Conservative talker Rush Limbaugh used to tell his listeners that the government was trying to silence him, based on a completely bogus tale about what the Fairness Doctrine would do.
This time around, it's an ad campaign by the liberal group Media Matters for America directed at some of the stations that air Limbaugh's show. The group is encouraging citizens to contact stations and let them know they object to Limbaugh's degrading, sexist comments about Sandra Fluke.
So what's the controversy? Fox News host Bill O'Reilly thundered (3/22/12) that "the far-left is a primary source of censorship in America." He went on:
There is something very fascist about all of this. Shut down your opposition, don't let them speak. Punish people who support them. In every totalitarian state in the world, that is tactic No 1. Silence the opposition.
It's not surprising that O'Reilly–who's got a history of calling for boycotts to punish artists he doesn't like–would say this, but even in mainstream coverage there are some curious ideas floating around.
Radio stations operate on the public airwaves, and in theory are obligated to consider the public interest of their communities. These Media Matters ads encourage listeners to tell stations that they don't think Limbaugh's rhetoric is appropriate for their community. This is apparently causing some consternation. As the Associated Press (3/22/12) reports,
the group's stance has provoked concerns that an effort to silence someone for objectionable talk is in itself objectionable.
It'd be interesting to see someone make that case. The AP doesn't really have that, though. The most strident defense of Limbaugh comes from his syndicator:
"This is not about women," said Rachel Nelson, Premiere spokeswoman. "It's not about ethics and it's not about the nature of our public discourse. It's a direct attack on America's guaranteed First Amendment right to free speech. It's essentially a call for censorship masquerading as high-minded indignation."
Rush Limbaugh, of course, has no First Amendment right that prohibits people from criticizing him. The AP account goes on to say
Beyond the First Amendment concerns, industry experts like Talkers magazine publisher Michael Harrison are concerned that Media Matters' effort will simply take some advertisers out of radio altogether when they have different options.
So the real story isn't so much about the First Amendment; it's about activists who are encouraging advertisers to stay away from Limbaugh's show. There's something ironic about this; Limbaugh once bragged about the "confiscatory" rates he was able to charge advertisers, so perhaps some of them might have decided it was time to stop getting ripped off.
But the role of advertisers in a commercial media system is worth examining. FAIR has long argued that sponsors have considerable power to shape content– a failure to secure corporate sponsorship makes some programming less viable from the very outset. In 2006 FAIR reported on an internal memo from the ABC Radio Networks that instructed stations to keep an array of commercials off of liberal Air America programming. Apparently those companies did not want to be associated with that kind of programming.
So the need to produce a product that will not offend corporate sponsors has a direct effect on what kind of programming is deemed viable in a corporate-dominated commercial system. For decades, Limbaugh's far-right, routinely offensive chatter was OK with corporate advertisers. The same would likely not be true for a progressive talk show.
Corporate advertising, in other words, is not value-neutral. Far from it. Advertising is what has made Rush Limbaugh's radio career so lucrative, for himself and the stations that air him. Citizens who speak out against his show aren't infringing on his First Amendment rights. They're using their First Amendment rights to challenge him.
About Peter Hart
So, this would be the same AP whose SOP is to exclude the voices of anyone other than those "vetted" as within the acceptable spectrum of political discourse?
That's a very black kettle
Without a pot to piss on
I contacted the local (West Palm Beach, FL) station that airs Rush. Told them to drop Rush and put Huckabee in his stead as he is beginning a radio show. Just as conservative but I doubt he would stoop to Rush's level.
Syracuse NY radio for many years had local furniture, auto, attorney, etc. sponsors on the Clearchannel's WSYR AM radio, sponsoring Rush, Hannity, Savage, Beck, and some other HATERADIO talkers, even tho surveys and voter registration in Syracuse and Onondaga County is split with 35% Democrats, 33% GOP. and 32% not registered in a party, thus independents.
So various Moveon activists complained to the furniture stores, auto dealers, etc.
and they ceased ads during Rush's, Hannity, etc. show–sometimes advertising on the hour,.
Unfortunately, some Syracuse sponsors have crept back to advertising on WSYR HATERADIO hours, until the latest Rush attack on law student Sandra Fluke.
Syracusans have complained to the local sponsors (Honda City, et. al) who have since
stopped ads on Rushs show.
But, all the talk show in Syracuse remain HATERADIO.
Am I naive or is lying protected by freedom of speech? Can't Rush be sued, or is honesty only for poor people?
"Corporate advertising, in other words, is not value-neutral. Far from it. Advertising is what has made Rush Limbaugh's radio career so lucrative, for himself and the stations that air him. Citizens who speak out against his show aren't infringing on his First Amendment rights. They're using their First Amendment rights to challenge him."
