Laura Ingraham, David Hogg and the beginning of the end of free speech.

[Camp]

Laura Ingram said something about Hogg not getting into college and made fun of him (free speech, she is allowed her opinion).

Hogg then called for a boycott of her advertisers in response because he thought she was being hateful (she was, and he was simply expressing his free speech).

The advertisers thought about it, and decided to drop advertising from her program (free speech, the advertisers have the right to decide who they do or don't support).

Nope, no free speech was silenced in this situation, no matter how much Protectionist thinks it was.

No one's free speech is being violated here, that would require government intrusion to silence someone.

However, the more you work to punish people for what they say, in time people will become too afraid to speak their mind.
What Hogg and his lemmings are doing, take us down a dangerous road where the msm may pass on reporting certain stories for fear of these sort of attacks.

Sometimes people deserve to be punished for their public speech. Sponsors who decided they did not want to be affiliated or associated with a political pundit gave their reasons. Each one gave specific reasons for wanting to disassociate with Laura Ingraham. They all gave reasons or moral and decency standards of Ingraham not meeting their own standards of morals and decency. Defenders of Ingraham, the political pundit, refuse to acknowledge the repulsive nature of Ingraham's comments and agenda.

 

[bendog]

What is interesting, imo, is that advertisers are pulling ads. I recall when Fox Hannity intentionally broadcasted false facts about Seth Rich being murdered for being the source of leaks to Assange. Fox eventually retracted the story. And Assange was typically obtuse in both giving the story credence without actually vouching for it.

With Ingram, the difference may have been the public reaction and contacts directly to advertisers.

And no, my RW friends, I don't think the MSM play quite as loose with journalism standards as fox does ... at least with commentary by the Hannity/Ingram types.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Laura Ingram said something about Hogg not getting into college and made fun of him (free speech, she is allowed her opinion).

Hogg then called for a boycott of her advertisers in response because he thought she was being hateful (she was, and he was simply expressing his free speech).

The advertisers thought about it, and decided to drop advertising from her program (free speech, the advertisers have the right to decide who they do or don't support).

Nope, no free speech was silenced in this situation, no matter how much Protectionist thinks it was.

No one's free speech is being violated here, that would require government intrusion to silence someone.

However, the more you work to punish people for what they say, in time people will become too afraid to speak their mind.
What Hogg and his lemmings are doing, take us down a dangerous road where the msm may pass on reporting certain stories for fear of these sort of attacks.

Wrong. The media will continue to report on stories they think are important to the viewers. Ingram wasn't reporting news, she was offering a snarky opinion on Hogg and his grades. Hogg's grades aren't news.

Laura Ingram offered an opinion, not news.

No, NOT wrong. Her opinion was made in public, just like any news story that might be just as provocative whether it's news, or an opinion piece. Media outlets afraid that they'll lose sponsors if they offend someone, or some group will be thinking twice whether to publish a piece or not.

This punk kid has every right to do what he did, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Laura Ingram said something about Hogg not getting into college and made fun of him (free speech, she is allowed her opinion).

Hogg then called for a boycott of her advertisers in response because he thought she was being hateful (she was, and he was simply expressing his free speech).

The advertisers thought about it, and decided to drop advertising from her program (free speech, the advertisers have the right to decide who they do or don't support).

Nope, no free speech was silenced in this situation, no matter how much Protectionist thinks it was.

No one's free speech is being violated here, that would require government intrusion to silence someone.

However, the more you work to punish people for what they say, in time people will become too afraid to speak their mind.
What Hogg and his lemmings are doing, take us down a dangerous road where the msm may pass on reporting certain stories for fear of these sort of attacks.

Sometimes people deserve to be punished for their public speech. Sponsors who decided they did not want to be affiliated or associated with a political pundit gave their reasons. Each one gave specific reasons for wanting to disassociate with Laura Ingraham. They all gave reasons or moral and decency standards of Ingraham not meeting their own standards of morals and decency. Defenders of Ingraham, the political pundit, refuse to acknowledge the repulsive nature of Ingraham's comments and agenda.

If you find what she said was 'repulsive', then no wonder you guys on the left are refered to as 'snowflakes'.

