk on mass media, refuse to use it punish those who would steal their liberty.

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[HankB]

People often say something other people disagree with - within very broad limits, that's their 1A right.

If a person or group says something you disagree with, you are free to stop listening to them, you can tell the radio station that you've stopped listing to them, you can contact the sponsors of the radio station and tell them that you're not going to buy their products, and you can even peacefully advocate that others also stop patronizing the sponsors of a radio station that carries someone you object to; you can do that because YOU have a 1A right, too.

The Dixie Chicks took a big, BIG hit in the pocketbook because a substantial portion of the radio stations that carried them (C&W mostly) had an audience that took exception to the Dixie Chicks mouthing off about Bush while overseas. Rosie O'Donnell took a big hit too - as did her employer at the time, K-Mart - for badmouthing gun owners and gun ownership. That Rush Limbaugh is virtually unaffected says that advertisers and stations know that those who are objecting aren't for the most part even listeners, so their opinions are not particularly relevant.

But though I disagree with Limbaugh's critics, they do have the right to object, so long as they do it peacefully. I don't see a 1A violation unless/until some government agency becomes involved and tries to flex it's regulatory or licensing muscle; that's a line that must not be crossed.

[TommyGunn]

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?

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.
As for Wal Mart, I have heard of some Wal Marts carrying ARs so that's really moot.

I am against the use of boycotts to suppress unpopular opinions and displace talk show hosts.  
I think I've explained my position on this pretty well.  If you think it's a good thing to boycott Limbaugh's sponsors and try to pressure them to leave his show in order to silence Limbaugh, then fine.  Don't expect me to keep re-explaining myself over and over.

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?

[Jamie B]

Unless I get Overt evidence I'm still thinking O'Reilly is a straighter shooter than you.
 

No problem; I am not an entertainer blowing smoke up your skirt trying to increase my ratings and make more money for myself.

If you want to believe that he is the second coming, knock yourself out.

I personally prefer to think for myself, and strongly filter all of the garbage that I see, hear, and read.
To each their own.

[TommyGunn]

I never said I thought he was the second coming, I'm saying I take him at is word.  
Is that such a painful concept to you?  
He may be an "entertainer."  So may be Limbaugh and Hannity, et al.
I guess I'm just an oddball; just because someone may be an "entertainer" it doesn't follow (to me) he's trying to shine anyone on.
Furthermore, if you believe that I'm not thinking for myself just because I happen to be supporting a TV personality then you're the one shining yourself on.......
 

[Perd Hapley]

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.

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." It was the right thing to do, and he deserved it.


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.
 

FWIW, I'm a regular Limbaugh listener, and support him for the most part. Not so much when he made the stupid slut, remark, but we all make mistakes.