Rush Limbaugh's rants were always crazy and inflammatory. It apparently worked for the audience it was directed at, and, thus, sponsors gladly handed over their advertising dollars in hopes of selling their wares. If the sponsors had did not seen their bottom line go up, they would not have kept up their association with Limbaugh.
Watching him lately in video clips, since I usually don't listen to him or watch him , he seems to be old and worn out. He can not sustain a consistent stream of thought throughout his presentation. He is on his way out because his time has come to an end. The loss of advertisers, and eventually his program, will come because he will no longer be a money maker as he was in the past. Good riddance.
Let's support valuable programming to make a statement. We will get what we ask for if we speak out in large numbers.
I don't like Rush. I don't like Doonsbury being censored for a week either. But what I hate is when corporations shut down either Rush or Doonsbury, because neither is PC enough. We have lost freedom of speech if everyone that speaks something that is not politically correct gets fired. Freedom of speech is about the exchange of ideas that are not popular. Those are the ones that should be protected. Yes what Rush said seemed outrageous to most everyone, but who among us has not said something that was not PC? What kind of country will we have when everyone is cowed into silence for fear of loosing their job over a stupid, neab or unkind remark? Free speech means saying something YOU don't like. It means others can safely say something that OFFENDS you and keep their job without fear. Loosen up people. Let others speak – even when what they say is preposterious. Lets' say everyone can say 10 separate dumb things before their career is ruined. We cannot, in the name of political correctness, allow corporations to control who gets freedom of speech.
The First Amendment guarantees your right to shout whatever crazy, hate-inducing crap you want, Rush, but it doesn't guarantee you a soapbox to shout it from. Sucks to be you!
Wait, I'm confused. Rush is the opposition to the going order?
This is NOT about freedom of speech, but faux speech. It is about Rush accusing a young woman of both making a living by selling her sexual favors, and by giving them away in an indiscriminate fashion. Would you allow him to do this to your mother, daughter, sister or wife and feel that it was his right? No, this is– NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. An attack on someone's character. Can you think of anything worse to say about a woman? Perhaps it's a way of negating her. Why are some people all wound up about their own free speech(which has nothing to do with this case) and NOT thinking about the young lady who has suffered this injustice? And why do people listen to this kind of information?
The First Amendment protects Freedom of Speech from government interference, NOT the whims of the free market.
Elliott has it right. It's amazing that no one ever reads the constitution. The First and other Amendments read: CONGESS shall make no law [authoritizing . . . . . ] Until the Civil War, there was no restriction on states establishing , for examaple, a state church. And in fact there were established officials churches in several states, which everyone had to support whehter or not they did beleived in them.
The Frist Amednment on free speech still applies ONLY to the Fed and state goverhnments. Any private citizen has an absolute right to do whatever is within the bounds of law to shut Rush up.
For example, there is no law saying that folk can't use a word starting with n and ending with r and containing igge. But there is no need for a law becuase anyone using that word will instantly become unemployable. That's a sad state of affairs, but that's the way it is.
I find it truly amazing that no one talks about the irony of Rush criticizing someone else's sex life based almost entirely on his fantasies.
This is the guy who got busted returning from a solo trip to the Dominican Republic reimporting (against the 2003 Republican Medicaid "Modernization" and Prescription Drug "Improvement" Act) drugs illegally from the Dominican Republic.
Now, why would he take all that Viagra to the D.R. in the first place? What could he buy there that he couldn't buy in Miami or Los Angeles?
You've got it, and it's not pretty.
Rush is not going away. This is not about advertising. It is about propaganda.
That is so funny that Premiere makes this a Freedom of Speech issue. The LOSS of that freedom already came to Ms. Fkuke, when Mr. Issa and friends wouldn't let her speak to a government panel. It seems so peculiar not to have women speaking about a womens health issues.
Rush lied about what Ms. Fluke was presenting. She used an example of a woman who needed birth control for other health reasons and the cost was so high as to be unaffordable. Ms Fluke was there to represent what birth control means for women's health.
The worst part was that Rush thought she should make video of her sex life so that the government gets its money's worth. Wow! Women equal sex videos…..? What a sad life that man has. Oh…maybe we should all chip in and buy Rush one of those inflatable women; they don't talk either.