 

[Ray9]

Ingraham's advertisers blinked not because she did anything wrong but because they feared losing revenue. If you get called into your employer's personnel office and discover you have been terminated for expressing an opinion apart from your workplace because someone who disagrees with that opinion threatened the boss's bottom line you'll get it.

Silencing opinions does nothing to promote free speech it in fact limits it or removes it completely.

 

[Camp]

Laura Ingram said something about Hogg not getting into college and made fun of him (free speech, she is allowed her opinion).

Hogg then called for a boycott of her advertisers in response because he thought she was being hateful (she was, and he was simply expressing his free speech).

The advertisers thought about it, and decided to drop advertising from her program (free speech, the advertisers have the right to decide who they do or don't support).

Nope, no free speech was silenced in this situation, no matter how much Protectionist thinks it was.

No one's free speech is being violated here, that would require government intrusion to silence someone.

However, the more you work to punish people for what they say, in time people will become too afraid to speak their mind.
What Hogg and his lemmings are doing, take us down a dangerous road where the msm may pass on reporting certain stories for fear of these sort of attacks.

Sometimes people deserve to be punished for their public speech. Sponsors who decided they did not want to be affiliated or associated with a political pundit gave their reasons. Each one gave specific reasons for wanting to disassociate with Laura Ingraham. They all gave reasons or moral and decency standards of Ingraham not meeting their own standards of morals and decency. Defenders of Ingraham, the political pundit, refuse to acknowledge the repulsive nature of Ingraham's comments and agenda.

If you find what she said was 'repulsive', then no wonder you guys on the left are refered to as 'snowflakes'.

Explain it to the dozen corporate sponsors who dumped her. I know you want to blame it on libs and Dem's, but they are not the ones who wrote the letters telling her why they were dumping her. Not sure if any of them used the exact word repulsive, but it seems to be the message they were trying to convey. Look it up and see for yourself.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Laura Ingram said something about Hogg not getting into college and made fun of him (free speech, she is allowed her opinion).

Hogg then called for a boycott of her advertisers in response because he thought she was being hateful (she was, and he was simply expressing his free speech).

The advertisers thought about it, and decided to drop advertising from her program (free speech, the advertisers have the right to decide who they do or don't support).

Nope, no free speech was silenced in this situation, no matter how much Protectionist thinks it was.

No one's free speech is being violated here, that would require government intrusion to silence someone.

However, the more you work to punish people for what they say, in time people will become too afraid to speak their mind.
What Hogg and his lemmings are doing, take us down a dangerous road where the msm may pass on reporting certain stories for fear of these sort of attacks.

Sometimes people deserve to be punished for their public speech. Sponsors who decided they did not want to be affiliated or associated with a political pundit gave their reasons. Each one gave specific reasons for wanting to disassociate with Laura Ingraham. They all gave reasons or moral and decency standards of Ingraham not meeting their own standards of morals and decency. Defenders of Ingraham, the political pundit, refuse to acknowledge the repulsive nature of Ingraham's comments and agenda.

If you find what she said was 'repulsive', then no wonder you guys on the left are refered to as 'snowflakes'.

Explain it to the dozen corporate sponsors who dumped her. I know you want to blame it on libs and Dem's, but they are not the ones who wrote the letters telling her why they were dumping her. Not sure if any of them used the exact word repulsive, but it seems to be the message they were trying to convey. Look it up and see for yourself.

They dumped her, not because they were personally offended by the content of her tweet. They dumped her because they felt their bottom line was more threatened by staying than leaving.

 

[Faun]

Laura Ingram said something about Hogg not getting into college and made fun of him (free speech, she is allowed her opinion).

Hogg then called for a boycott of her advertisers in response because he thought she was being hateful (she was, and he was simply expressing his free speech).

The advertisers thought about it, and decided to drop advertising from her program (free speech, the advertisers have the right to decide who they do or don't support).

Nope, no free speech was silenced in this situation, no matter how much Protectionist thinks it was.

No one's free speech is being violated here, that would require government intrusion to silence someone.

