Arrest rush...please!!!!!

[Nosmo King]

Socialists/Progressives do not believe in or support Free Speech. I've been saying that for years. Good to see some are finally listening. No Socialist/Communist Nation on Earth has ever supported and protected Free Speech. So why would America's Socialists be any different?

While that broad brush of yours dries, consider this. I am an American Liberal. There are two topics that I am very passionate about and I defend them to the hilt: speech and civil rights.

Rush enjoys free speech. He has enjoyed it to the point of great profit, fame and personal aggrandizement.

However, not all speech is civil speech. And what Rush has done is crossing the line between protected speech and civil speech. You have no constitutional protection for "fighting words". And that's just what Rush used.

Please stop equating boorish behavior with the constitution of the United States. In this country, you cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot openly instigate a fight with a public or private citizen and you certainly should not get away with boorish, churlish, childish language broadcast to millions and call it constitutionally protected speech.

 

[Full-Auto]

Socialists/Progressives do not believe in or support Free Speech. I've been saying that for years. Good to see some are finally listening. No Socialist/Communist Nation on Earth has ever supported and protected Free Speech. So why would America's Socialists be any different?

While that broad brush of yours dries, consider this. I am an American Liberal. There are two topics that I am very passionate about and I defend them to the hilt: speech and civil rights.

Rush enjoys free speech. He has enjoyed it to the point of great profit, fame and personal aggrandizement.

However, not all speech is civil speech. And what Rush has done is crossing the line between protected speech and civil speech. You have no constitutional protection for "fighting words". And that's just what Rush used.

Please stop equating boorish behavior with the constitution of the United States. In this country, you cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot openly instigate a fight with a public or private citizen and you certainly should not get away with boorish, churlish, childish language broadcast to millions and call it constitutionally protected speech.

You make some good points, now when the left gets held to those standards get back to us.

 

[Nosmo King]

Socialists/Progressives do not believe in or support Free Speech. I've been saying that for years. Good to see some are finally listening. No Socialist/Communist Nation on Earth has ever supported and protected Free Speech. So why would America's Socialists be any different?

While that broad brush of yours dries, consider this. I am an American Liberal. There are two topics that I am very passionate about and I defend them to the hilt: speech and civil rights.

Rush enjoys free speech. He has enjoyed it to the point of great profit, fame and personal aggrandizement.

However, not all speech is civil speech. And what Rush has done is crossing the line between protected speech and civil speech. You have no constitutional protection for "fighting words". And that's just what Rush used.

Please stop equating boorish behavior with the constitution of the United States. In this country, you cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot openly instigate a fight with a public or private citizen and you certainly should not get away with boorish, churlish, childish language broadcast to millions and call it constitutionally protected speech.

You make some good points, now when the left gets held to those standards get back to us.

The point is: the constitution (a wonderful and hallowed document) does not protect someone who commits libel. It's very irritating to read from folks claiming to honor, cherish and protect the constitution while using that same document for cover once it all goes so badly, especially for one of their political heroes.

Should we then respect and follow the convictions of such folks in all things constitutional? After all, they got this one so terribly wrong.

 

[Full-Auto]

While that broad brush of yours dries, consider this. I am an American Liberal. There are two topics that I am very passionate about and I defend them to the hilt: speech and civil rights.

Rush enjoys free speech. He has enjoyed it to the point of great profit, fame and personal aggrandizement.

However, not all speech is civil speech. And what Rush has done is crossing the line between protected speech and civil speech. You have no constitutional protection for "fighting words". And that's just what Rush used.

Please stop equating boorish behavior with the constitution of the United States. In this country, you cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot openly instigate a fight with a public or private citizen and you certainly should not get away with boorish, churlish, childish language broadcast to millions and call it constitutionally protected speech.

You make some good points, now when the left gets held to those standards get back to us.

The point is: the constitution (a wonderful and hallowed document) does not protect someone who commits libel. It's very irritating to read from folks claiming to honor, cherish and protect the constitution while using that same document for cover once it all goes so badly, especially for one of their political heroes.

Should we then respect and follow the convictions of such folks in all things constitutional? After all, they got this one so terribly wrong.