We need to DEMAND the reinstatement of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE…which, I believe, Regan neutralized. Americans were invested in their government, policies and affects having intense discussions daily on various issues because they got both sides of all issues. In the 1960s youth took to the streets to protest VietNam's carnage, human & economic – singers like Dylan, the Animals et al, were our Pied Pipers — it terrified the plutocrats – consolidation began. 198o's Murdoch bought up newspapers, book publishing houses, tv stations (Fox) and 20th Century Fox….which was illegal prior to 1980s. He got caught LYING to the public about rBGH Monsanto was putting in milk – he was getting sued by his own reporters who wanted to get out the truth how it would sicken people. Murdoch ENLISTED OTHER CABLE OWNERS AND PAID LEGISLATORS TO CHANGE THE LAW TO ALLOW LYING ON TV TO THE PUBLIC (Google facts of this debacle).
Along comes Clear Channel which bought up 1200 radio stations and homogenized music, sold 20 of 60 minutes to advertisers which mind control younger generations into buying crap and listen to crap 'music' without messages / meaning (dumming down amerika).
Just in the past few days, the FCC passed the allowance of the Prometheus Project – allowing openings for small & local radio stations. We now have the OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE BACK LOCAL MESSAGING AND AIR PEOPLE LIKE THOM HARTMAN, RHANDI RHODES, MIKE MALLOY, AMY GOODMAN and other voices of truth and reason. Google Prometheus Project and move in on the FASCIST HATE MONGERS. Stop whining and do it! I live in the Syracuse NY area and am struggling to get a station on AM full of static in my hearing range….it's VERY AGGRAVATING, AND BY DESIGN. BUT EVEN Republicans realize they are getting screwed in more ways than one in the past 12 years.
Rush is done. He doesn't know it yet, but he is over. Finished. Cooked. While he will always have a small and shrinking cadre of true believers, his days of making a fortune by daily confirming the opinions of the wisdom impaired are done. Sure, he will continue for a while, pretending to be relevant (and he may succeed at that, if only to serve as a role model for what other talkers ought to avoid becoming). But his days of consistently prostituting his gifts of intellect and eloquence to the service of ignorence and prejudice are over, and only about twenty years too late. Bye bye, Rush. It has not been good to know you.
Most freedom of speech is used to libel or slander someone. It is usually not the truth but who cares about the truth? They care about discrediting someone. Republicans have been using it for upteen years now and are getting away with it under the first amendment. Why they are not being sued for their lies is beyond me? Where are the
Democrats who should be making them tell the truth by making it cost them. They are breaking the law with their false belief that freedom of speech means you can tell lies with impunity
The young lady in question has one recourse, and only one, available to her — to sue for defamation of character. If she wins, great, but depending on corporate sponsors to put a sock in Limbaugh's mouth won't work.
Limbaugh is a bully, pure and simple, who uses objectionable language and exaggeration to damage the reputations and careers of the liberal individuals and groups he opposes. Bullying isn't appropriate in a democratic society, and it espeially isn't appropriate on public airwaves. Citizen boycott is a wonderful way to tell a bully to stop it!
"The Public Airwaves". This is where I thought this debate would (should) be going. Mr. Limbaugh needs to be reminded of something; he is not a cable television pundit, an op/ed writer, a magazine feature reporter; he is a person who is enabled to speak his views via "The Public Airwaves". These are leased to Clear Channel Communications and syndicated through their division Pyramid. Syndicated often right back to Clear Channel and other licensed holders of leases issued by the FCC and Federal Government. Under both Reagan and later Clinton, the FCC was somewhat neutered but they still have laws regulating what goes out over the "Public Airwaves".
Mr. Limbaugh is NOT cable, print, a town square protester, a movie, a newspaper. He is a lessee of "The Public Airwaves". As much as I personally find Fox News repulsive, I do not question their right to exist and expound, as they are a cable television entity and are not a public broadcaster. Mr. Limbaugh has used "The Public Airwaves" to espouse his vile views on women (Fluke="Slut"), race (Obama= "Magic Negro") illness (Michael J Fox and Parkinson's disease= "Faker")… I could go on… I ask, is this in the "Public Trust"? Is this a responsible use of "The Public Airwaves"?
As the far right seems to enjoy this retrograde on other issues, often taking us back to the 1950's in the birth control debate, women's reproductive rights, environmental laws and the EPA (founded by Nixon, by the way), gun laws, foreign policy, etc… Why are they so anti retrograde when it comes to the FCC and the rules that protect our "Public Airwaves"? Bill Maher likes to play the victim too, but Bill Maher is shown on HBO, therefore his point is moot, as he is not, like Mr. Limbaugh, on the "Public Airwaves".