However, the more you work to punish people for what they say, in time people will become too afraid to speak their mind.
What Hogg and his lemmings are doing, take us down a dangerous road where the msm may pass on reporting certain stories for fear of these sort of attacks.

Wrong. The media will continue to report on stories they think are important to the viewers. Ingram wasn't reporting news, she was offering a snarky opinion on Hogg and his grades. Hogg's grades aren't news.

Laura Ingram offered an opinion, not news.

No, NOT wrong. Her opinion was made in public, just like any news story that might be just as provocative whether it's news, or an opinion piece. Media outlets afraid that they'll lose sponsors if they offend someone, or some group will be thinking twice whether to publish a piece or not.

This punk kid has every right to do what he did, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

What do you suggest Hogg should have done after Ingraham took a swipe at him?

 

[bendog]

I had no problem with Tipper Gore going after Zappa. (-: Although imo Zappa was amusing.

I won't hold my breath waiting for the gun banners to boycott Hollywood though. LOL

But it's not really about people and advertisers acting consistently from one time to another. It's about a process. If an individual or group doesn't like somebody's opinion, they can object both on grounds of civility and grounds of not buying advertisers stuff or watching some media. The Founders thought we'd reach reasonable decisions.

And frankly I'm appalled pissed disgusted that anyone opposes any legal means that might dissuade some nut or bad "hombre" from taking out a school with an AR-15. And I hope Hogg wrecks her pathetic career, which if I understand it correctly started with her outing gay students in the 1980s

 

[asaratis]

Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host of the Ingraham Angle was riding high as she presided over the fourth most watched cable news show in America. She used her freedom of speech to scrawl an emotional screed critical of David Hogg, a high school student who has become the face of the anti-gun movement. Ingraham, well educated, articulate woman, went from the penthouse to the outhouse overnight because she turned to the bathroom stall wall we call Facebook and attacked Hogg with a cheap, signed smear.

Hogg promptly identified her show’s sponsors and called for boycotts which quickly materialized leading Ingraham to take a “planned vacation” which is code for she’s likely gone. Ingraham should have known better.

Whenever or wherever opinions are expressed there is bound to be disagreement because people have different life experiences. This causes most people to reserve personal opinions especially in public settings. In the United States we have the first amendment which essentially means that we can say or write anything so long as what we say or write does not slander or bring harm to others or infringe on the rights of others to express different or unpopular opinions.

The First Amendment is a golden rule of American democracy that sets it apart from most other great civilizations not just in space but in time. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the event was hailed as a decisive victory for democracies embracing freedom of speech and the table appeared to be set for a golden age of world democracy.

But freedom of speech has a built in flaw: it raises the specter that the people could use it to call for getting rid of it. Just the fact that people are endowed with freedom of speech does not guarantee that they understand its significance or will use it responsibly. When it becomes a means to an end people will find creative ways to abuse it.

Both Laura Ingraham and David Hogg are guilty of abusing freedom of speech. Ingraham went after Hogg with the power of Fox News via Facebook and Hogg went after Ingraham’s livelihood probably on the advice of his political handlers.

Does this balance out? Not really. It’s wrong to crush opposing points of view with power and it’s just as wrong to go after a person’s income because you don’t agree with them.

If we lose freedom of speech here we’ll deserve it.

Damn

Did Hogg slap down that hateful bitch or what?

She announced last night she is taking a “vacation”
Hogg doesn’t even have his own cable news program

She had been planning an Easter vacation with her family for a long time. Fox News verified this when they came out and supported her. Bascially, they were saying FUCK LITTLE DAVID HOGG!

Fox News Says Laura Ingraham Will Return

 

[idb]

Fox News depend on freedom of speech for their very existence.
It's only because they're allowed to air any invented conspiracy, accusation or hateful invective that they choose that they're able to survive at all.
Live by the sword...etc...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Laura Ingram said something about Hogg not getting into college and made fun of him (free speech, she is allowed her opinion).

Hogg then called for a boycott of her advertisers in response because he thought she was being hateful (she was, and he was simply expressing his free speech).

The advertisers thought about it, and decided to drop advertising from her program (free speech, the advertisers have the right to decide who they do or don't support).

