For the Board's liberals, here's an interesting question.

[francoHFW]

Rush is a big fat bought off lying a-hole who's ruined political discourse and turned 25% of Americans into brainwashed loudmouth morons who think they know everything, but appear to know NOTHING. A true demagogue. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, one minute of rebuttal an hour would sink the whole disaster...

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Rush is a big fat bought off lying a-hole who's ruined political discourse and turned 25% of Americans into brainwashed loudmouth morons who think they know everything, but appear to know NOTHING. A true demagogue. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, one minute of rebuttal an hour would sink the whole disaster...

Here's your fairness doctrine, change the fucking channel if you don't like what's on.

 

[Bfgrn]

freedom of speech has consequences....

So do efforts to suppress free speech.

But your answer still isn't an answer.

Does the first amendment only apply to Rush Limbaugh? Does Media Matters have that right also?

 

[Liability]

Rush is a big fat bought off lying a-hole who's ruined political discourse and turned 25% of Americans into brainwashed loudmouth morons who think they know everything, but appear to know NOTHING. A true demagogue. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, one minute of rebuttal an hour would sink the whole disaster...

Here's your fairness doctrine, change the fucking channel if you don't like what's on.

FrancoTug is opposed to the notion of using common sense.

There is nothing "fair" about the so-called (deliberately misnamed) "Fairness Doctrine."

And let us note: he ducked the direct question, too.

 

[The T]

freedom of speech has consequences....

So do efforts to suppress free speech.

But your answer still isn't an answer.

Does the first amendment only apply to Rush Limbaugh? Does Media Matters have that right also?

Read the thread? I think it's been established.

 

[PoliticalChic]

People have a right to tell any corporation they dont like their actions.

That includes telling a corporation they want a person off the air for whatever reasons they see fit.

Lets all remember what you on the right did to the dixie chicks when you didnt like their poltical beliefs

I'm certain that for you, the above is the issue.
But what you don't realize is how well and for how long this has been orchestrated.

1. 1. The Left understands the importance of control of the avenues of information dissemination. An important member of the Obama team, and Mark Lloyd’s new boss at the FCC, Julius Genachowski…classmate of Obama at Columbia, and at Harvard Law….and a top fundraiser.

a. While Genachowki is silent on the meaning of ‘diversity,’ Mark Lloyd is focused on media justice, mandating minority ownership of the mass media.
b. Genachowski’s press sec’y is Jen Howard, who was Robert McChesney’s press director at the Leftist ‘Free Press.’
Jen Howard Named Genachowski's Press Secretary | Benton Foundation


2. Free Press was founded by Robert McChesney, and on his board sat Marxist Van Jones, former ‘Green Jobs Czar’ for Obama.

3. Insight into Free Press, and the Center for American Progress can be seen in “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” co-authored by Mark Lloyd. The following from their policy report: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

a. “…more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, “a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet.”… Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006…conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format…91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive

4. “This slanted paper whines that AM talk radio is dominated by conservative views and suggests that liberal views should be forced upon the talk radio industry. That left-wing idea, of course, is bad enough, but the group that Lloyd was working with to have the paper published shows ties to left-wingers, out right Marxists and other haters of this country and that connection should have disqualified Lloyd for service in the federal government. at the end of September of 2001, right after the Twin Towers fell, McChesney said that the United States was the, “leading terrorist institution in the world today.” In February of 2009, McChesney recommended that capitalism be “dismantled” in the U.S.A. “It is typical communist boilerplate. In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles. This is something that the great majority of the population will undoubtedly learn in the course of their struggles for a more equal, more humane, more collective, and more sustainable world. In the meantime, it is time to begin to organize a revolt against the ruling class–imposed ceiling on civilian government spending and social welfare in U.S. society.”( A New New Deal under Obama? :: Monthly Review)
Another of Obama’s Radical Appointees : Stop The ACLU


The Rush Limbaugh attack is just the point of the spear.

 

[Liability]

freedom of speech has consequences....

So do efforts to suppress free speech.

But your answer still isn't an answer.

Does the first amendment only apply to Rush Limbaugh? Does Media Matters have that right also?

The First Amendment is not even a matter under discussion. You truly don't get that fact, apparently.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NOT a poll. I lift this question from another (related) thread where it is apparently going to be ignored. So, let's highlight it in its own little box:

Is the effort of Media Matters to get Rush Limbaugh off the air* a valid move that gives due consideration for the value we place on free speech and the open market of competing ideas?