We had a law suit in our State democrat vs democrat, The issue was lying in a campaign.

At the end of the day, it was perfectly acceptable to lie, the only rules that applied were slander. No harm can be proven at this time. Hurt feelings do not count. If they did every damn politician in office would be doing time.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Socialists/Progressives do not believe in or support Free Speech. I've been saying that for years. Good to see some are finally listening. No Socialist/Communist Nation on Earth has ever supported and protected Free Speech. So why would America's Socialists be any different?

While that broad brush of yours dries, consider this. I am an American Liberal. There are two topics that I am very passionate about and I defend them to the hilt: speech and civil rights.

Rush enjoys free speech. He has enjoyed it to the point of great profit, fame and personal aggrandizement.

However, not all speech is civil speech. And what Rush has done is crossing the line between protected speech and civil speech. You have no constitutional protection for "fighting words". And that's just what Rush used.

Please stop equating boorish behavior with the constitution of the United States. In this country, you cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot openly instigate a fight with a public or private citizen and you certainly should not get away with boorish, churlish, childish language broadcast to millions and call it constitutionally protected speech.

Really??

And what part of the First Amendment cited what was acceptable speech and what wasn't??

Oh yeah it didn't - therefore people can say whatever the fuck they want...

I could give a fuck less what progressives believe is "civil" and what isn't - that is a subjective matter..

It's not up to you (or anyone) to decide what is appropriate and what isn't - only snug assholes would have the fucking audacity to do such anyways..

If you don't like the word "slut" then take it up with the FCC ... Oh yeah I forgot - if that happened progressive commentators would be barred from using the word "slut" then they would cry censorship...

BTW, you CAN shout fire in a crowded theater dummy... The word itself is NOT THE ISSUE - people being trampled to death IS THE ISSUE... You would be facilitating a potential tragedy...

 

[BluePhantom]

Well it's a nice political move by Allred, but there's no legal argument to be made here. First forget about libel as the statements were spoken and not written. Second, in order to prove slander the statement must be a) untrue, b) malicious, and c) resulting in financial harm (i.e. loss of a job). Since the definition of a "slut" is a sexually promiscuous woman, which wouldn't be very hard to prove, Rush's comments, foolish and distasteful as they were, would not meet even the first criteria and I highly doubt that Ms. Fluke is very enthusiastic about going to court and being legally determined to be a "slut".

As far as the Florida statute, it's a loser. The language is: “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity”

She does not have a "want of chastity". She testified before Congress to that effect and as such Rush did not speak falsely which is a criteria of the statute.

Case closed.

Good way for Ms. Allred to get herself back in the media spotlight though which is her true intention.

 

[Mr.Nick]

While that broad brush of yours dries, consider this. I am an American Liberal. There are two topics that I am very passionate about and I defend them to the hilt: speech and civil rights.

Rush enjoys free speech. He has enjoyed it to the point of great profit, fame and personal aggrandizement.

However, not all speech is civil speech. And what Rush has done is crossing the line between protected speech and civil speech. You have no constitutional protection for "fighting words". And that's just what Rush used.

Please stop equating boorish behavior with the constitution of the United States. In this country, you cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot openly instigate a fight with a public or private citizen and you certainly should not get away with boorish, churlish, childish language broadcast to millions and call it constitutionally protected speech.

You make some good points, now when the left gets held to those standards get back to us.

The point is: the constitution (a wonderful and hallowed document) does not protect someone who commits libel. It's very irritating to read from folks claiming to honor, cherish and protect the constitution while using that same document for cover once it all goes so badly, especially for one of their political heroes.

Should we then respect and follow the convictions of such folks in all things constitutional? After all, they got this one so terribly wrong.

That's not libel....

People are entitled to their opinions and Rush's opinion is that Fluke is a slut...

Is calling an person an asshole libel?? is calling someone a racist libel? is calling someone a prick libel???

So what makes the word "slut" so fucking special??

You see you don't know anything about law or the Constitution...

 

[Nosmo King]

You make some good points, now when the left gets held to those standards get back to us.