Nope, no free speech was silenced in this situation, no matter how much Protectionist thinks it was.

No one's free speech is being violated here, that would require government intrusion to silence someone.

However, the more you work to punish people for what they say, in time people will become too afraid to speak their mind.
What Hogg and his lemmings are doing, take us down a dangerous road where the msm may pass on reporting certain stories for fear of these sort of attacks.

Wrong. The media will continue to report on stories they think are important to the viewers. Ingram wasn't reporting news, she was offering a snarky opinion on Hogg and his grades. Hogg's grades aren't news.

Laura Ingram offered an opinion, not news.

No, NOT wrong. Her opinion was made in public, just like any news story that might be just as provocative whether it's news, or an opinion piece. Media outlets afraid that they'll lose sponsors if they offend someone, or some group will be thinking twice whether to publish a piece or not.

This punk kid has every right to do what he did, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

News is an event happening and it being reported.

Opinion is what someone thinks about the event that happened, viewed through the lens of their own bias.

See the difference? One is factual and real, the other is what someone thinks about the event or thing. Opinions are not news, no matter how much you try to say it is.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host of the Ingraham Angle was riding high as she presided over the fourth most watched cable news show in America. She used her freedom of speech to scrawl an emotional screed critical of David Hogg, a high school student who has become the face of the anti-gun movement. Ingraham, well educated, articulate woman, went from the penthouse to the outhouse overnight because she turned to the bathroom stall wall we call Facebook and attacked Hogg with a cheap, signed smear.

Hogg promptly identified her show’s sponsors and called for boycotts which quickly materialized leading Ingraham to take a “planned vacation” which is code for she’s likely gone. Ingraham should have known better.

Whenever or wherever opinions are expressed there is bound to be disagreement because people have different life experiences. This causes most people to reserve personal opinions especially in public settings. In the United States we have the first amendment which essentially means that we can say or write anything so long as what we say or write does not slander or bring harm to others or infringe on the rights of others to express different or unpopular opinions.

The First Amendment is a golden rule of American democracy that sets it apart from most other great civilizations not just in space but in time. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the event was hailed as a decisive victory for democracies embracing freedom of speech and the table appeared to be set for a golden age of world democracy.

But freedom of speech has a built in flaw: it raises the specter that the people could use it to call for getting rid of it. Just the fact that people are endowed with freedom of speech does not guarantee that they understand its significance or will use it responsibly. When it becomes a means to an end people will find creative ways to abuse it.

Both Laura Ingraham and David Hogg are guilty of abusing freedom of speech. Ingraham went after Hogg with the power of Fox News via Facebook and Hogg went after Ingraham’s livelihood probably on the advice of his political handlers.

Does this balance out? Not really. It’s wrong to crush opposing points of view with power and it’s just as wrong to go after a person’s income because you don’t agree with them.

If we lose freedom of speech here we’ll deserve it.

Damn

Did Hogg slap down that hateful bitch or what?

She announced last night she is taking a “vacation”
Hogg doesn’t even have his own cable news program

She had been planning an Easter vacation with her family for a long time. Fox News verified this when they came out and supported her. Bascially, they were saying FUCK LITTLE DAVID HOGG!

Fox News Says Laura Ingraham Will Return

Yeah, and Billo the Clown (O'reilly) was supposed to be on "vacation" too.

How'd that work out for him?

 

[asaratis]

Fox News depend on freedom of speech for their very existence.
It's only because they're allowed to air any invented conspiracy, accusation or hateful invective that they choose that they're able to survive at all.
Live by the sword...etc...

To you, the truth is a hateful invective.

 

[idb]

Fox News depend on freedom of speech for their very existence.
It's only because they're allowed to air any invented conspiracy, accusation or hateful invective that they choose that they're able to survive at all.
Live by the sword...etc...

To you, the truth is a hateful invective.

That's not true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ingraham's advertisers blinked not because she did anything wrong but because they feared losing revenue. If you get called into your employer's personnel office and discover you have been terminated for expressing an opinion apart from your workplace because someone who disagrees with that opinion threatened the boss's bottom line you'll get it.