I say that Media Matters is WAY off base. I say YOU libs OUGHT to be agreeing with me on that.

What do you liberal members of the USMB have to say?

__________________________
* See, for instance: Media Matters ad campaign aims to censor Rush Limbaugh | Washington Times Communities

And see its own website, where Media Matters talks of "monitoring" the advertising on Rush's radio show: Rush Limbaugh's Advertisers, March 6 | Media Matters for America

As a self professed classical liberal, I agree with you completely.

 

[Ravi]

NOT a poll. I lift this question from another (related) thread where it is apparently going to be ignored. So, let's highlight it in its own little box:

Is the effort of Media Matters to get Rush Limbaugh off the air* a valid move that gives due consideration for the value we place on free speech and the open market of competing ideas?

I say that Media Matters is WAY off base. I say YOU libs OUGHT to be agreeing with me on that.

What do you liberal members of the USMB have to say?

__________________________
* See, for instance: Media Matters ad campaign aims to censor Rush Limbaugh | Washington Times Communities

And see its own website, where Media Matters talks of "monitoring" the advertising on Rush's radio show: Rush Limbaugh's Advertisers, March 6 | Media Matters for America

Specifically, how are they going about it?

Do you have the audio of the ads they are running?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgn1WkFmBc]Media Matters Rush Limbaugh Radio Spot #2 - YouTube[/ame]

I have no idea what this has to do with freedom of speech as Media Matters isn't the government. One group criticizing a blowhard, lol. And freedom of speech certainly allows them to do it.

 

[rightwinger]

NOT a poll. I lift this question from another (related) thread where it is apparently going to be ignored. So, let's highlight it in its own little box:

Is the effort of Media Matters to get Rush Limbaugh off the air* a valid move that gives due consideration for the value we place on free speech and the open market of competing ideas?

I say that Media Matters is WAY off base. I say YOU libs OUGHT to be agreeing with me on that.

What do you liberal members of the USMB have to say?

__________________________
* See, for instance: Media Matters ad campaign aims to censor Rush Limbaugh | Washington Times Communities

And see its own website, where Media Matters talks of "monitoring" the advertising on Rush's radio show: Rush Limbaugh's Advertisers, March 6 | Media Matters for America

As a liberal, I understand that freedom of speech means that you can say anything you want without prosecution

What freedom of speech does not mean is there are no consequences for what you say. If you say something offensive, it does not mean people can be and act offended. People who are offended by your speech are free to boycott your business and urge others to do the same

Prosecution is not the topic. On that, we need not waste any more cyber-ink.

And we also do not disagree with each other that speech may have consequences.

We also do not disagree that Media Matters is free to ask companies to refrain from doing business with Rush Limbaugh's EIB network and the stations that buy his feed.
They are free to do so.

The question is whether that is proper (as a matter of political philosophy) when the objective is to silence the other guy's voice.

I would say that you, as a liberal, should oppose it. That you don't is troubling, and kind of surprising in some ways.


But at least you answered it.

I believe it is perfectly proper.....and it has to do with being an American not a liberal

By law, Rush has a right to appear on the radio and say whatever he pleases. The constitution says he can't be prosecuted, that is the only protection it gives him

Just as Rush has freedom of speech, people have freedom of association. Those who love what Rush has to say will choose to associate with his sponsors and the sponsors will make money.
Those who are offended by what Rush says will tell sponsors they will not associate with them and sponsors lose money

It just becomes a business decision for sponsors

 

[Liability]

NOT a poll. I lift this question from another (related) thread where it is apparently going to be ignored. So, let's highlight it in its own little box:

Is the effort of Media Matters to get Rush Limbaugh off the air* a valid move that gives due consideration for the value we place on free speech and the open market of competing ideas?

I say that Media Matters is WAY off base. I say YOU libs OUGHT to be agreeing with me on that.

What do you liberal members of the USMB have to say?

__________________________
* See, for instance: Media Matters ad campaign aims to censor Rush Limbaugh | Washington Times Communities

And see its own website, where Media Matters talks of "monitoring" the advertising on Rush's radio show: Rush Limbaugh's Advertisers, March 6 | Media Matters for America

Specifically, how are they going about it?