The point is: the constitution (a wonderful and hallowed document) does not protect someone who commits libel. It's very irritating to read from folks claiming to honor, cherish and protect the constitution while using that same document for cover once it all goes so badly, especially for one of their political heroes.

Should we then respect and follow the convictions of such folks in all things constitutional? After all, they got this one so terribly wrong.

That's not libel....

People are entitled to their opinions and Rush's opinion is that Fluke is a slut...

Is calling an person an asshole libel?? is calling someone a racist libel? is calling someone a prick libel???

So what makes the word "slut" so fucking special??

You see you don't know anything about law or the Constitution...

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

 

[grunt11b]

In a letter dated March 8, Allred, writing on behalf of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund, requested that Palm Beach County State Attorney Michael McAuliffe probe whether the conservative radio personality had violated Section 836.04 of the Florida Statutes by calling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke the two derogatory words.

The statute stipulates that anyone who “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity” is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Allred explained that the statute recently came to her attention as having never been repealed, and that it could very well apply to Limbaugh’s remarks as his show is broadcast from West Palm Beach.


Read more: Gloria Allred seeks Rush Limbaugh prosecution - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com

We are still waiting for the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund to sue half of the left wing media and politicians for the insults/names Sarah Palin was called in 2008, somehow I think we will be waiting for nothing.
It's amazing to see the lefts hypocrisy when it comes to this, the left have always bashed conservative woman openly without scorn and without the left MSM reporting one second on it, while if one leftwing dingbat gets called a name it becomes a national outcry over womans rights and blah blah blah. You friggen people are pathetic, and the rest of us see you for who and what you are...hypocrites.

 

[NoNukes]

No, actually they don't. It's quite the opposite. Research it a bit more.

I live in a European country that practices socialism.

And you don't have free speech - you have limited speech..

No, we have free speech.

 

[BlindBoo]

All I can say is hahahahahahahaha.

But ah no I don't think Rush should be arrested under an 1885 law. However I think Ms. Fluke might have a case in civil court.

The funny part is the comparison to Maher calling Gov. Palin a C___t as the butt of a joke and Rushes 53 derogtory comments made throughout his show.

Santormn got what he deserved.

"That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

 

[Mr.Nick]

The point is: the constitution (a wonderful and hallowed document) does not protect someone who commits libel. It's very irritating to read from folks claiming to honor, cherish and protect the constitution while using that same document for cover once it all goes so badly, especially for one of their political heroes.

Should we then respect and follow the convictions of such folks in all things constitutional? After all, they got this one so terribly wrong.

That's not libel....

People are entitled to their opinions and Rush's opinion is that Fluke is a slut...

Is calling an person an asshole libel?? is calling someone a racist libel? is calling someone a prick libel???

So what makes the word "slut" so fucking special??

You see you don't know anything about law or the Constitution...

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Per the First Amendment we have the right to freedom of speech, press and religion, and it's a hard stretch to even prosecute an individual if their speech was responsible for a criminal act..

Calling an individual a "slut" isn't even remotely criminal, not to mention it's not even worthy of a civil suit...

The fact is that individuals ideas are protected by the First Amendment and the truth is that is just too much for some people to handle...

 

[grunt11b]

All I can say is hahahahahahahaha.

But ah no I don't think Rush should be arrested under an 1885 law. However I think Ms. Fluke might have a case in civil court.

The funny part is the comparison to Maher calling Gov. Palin a C___t as the butt of a joke and Rushes 53 derogtory comments made throughout his show.

Santormn got what he deserved.

"That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

Exactly, west virginia still has a law from the 1800's on the books that makes it legal to whip your wife so as long as it is done on sundays and has to be done on the courthouse steps with a stick no more big around than your thumb "It's where the saying rule of thumb came from". But do people do it? Nope, if they did there wouldn't be so many damn bitches here.

 

[Mr.Nick]

All I can say is hahahahahahahaha.

But ah no I don't think Rush should be arrested under an 1885 law. However I think Ms. Fluke might have a case in civil court.

The funny part is the comparison to Maher calling Gov. Palin a C___t as the butt of a joke and Rushes 53 derogtory comments made throughout his show.