Silencing opinions does nothing to promote free speech it in fact limits it or removes it completely.

Ingraham's advertisers feared losing revenue because she in fact did something wrong – and stupid.

And no one’s opinions are being ‘silenced’; no government has sought to preempt or limit anyone’s speech, the doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, and absent government intervention, free speech is being neither limited nor removed.

Indeed, Ingraham is at complete liberty to express herself as she sees fit, in any venue she so desires, to express her hate, ignorance, and stupidity with absolute impunity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host of the Ingraham Angle was riding high as she presided over the fourth most watched cable news show in America. She used her freedom of speech to scrawl an emotional screed critical of David Hogg, a high school student who has become the face of the anti-gun movement. Ingraham, well educated, articulate woman, went from the penthouse to the outhouse overnight because she turned to the bathroom stall wall we call Facebook and attacked Hogg with a cheap, signed smear.

Hogg promptly identified her show’s sponsors and called for boycotts which quickly materialized leading Ingraham to take a “planned vacation” which is code for she’s likely gone. Ingraham should have known better.

Whenever or wherever opinions are expressed there is bound to be disagreement because people have different life experiences. This causes most people to reserve personal opinions especially in public settings. In the United States we have the first amendment which essentially means that we can say or write anything so long as what we say or write does not slander or bring harm to others or infringe on the rights of others to express different or unpopular opinions.

The First Amendment is a golden rule of American democracy that sets it apart from most other great civilizations not just in space but in time. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the event was hailed as a decisive victory for democracies embracing freedom of speech and the table appeared to be set for a golden age of world democracy.

But freedom of speech has a built in flaw: it raises the specter that the people could use it to call for getting rid of it. Just the fact that people are endowed with freedom of speech does not guarantee that they understand its significance or will use it responsibly. When it becomes a means to an end people will find creative ways to abuse it.

Both Laura Ingraham and David Hogg are guilty of abusing freedom of speech. Ingraham went after Hogg with the power of Fox News via Facebook and Hogg went after Ingraham’s livelihood probably on the advice of his political handlers.

Does this balance out? Not really. It’s wrong to crush opposing points of view with power and it’s just as wrong to go after a person’s income because you don’t agree with them.

If we lose freedom of speech here we’ll deserve it.

Damn

Did Hogg slap down that hateful bitch or what?

She announced last night she is taking a “vacation”
Hogg doesn’t even have his own cable news program

She had been planning an Easter vacation with her family for a long time. Fox News verified this when they came out and supported her. Bascially, they were saying FUCK LITTLE DAVID HOGG!

Fox News Says Laura Ingraham Will Return

As if on cue…

An example of rightwing ignorance, hate, and stupidity.

 

[Borillar]

The left has set the rules...in the past, Republicans and conservatives have never engaged in this tactic that much....and never in a massive movement...but the cowardice and complicity of corporations with left wing hate groups now needs to be confronted....we have money too...and we need to start boycotting their supporters too........

Yeah, the right never engages in boycotts. Let's see... The right has boycotted Pepsi, Starbucks, Netflix, Oreos, Keurig, the NFL, Nordstrom, Anheuser-Busch, Nabisco, Macy's, Amazon, Ben & Jerry's, Apple, Ford, AT&T, Star Wars, and Hamilton. Prolly a bunch more.

 

[idb]

The left has set the rules...in the past, Republicans and conservatives have never engaged in this tactic that much....and never in a massive movement...but the cowardice and complicity of corporations with left wing hate groups now needs to be confronted....we have money too...and we need to start boycotting their supporters too........

Yeah, the right never engages in boycotts. Let's see... The right has boycotted Pepsi, Starbucks, Netflix, Oreos, Keurig, the NFL, Nordstrom, Anheuser-Busch, Nabisco, Macy's, Amazon, Ben & Jerry's, Apple, Ford, AT&T, Star Wars, and Hamilton. Prolly a bunch more.

I love the right-wing boycotts.
It usually consists of them getting on YouTube and smashing up their own stuff.
Terrific entertainment and it certainly makes a strong point.

 

[JohnPrewett]