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

[Mr. Shaman]

Lol, the left cannot answer the quesion. Typical.

....And, whatever-answer is going to change what?

​

 

[Emma]

People have complete rights to tell a corporation they dont like its practices.

Is it valid to abridge the First Amendment?

These groups are not "abridging" the First Amendment.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I kinda like the fact that Carbonite's stock plummeted after pulling from Rush's show and now they’re begging to get back on. Rush said no, of course, and now all the other sponsors are afraid to pull their ads.

Can you prove that?

Why would I need to? Any bonehead with an internet connection could figure it out with a simple Google search. The funny thing is that they’re still advertising on Rush's stations. Just not during his show. However, he isn’t taking any of them back once they’ve left so he has stated. No one is really worried about the loss of Rush’s advertisers. He has the number one show in the United States. There is a waiting line and a bidding war over those valued advertising spots.

Carbonite Messed With Rush and Investors Fired Back…Carbonite Stock Plummets | The Gateway Pundit

Limbaugh Rejects Sleep Train After it Requests to be Advertiser Again | TheBlaze.com

Don?t mess with Rush | Western Journalism.com

Prove THIS statement concerning Carbonite.

"now they’re begging to get back on"

 

[Big Fitz]

People have complete rights to tell a corporation they dont like its practices.

Does free speech include the right to interfere with the practices of a company?

Ask Brent Bozell, Janet Jackson, CBS and nipplegate.

So enforcing FCC regulations is a violation of Free Speech?

Gotcha.

 

[The T]

Is it valid to abridge the First Amendment?

You mean.....again?​

​

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97KllcZidKQ"]9/11 comment Bill Maher got fired for - YouTube[/ame]​

June 3, 2002​

"When ABC moved to cancel Nightline and replace it with Letterman, a furor arose in the public and press. Where was the furor when ABC censored then canceled Politically Incorrect?"

"Politically Incorrect": A Eulogy​

That's not a violation of anything.

Damn, why are so many on this board so childish?

Note that you quoted crayonboy?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

freedom of speech has consequences....

.....Especially when "conservatives" are manning the Whitehouse, and are pretty-damned-busy trying to......

....cover their ass.

 

[The T]

Radio porn on public am/fm stations is allowed by the FCC?

Really?

You're a child unable to actually discuss a topic without the usual childish tactics.

Dismissed

You don't know what freedom of speech or what a boycott is.

Did those boycotting the Montgomery, AL bus company violate the bus company's freedom of speech or commerce?

How did Mongomery Alabama Transit weasel itself into this?

OH...I get it...Rosa Parks...?

Just HAD to get the RACE angle in, didn't you?

Assclown.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I listened to Rusn on Friday and he had sponsors and he wasn't off the air. It's a failed campaign by the left.

Why don't all you lefties hold your breath until Rush is off the air. Do the world a favor.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I listened to Rusn on Friday and he had sponsors and he wasn't off the air. It's a failed campaign by the left.

Why don't all you lefties hold your breath until Rush is off the air. Do the world a favor.

.

Rush gave himself a self-imposed time out. Brilliant!

Those late-nite Oxy-nightcaps could do that.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Is it valid to abridge the First Amendment?

You mean.....again?



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97KllcZidKQ]9/11 comment Bill Maher got fired for - YouTube[/ame]​

June 3, 2002​

"When ABC moved to cancel Nightline and replace it with Letterman, a furor arose in the public and press. Where was the furor when ABC censored then canceled Politically Incorrect?"

"Politically Incorrect": A Eulogy​

That's not a violation of anything.

Damn, why are so many on this board so childish?

Agreed.

 

[Sarah G]

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

I think Rush has done a lot to get himself off the air. That's the trouble with Republicans, you blame everyone else for these problems. Rush can get himself back on track if he can stop being so egomaniacle and focus on entertaining his audience.

The big dummy.

 

[The T]

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

I think Rush has done a lot to get himself off the air. That's the trouble with Republicans, you blame everyone else for these problems. Rush can get himself back on track if he can stop being so egomaniacle and focus on entertaining his audience.

The big dummy.

Project much?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

People have complete rights to tell a corporation they dont like its practices.

That wasn't the question.

Not to step on toes, but allow me to simplify the question.

Do YOU believe Rush should not be allowed to express himself on the air?

That's a yes or no question - if you're honest enough to answer.

