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

[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.

Was Rush trying to "silence" Sandra Fluke?

No.

But even if he had been trying to "silence" her, is it your contention that the answer is therefore to silence him?

Very modern American liberal of you.

 

[Liability]

Private company, FreedomBecki. The entire thread is rifuckingdiculous.

Lonely Laughable cannot address it. His bullshit whining ensues.

 

[The T]

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.

Was Rush trying to "silence" Sandra Fluke?

Nope. What every gave you that hairbrained thought? MediaMatters?

 

[Dante]

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

The market place of ideas and speech is defended by liberals. I think Rush has every right to ask people to pay him to speak. People have every right to listen or tune out his speech. The people who pay him have every right to consider his speech in the context of their bottom line, if they are a capitalist venture existing mainly to make a profit.

As a liberal, I defend free speech for very similar reasons the ACLU does. I am consistent across the board and defend people's rights to use boycotts of sponsors of profitable enterprises that profit off speech.

Rush Limbaugh can speak. No one can stop him. Some people want him off the public airwaves. Competing interests.

Who do I side with here, Rush's right to speak, or others rights to get him off the air? Both. Do I agree with Rush's ideas and antics? No. Do I agree Rush should be off the air? No.

MediaMatters is not off base. They are an organization that critiques media. They are not the ACLU. You should be supporting their right to go after Rush, even as you defend Rush's desire to be on the air.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Was Rush trying to "silence" Sandra Fluke?

No.

But even if he had been trying to "silence" her, is it your contention that the answer is therefore to silence him?

Very modern American liberal of you.

No, but it seems what goes around comes around

Rush was using his immense power to try to silence a political view that was contrary to his own.
Now, the kickback from his poor judgement is coming back to haunt him

He won't be the first whose own conduct has destroyed his career.......won't be the last

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liability,

Please try harder. You are upset that a private company is spending their own money to buy advertising that is aimed at getting people to stop listening to your hero's radio show. There has been no attempt to legislate anything by anybody. You are trying to convince us that Media Matters is the government and is enforcing dictatorial powers of censorship. The argument has absolutely zero credibility.

You have tried to do a cute little experiment thinking that "liberals" would buy your premise and thus be painted into a corner by not agreeing with you. Just silly.

What is most unusual is that you have, in fact, convinced some of your nutter friends to join your dopey chorus. I expected that they'd ignore you as they normally do.

999 Forever

 

[Rocko]

Was Rush trying to "silence" Sandra Fluke?

No.

But even if he had been trying to "silence" her, is it your contention that the answer is therefore to silence him?

Very modern American liberal of you.

No, but it seems what goes around comes around

Rush was using his immense power to try to silence a political view that was contrary to his own.
Now, the kickback from his poor judgement is coming back to haunt him

He won't be the first whose own conduct has destroyed his career.......won't be the last

I don't think he has the power to silence her. He tried to discredit her, which is fair game.

 

[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

The market place of ideas and speech is defended by liberals. I think Rush has every right to ask people to pay him to speak. People have every right to listen or tune out his speech. The people who pay him have every right to consider his speech in the context of their bottom line, if they are a capitalist venture existing mainly to make a profit.

As a liberal, I defend free speech for very similar reasons the ACLU does. I am consistent across the board and defend people's rights to use boycotts of sponsors of profitable enterprises that profit off speech.

Rush Limbaugh can speak. No one can stop him. Some people want him off the public airwaves. Competing interests.

Who do I side with here, Rush's right to speak, or others rights to get him off the air? Both. Do I agree with Rush's ideas and antics? No. Do I agree Rush should be off the air? No.

MediaMatters is not off base. They are an organization that critiques media. They are not the ACLU. You should be supporting their right to go after Rush, even as you defend Rush's desire to be on the air.

Dante, although you come to very much the wrong conclusion (in pertinent part), at least you have s strain of logic and a willingness to address the question.

Without being sarcastic, I commend you for that.

Rush should be free to say what he thinks. That includes saying some stupid shit from time to time.

Media Matters IS free (and should be free) to debate the stuff Rush says.

But Media Matters is way the **** off base when they go about trying to "debate" Rush by instead trying to silence him (or get others to yank his ads and revenues to achieve that outcome).

That's not a marketplace of competing ideas any more. That's the old style shit we all ought to firmly reject.