Santormn got what he deserved.

"That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

She has no case...

Rush is not a journalist - he is an op-ed radio personality...

He stated his opinion and his opinions are not subject to legal scrutiny...

It's sad this has to be pointed out numerous times...

 

[grunt11b]

Awesome article by michelle malkin on this very subject, please read it lefties and tell me Rush is worse than your own people in the past.
The War on Conservative Women - Michelle Malkin - National Review Online

 

[Mr.Nick]

All I can say is hahahahahahahaha.

But ah no I don't think Rush should be arrested under an 1885 law. However I think Ms. Fluke might have a case in civil court.

The funny part is the comparison to Maher calling Gov. Palin a C___t as the butt of a joke and Rushes 53 derogtory comments made throughout his show.

Santormn got what he deserved.

"That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

Exactly, west virginia still has a law from the 1800's on the books that makes it legal to whip your wife so as long as it is done on sundays and has to be done on the courthouse steps with a stick no more big around than your thumb "It's where the saying rule of thumb came from". But do people do it? Nope, if they did there wouldn't be so many damn bitches here.

There are a lot of state laws that are just goofy...

50 Stupid Laws From 50 States

 

[Katzndogz]

Well it's a nice political move by Allred, but there's no legal argument to be made here. First forget about libel as the statements were spoken and not written. Second, in order to prove slander the statement must be a) untrue, b) malicious, and c) resulting in financial harm (i.e. loss of a job). Since the definition of a "slut" is a sexually promiscuous woman, which wouldn't be very hard to prove, Rush's comments, foolish and distasteful as they were, would not meet even the first criteria and I highly doubt that Ms. Fluke is very enthusiastic about going to court and being legally determined to be a "slut".

As far as the Florida statute, it's a loser. The language is: “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity”

She does not have a "want of chastity". She testified before Congress to that effect and as such Rush did not speak falsely which is a criteria of the statute.

Case closed.

Good way for Ms. Allred to get herself back in the media spotlight though which is her true intention.

Fluke is a public figure the standards against private citizens do not apply to her. She became a public figure through her own actions by appearing at a phonied up "hearing". When Joe the Plumber came under the left's vitriol they successfully portrayed him as a public figure because he questioned obama on film, in public. Not that the left would hypocritically claim that Joe was a public figure for asking a question in public and Fluke did not give up these protections for appearing at a phony hearing. The left is absolutely capable of at least trying to make the effort.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well it's a nice political move by Allred, but there's no legal argument to be made here. First forget about libel as the statements were spoken and not written. Second, in order to prove slander the statement must be a) untrue, b) malicious, and c) resulting in financial harm (i.e. loss of a job). Since the definition of a "slut" is a sexually promiscuous woman, which wouldn't be very hard to prove, Rush's comments, foolish and distasteful as they were, would not meet even the first criteria and I highly doubt that Ms. Fluke is very enthusiastic about going to court and being legally determined to be a "slut".

As far as the Florida statute, it's a loser. The language is: “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity”

She does not have a "want of chastity". She testified before Congress to that effect and as such Rush did not speak falsely which is a criteria of the statute.

Case closed.

Good way for Ms. Allred to get herself back in the media spotlight though which is her true intention.

I also might point out that it's a very unwise political strategy for the left as it will be seen as politically correctness run amok, more evidence of the left's blatant disdain for the Bill of Rights, etc. This is a "political tribble" that the left should avoid at all costs. It may seem all warm, fuzzy, and inviting at first, but feed it and it will create a world of hurt.

 

[NoNukes]

European nations that practice socialism protect free speech.

No they don't. You really don't know much about Europe.

Don't you know that it's against the law to endorse certain beliefs in Germany, like Antisemitism? It's also against the law to attack the Qu'ran or Mohammed in the Netherlands. Most European countries have a list of things that are taboo to even discuss.

They don't practice free speech.

There are anti hate laws in many civilized countries.

As for the list of taboos, you are just making this up.

 

[tinydancer]

Lets arrest Rush.

In other worlds lets hang children for having a bad hair cut.