Do you have the audio of the ads they are running?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgn1WkFmBc]Media Matters Rush Limbaugh Radio Spot #2 - YouTube[/ame]

I have no idea what this has to do with freedom of speech as Media Matters isn't the government. One group criticizing a blowhard, lol. And freedom of speech certainly allows them to do it.

Free speech is a value, not just a First Amendment issue.

I already had to correct bfgrn on that. You nibble around the edges, but you seem to lack the ability to comprehend it either.

This is not -- in any way -- a First Amendment issue. Nor did I say, suggest or imply that it was.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

NOT a poll. I lift this question from another (related) thread where it is apparently going to be ignored. So, let's highlight it in its own little box:

Is the effort of Media Matters to get Rush Limbaugh off the air* a valid move that gives due consideration for the value we place on free speech and the open market of competing ideas?

I say that Media Matters is WAY off base. I say YOU libs OUGHT to be agreeing with me on that.

What do you liberal members of the USMB have to say?

__________________________
* See, for instance: Media Matters ad campaign aims to censor Rush Limbaugh | Washington Times Communities

And see its own website, where Media Matters talks of "monitoring" the advertising on Rush's radio show: Rush Limbaugh's Advertisers, March 6 | Media Matters for America

Specifically, how are they going about it?

Do you have the audio of the ads they are running?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgn1WkFmBc]Media Matters Rush Limbaugh Radio Spot #2 - YouTube[/ame]

I have no idea what this has to do with freedom of speech as Media Matters isn't the government. One group criticizing a blowhard, lol. And freedom of speech certainly allows them to do it.

True, but many including a few in this thread, advocate the government stepping in.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

freedom of speech has consequences....

If there are consequences, or benefits, they shouldn't come from the government.

 

[Bfgrn]

So do efforts to suppress free speech.

But your answer still isn't an answer.

Does the first amendment only apply to Rush Limbaugh? Does Media Matters have that right also?

Read the thread? I think it's been established.

Oh, so Rush Limbaugh has the right to say what ever he wants. And Media Matters has the right to remain silent.

 

[Ravi]

Specifically, how are they going about it?

Do you have the audio of the ads they are running?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgn1WkFmBc]Media Matters Rush Limbaugh Radio Spot #2 - YouTube[/ame]

I have no idea what this has to do with freedom of speech as Media Matters isn't the government. One group criticizing a blowhard, lol. And freedom of speech certainly allows them to do it.

Free speech is a value, not just a First Amendment issue.

I already had to correct bfgrn on that. You nibble around the edges, but you seem to lack the ability to comprehend it either.

This is not -- in any way -- a First Amendment issue. Nor did I say, suggest or imply that it was.

Maybe you should reword your op.

Media Matters has the freedom in the free market to criticize Rush for his nasty comments AND to ask others to criticize him to the radio stations.

 

[The T]

Does the first amendment only apply to Rush Limbaugh? Does Media Matters have that right also?

Read the thread? I think it's been established.

Oh, so Rush Limbaugh has the right to say what ever he wants. And Media Matters has the right to remain silent.

No BuFU...NOT what I said in reference to your question, is it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does the first amendment only apply to Rush Limbaugh? Does Media Matters have that right also?

Read the thread? I think it's been established.

Oh, so Rush Limbaugh has the right to say what ever he wants. And Media Matters has the right to remain silent.

Both are true, as are their converses.

 

[Liability]

As a liberal, I understand that freedom of speech means that you can say anything you want without prosecution

What freedom of speech does not mean is there are no consequences for what you say. If you say something offensive, it does not mean people can be and act offended. People who are offended by your speech are free to boycott your business and urge others to do the same

Prosecution is not the topic. On that, we need not waste any more cyber-ink.

And we also do not disagree with each other that speech may have consequences.

We also do not disagree that Media Matters is free to ask companies to refrain from doing business with Rush Limbaugh's EIB network and the stations that buy his feed.
They are free to do so.

The question is whether that is proper (as a matter of political philosophy) when the objective is to silence the other guy's voice.

I would say that you, as a liberal, should oppose it. That you don't is troubling, and kind of surprising in some ways.


But at least you answered it.

I believe it is perfectly proper.....and it has to do with being an American not a liberal

By law, Rush has a right to appear on the radio and say whatever he pleases. The constitution says he can't be prosecuted, that is the only protection it gives him

Just as Rush has freedom of speech, people have freedom of association. Those who love what Rush has to say will choose to associate with his sponsors and the sponsors will make money.
Those who are offended by what Rush says will tell sponsors they will not associate with them and sponsors lose money

It just becomes a business decision for sponsors

It is kind of anti-American and it is a liberal contradiction to endorse what Media Matters is trying to do.