Here's a pretty stark free speech issue. (Note: for those who have been confused, a free speech issue does NOT necessarily entail a First Amendment issue.)

Back in the day, not that terribly long ago, a bunch of latter day American Nazis wanted to "march" in Skokie, Illinois, home of a significant population of Jewish survivors of the holocaust perpetrated against Jews and others by German Nazis.

Putting aside the governmental issue of whether the parade permits should have been issued or not, the question is: should we in America accept that free speech means we will hear some hateful shit from scumbags like the Nazis? And the proper answer to that is "yes."

I am not a fan of the ACLU, but their stance on the matter came down in support of the Nazi's marching in Skokie. That should not be confused with supporting WHAT the Nazis were saying. It was just a defense of their right to say it.

I maintained then (and today) that the proper "answer" to the Nazi "speech" would be to stand along the parade route, wearing clown outfits and universally giving those pieces of shit the finger. And then, later, more reflectively, disputing the hateful nonsense they peddle.

If Media Nutters loathes Rush Limbaugh's off-color commentary about Ms. Fluke, the proper answer is similar. REFUTE it. But instead, those alleged bastions of free speech and so forth do exactly what they shouldn't be doing. They are seeking to silence their opposition.

It is shameful. I am very proud not to be a modern American liberal when it comes to THAT kind of support for free speech.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Doubling down on the dumb.

 

[rightwinger]

No.

But even if he had been trying to "silence" her, is it your contention that the answer is therefore to silence him?

Very modern American liberal of you.

No, but it seems what goes around comes around

Rush was using his immense power to try to silence a political view that was contrary to his own.
Now, the kickback from his poor judgement is coming back to haunt him

He won't be the first whose own conduct has destroyed his career.......won't be the last

I don't think he has the power to silence her. He tried to discredit her, which is fair game.

As are his tactics

 

[Liability]

Liability,

Please try harder. You are upset that a private company is spending their own money to buy advertising that is aimed at getting people to stop listening to your hero's radio show. There has been no attempt to legislate anything by anybody. You are trying to convince us that Media Matters is the government and is enforcing dictatorial powers of censorship. The argument has absolutely zero credibility.

You have tried to do a cute little experiment thinking that "liberals" would buy your premise and thus be painted into a corner by not agreeing with you. Just silly.

What is most unusual is that you have, in fact, convinced some of your nutter friends to join your dopey chorus. I expected that they'd ignore you as they normally do.

999 Forever

As I say, you truly are just too small minded to get it.

It's all above your petty little comprehension level.
I wasn't engaged in an "thought experiment" which is a jargon term with no real meaning. Trite tripe. I was asking a question and seeing which alleged "liberals" have principles.

Some didn't even have the guts or the integrity or the intellectual ability to answer.

Others did, but in the process showed their true colors. Not pretty in some cases.

Still others had varying shades of opinion which at least come close to a meaningful appreciation of the values of free speech.

You can barely cobble sentences together. The entire discussion is far beyond your severely limited mental capacity. This may not be your fault. It seems that you truly are quite stupid.

And your urgent desire to deflect reveals you for what you are. So, on a variety of different levels, I am pleased with the outcome of this thread.

 

[freedombecki]

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

The market place of ideas and speech is defended by liberals. I think Rush has every right to ask people to pay him to speak. People have every right to listen or tune out his speech. The people who pay him have every right to consider his speech in the context of their bottom line, if they are a capitalist venture existing mainly to make a profit.

As a liberal, I defend free speech for very similar reasons the ACLU does. I am consistent across the board and defend people's rights to use boycotts of sponsors of profitable enterprises that profit off speech.

Rush Limbaugh can speak. No one can stop him. Some people want him off the public airwaves. Competing interests.

Who do I side with here, Rush's right to speak, or others rights to get him off the air? Both. Do I agree with Rush's ideas and antics? No. Do I agree Rush should be off the air? No.

MediaMatters is not off base. They are an organization that critiques media. They are not the ACLU. You should be supporting their right to go after Rush, even as you defend Rush's desire to be on the air.

I like 80% of your post, but where I differ, is MediaMatters doesn't go after the people they support who are dishonest in their best light.