Of course but as Truth Matters already said, the corporation is certainly allowed to state its position or opinion, as are the citizens.

The T

Is it valid to abridge the First Amendment?

Why is it that rw's never seem to understand the First Amendment?

This is not a First Amendment issue.

Please read the First Amendment. Pay close attention to the word "government".

This is a case where various groups and individuals are weighing in. Until the government gets involved, there is no violation of "freedom of speech".

 

[Liability]

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.

I have no idea if they want him silenced or if they are merely pointing to the leader of the Republican party and calling him a pig.

He's no conservative. Any real conservative would know that.

He is a conservative and no whacked-out liberal can appreciate that fact.

In any event, you're such a myopic hack that there's no reason to credit your assessment under any circumstances.

And there is no question that they want him silenced.

 

[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.

The irony and ignorance are festering in your post.

1) Does Media Matters have the right to voice their opposition to what Rush said...yes or no?

Rush's problem is not the "free market of competing ideas" or Media Matters. His problem IS the free market...SPONSORS $$$

The irony and ignorance are festering in your skull.

I already answered your stupid "question." Nobody has suggested that Media Mutters is not free to speak out against Rush's statements.

And they remain free to try to refute his assertions IN the free market of ideas. But they (like all good fascists and statists) do not wish to compete in that arena. They just want to silence those with whom they disagree.

And yeah. They DO want to get his $$$ sponsors to make that happen. Again, it's not because THE SPONSORS particularly care what Rush said. Tey are responding to bogus pressure from Media Nutters -- a coordinated orchestrated campaign to silence him since they are unable to validly refute him (for the most part).

 

[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.

In reality, Rush is an entertainer

He gets paid for his act and he gets paid well. Those who love his act listen to his broadcasts and ratings get him sponsors.

Free speech is a powerful right. Those who are offended by his speech are free to let sponsors know. Rush needs to modify his act accordingly if he wants to make money. If not, it is a business decision.

The free market of open ideas is this message board. We say what we want, when we want. We do not make a profit off of being controversial.

That Rush is an entertainer is neither relevant nor disputed.

The rest of what you posted is irrelevant to the actual discussion.

Media Nutters is trying to silence him because of the content of his overall political speech, not because they disapprove of one tasteless remark. They are transparently fraudulent. And by endorsing what they do, you are staking out a claim that liberals are okay with silencing their opposition.

It exposes you. As I said, your modern American "liberal" orthodoxy and dogma will not permit you to admit it.

 

[Dragon]

The First Amendment applies only to the government. Media Matters is not a government agency. Therefore, its efforts to get Limbaugh taken off the air are not a violation of the First Amendment, whereas if the government tried to do that it would be.

Next question, please.

 

[Liability]

Liberals, or the left dont want laws to silence Rush. The OP starts out false and demands all liberals answer to the shit he just made up. I want everyone to be able to be on the radio from Rush to Opie and Anthony.

But that doesnt mean that people who take offense to the shows shouldnt say anything or take any action they so choose. You seem to have only a problem with peoples reaction to what someone says as being wrong, then hide behind free speech for Rush. It goes both ways.

BTW, Opie and Anthony got kicked off because of a Sex for Sam stunt where a couple went into a Catholic church for sex and location points.
If you advocate for them to be off the radio for that, protest or boycott. You should check your Free speech rant again.

Your reading comprehension or honesty are now shown to be very much lacking.

Pathetic dodge. Even TDM gave it more thought than the pablum shit you just sprayed, Close-minded. Typical of you, though.

 

[Ravi]

Liarility: Leave Rush alone, the's the spokesperson for the GOP.

 

[Liability]

I think the root of this is what "trying" means.

If by "trying" to silence Rush they're putting out ads against him, that's fine. They have just as much of right to speak out against Rush as he does against them.

If MediaMatters were trying to get a law passed to force Rush off the air, I'd be in the street protesting them.

They are trying to silence him.

But as long as they do it in some circumspect fashion, then it's not unseemly?

They are taking out ads to try to kill the revenue stream that permits him to be aired. Not all that different than getting a tin-horn dictator's approach to passing a law forbidding him from speaking on the air. A different method with the very same agenda.

They are not content to expose the stupidity of what he said in that Fluke story. And some of what he said was, actually, kinda dumb. No. That's not enough for them. They want him silenced.

Way to embrace free speech values. Not.