Obviously we see it in very different ways.

When the Dixie Chicks said some disagreeable shit overseas, I was content to refrain from buying their records.

I would not call for a boycott of them however.

The GOAL is to silence the voice of the man. And it is NOT over the fact that he called Ms. Fluke a "slut." So very many on the left speak in very similar terms all the time about women. So we know it isn't the word "slut" that motivates these charlatans.

Clearly, it is just an opportunity to exploit in order to silence him as a spokesman for the political point of view they detest: conservatism.

When a liberal tries to silence the opposition, and in doing so REJECTS the "free market of competing ideas," that liberal is no longer speaking as a liberal.

You guys really do need to re-think this. But liberal dogma and orthodoxy will not permit you to do so.

 

[Ravi]

Prosecution is not the topic. On that, we need not waste any more cyber-ink.

And we also do not disagree with each other that speech may have consequences.

We also do not disagree that Media Matters is free to ask companies to refrain from doing business with Rush Limbaugh's EIB network and the stations that buy his feed.
They are free to do so.

The question is whether that is proper (as a matter of political philosophy) when the objective is to silence the other guy's voice.

I would say that you, as a liberal, should oppose it. That you don't is troubling, and kind of surprising in some ways.


But at least you answered it.

I believe it is perfectly proper.....and it has to do with being an American not a liberal

By law, Rush has a right to appear on the radio and say whatever he pleases. The constitution says he can't be prosecuted, that is the only protection it gives him

Just as Rush has freedom of speech, people have freedom of association. Those who love what Rush has to say will choose to associate with his sponsors and the sponsors will make money.
Those who are offended by what Rush says will tell sponsors they will not associate with them and sponsors lose money

It just becomes a business decision for sponsors

It is kind of anti-American and it is a liberal contradiction to endorse what Media Matters is trying to do.

Obviously we see it in very different ways.

When the Dixie Chicks said some disagreeable shit overseas, I was content to refrain from buying their records.

I would not call for a boycott of them however.

The GOAL is to silence the voice of the man. And it is NOT over the fact that he called Ms. Fluke a "slut." So very many on the left speak in very similar terms all the time about women. So we know it isn't the word "slut" that motivates these charlatans.

Clearly, it is just an opportunity to exploit in order to silence him as a spokesman for the political point of view they detest: conservatism.

When a liberal tries to silence the opposition, and in doing so REJECTS the "free market of competing ideas," that liberal is no longer speaking as a liberal.

You guys really do need to re-think this. But liberal dogma and orthodoxy will not permit you to do so.

It's kind of pathetic that you consider Rush a conservative.

 

[Liability]

I believe it is perfectly proper.....and it has to do with being an American not a liberal

By law, Rush has a right to appear on the radio and say whatever he pleases. The constitution says he can't be prosecuted, that is the only protection it gives him

Just as Rush has freedom of speech, people have freedom of association. Those who love what Rush has to say will choose to associate with his sponsors and the sponsors will make money.
Those who are offended by what Rush says will tell sponsors they will not associate with them and sponsors lose money

It just becomes a business decision for sponsors

It is kind of anti-American and it is a liberal contradiction to endorse what Media Matters is trying to do.

Obviously we see it in very different ways.

When the Dixie Chicks said some disagreeable shit overseas, I was content to refrain from buying their records.

I would not call for a boycott of them however.

The GOAL is to silence the voice of the man. And it is NOT over the fact that he called Ms. Fluke a "slut." So very many on the left speak in very similar terms all the time about women. So we know it isn't the word "slut" that motivates these charlatans.

Clearly, it is just an opportunity to exploit in order to silence him as a spokesman for the political point of view they detest: conservatism.

When a liberal tries to silence the opposition, and in doing so REJECTS the "free market of competing ideas," that liberal is no longer speaking as a liberal.

You guys really do need to re-think this. But liberal dogma and orthodoxy will not permit you to do so.

It's kind of pathetic that you consider Rush a conservative.

It's more pathetic how urgently you need to deflect.

Rush is a conservative. And by comparison to nuts like the crew over at Media Matters, he is clearly conservative.

And this is why they want him silenced.