The best media can do is point to wrongdoing, but instead, they go after destroying a political opponent, because they do not believe in fair and balanced. They believe in left, left, left left left. Not that it matters, but really, take away a guy's living? If they can do that, it could happen to the precedent-setter as well.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who said anything about a "thought experiment"? I think you might be projecting.

Your premise is faulty. And you keep making it.........exposing yourself.

The outcome of this thread is what you make of it.

 

[Too Tall]

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

When Rush goes overseas and disses Obama, as the Dixie Chicks did to Bush, I will join your side. In the meantime, if you don't like what Rush says, don't listen to him.

As far as the Dixie Chicks are concerned, why didn't those on the left buy their records since they approve of that sort of behaviour?

 

[Liability]

Was Rush trying to "silence" Sandra Fluke?

No.

But even if he had been trying to "silence" her, is it your contention that the answer is therefore to silence him?

Very modern American liberal of you.

No, but it seems what goes around comes around

Rush was using his immense power to try to silence a political view that was contrary to his own.
Now, the kickback from his poor judgement is coming back to haunt him

He won't be the first whose own conduct has destroyed his career.......won't be the last

Nope. He was trying to expose what he considered a staged little liberal fraud.

The Democrats on the Pelousy "committee" called this inconsequential woman to "testify" before a "Congressional committee."

And she dutifully did so. The thrust of her speech was pretty ignorant, BUT even so, it really was NOT what Rush then mocked it as having been. Calling Rush on THAT effort would have been perfectly appropriate. But that's not what we see.

Instead, Media Matters is USING it as some golden opportunity to get Rush's sponsors to drop him in the obvious hope that this will wreck his finances and result in him going off the air.

They made a choice. They chose NOT to debate and refute him (which presumably they could have done pretty well since Rush had gone a bit dopey on the matter). INSTEAD they chose to try to get him silenced.

If you don't see their efforts as wrong-headed, misguided and shameful, that's fine. I see that as a reflection on you and the sad state of the modern American liberal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liability,

Please try harder. You are upset that a private company is spending their own money to buy advertising that is aimed at getting people to stop listening to your hero's radio show. There has been no attempt to legislate anything by anybody. You are trying to convince us that Media Matters is the government and is enforcing dictatorial powers of censorship. The argument has absolutely zero credibility.

Not only does it have zero credibility, it’s not even an ‘argument’ to begin with.

One non-profit is not representative of the entire ‘left.’ Only MM can be compelled or is otherwise responsible to explain or defend its actions, not ‘liberals.’

 

[Liability]

Who said anything about a "thought experiment"? I think you might be projecting.

Your premise is faulty. And you keep making it.........exposing yourself.

The outcome of this thread is what you make of it.

You did. (You said "experiment, I added the word "thought," but it fits. It didn't involve chemicals after all, you dishonest twit.)

My premise is right on the money.

The only ones I have exposed are "liberals" such as you.

I'm good with that.

 

[Liability]

Liability,

Please try harder. You are upset that a private company is spending their own money to buy advertising that is aimed at getting people to stop listening to your hero's radio show. There has been no attempt to legislate anything by anybody. You are trying to convince us that Media Matters is the government and is enforcing dictatorial powers of censorship. The argument has absolutely zero credibility.

Not only does it have zero credibility, it’s not even an ‘argument’ to begin with.

One non-profit is not representative of the entire ‘left.’ Only MM can be compelled or is otherwise responsible to explain or defend its actions, not ‘liberals.’

Again, your complete lack of reading comprehension skills is on display. I didn';t suggest that ALL liberals think alike, you dishonest hack.

In point of fact, I fully expected to get a variety of answers. A whole array of answers. This is a very positive sign. It is nice to see that liberals don't have to engage in sheep like group think. SOME liberals (even a few with whom I often disagree) are perfectly able to think for themselves.

You apparently aren't one of them. But you aren't too bright, so you don't count.

 

[Liability]

Specifically, how are they going about it?

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

Read the footnotes.

Your answer is a deflection.

If they are financially promoting ads to persuade companies to refrain from giving ads to the Rush show, is that something you support?

sure and the people have the right to ignore Rush and Media matters and make up their own mind.

Yes. People sure do.

But if I read your reply correctly, YOU think it's just peachy for Media Nutters to try to silence Rush like this? Is that REALLY your thinking?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liability seeks validation from liberals. How cute.