Tim Schreier
New York, NY
The FCC Family Guys will raly round the Flag and Rush. They will never "censor" him. They are preoccupied with nipples and expletives, never content and actual libel and slander. But to give them their due, it is libel and slander and the common law recourse is to sue for damages. Hit Rush in the pockertbook, that always really hurts. See
Title: ALL THEM FAMILY GUYS
Link: http://deyanbrashich.com/home/2012/3/8/all-them-family-guys.html
As a veteran of lengthy service overseas, and in hostile areas, I'd like to add that 'Rush' is disgusting and equals a sort of air pollution for those of us serving in the military who experience him being broadcast on Armed Forces Radio. Slinging mud about "feminaziis", alleged slut behaviors and more denigrating language is not objective, uplifting nor 'free speech'. What do you think it's like to be in a tent, thousand of miles from home, with 22 other soldiers -males- and hear this sort of crap. BTW, none of our 'allies' allow such talk on any of their media that is broadcast to their military. It's considered hate mongering, and that's excluded -even in a hostile fire area.
I have no problems against anyone contacting sponsors to complain about a show.I do have a problem with media Matters having a plan in place for four years that would go into effect the minute Rush said something they considered "over the line".The plan had an up to date list of all his sponsors and a group of people that would target call certain key people in the Rush show sponsorship.These calls would be made by media matters stooges who would call many many times purporting to be many different people.This was a round the clock effort.A growing list of Rush sponsors are now planning a law suit.
You see what is wrong here is that the effort was ready to go irrespective of WHAT happened.Years before ANYTHING happened.They could care less about the woman involved.It was a planned moved…a plot to silence a voice.A plot to silence a free citezens free speech.Period.
Joe Wyatt…..I read your blog and thought of all the dumb statements above yours was worst.Rush is under contract for 400 million.He owns his show.His listenership is massive.The biggest in his field.No shrinkage has been reported.In fact everyday it grows.The loss of some sponsors were made up within 3 days(at increased revenue to the show).Um I suppose someday he will end his show.My guess would be the day he meets his God.He laughs everyday on the air at the hypocrisy and lame attempts by the left to silence him.This incident such a small blip when measure against the constant sustained personal attacks by the left on conservative woman being the best example.After 30 years you would think the left would understand that the attempts to remove a rock of conservatism with a splash or two, are a waste of effort.But you keep hoping.Me…….If I were you and I believed in the liberal swill would want Rush to live to a hundred and be on twice a day.That way everyone could hear just how wrong he is.
The late US Supreme Court Justice, William Douglas. once said, in effect as I am paraphrasing, that the best way to eliminate a bad idea (speech) is to expose it, not censor it. He was, of course, opposing government censorship. Employers, however, do have the right to limit the speech of their employees. In other words, you can say and do as you please but an employer does not have to continue to employ you. As for Rush, corporate sponsers will eventually stop their support if his listening audience protests or dwindles.
The Right Wing's victimhood complex strikes again.
@ Suzanna Raker: interesting comment. Makes you wonder if his misogynist, racist, hateful rants have a direct correlation with the escalation of sexual harassment and rapes in the military.
Did you know YOUR tax money subsidizes Rush Limbaugh on the Armed Forces Radio and Television Network? Tell your representatives in Washington D.C. that your tax money should not support Rush Limbaugh. Sign the petition at http://www.signon.org/sign/stoptherushtax
C'mon folks, if you don't like Rush, then turn the station. I want him kept on the air so I can list for a sec and get my outrage quotient….
You see what is wrong here is that the effort was ready to go irrespective of WHAT happened.Years before ANYTHING happened.They could care less about the woman involved.It was a planned moved…a plot to silence a voice. A plot to silence a free citezens free speech.Period. – Micheal e
So speaks another of the Mono-winged Psittacidae who endless repeat the same trash because they have no intelligence of their own. And your proof of this plot? Other than some Drug induced psychosis brought on by listening to too much verbal garbage from Fux Snooze. I suspect that there was no need to plot ahead, as Rush has been eating his own foot consistently for at least 20 years. If Limburger told you the sky was green, you would squawk "Waaachh, the sky is green, the sky is green".
Rush was seriously a hate-monger long before he was 'discovered' by Roger Ailes, who set him up because he was cause these controversy long before he was let out of his cage by Ailes. The only reason that anyone let him out was because he would cause such controversies, and thus stir up the pot. It was all about money; they knew if they could piss enough people off, they would get the 'Numbers' to sell. But he was doing this back in Sacramento, where he was tossed out a number of times because he didn't have enough intelligence to know when to shut up.
If this were anyone but a Fux Snooze Mono-winged Psittacidae they would have been leaving marks on the pavement from their butts bouncing off it from being tossed out the front door. Once again we see the "uber-richt" are willing to lie, cheat distort the facts, doing whatever it takes to make sure they keep any real discussion from happening.
This isn't about Women, or their life's, for Fux Snooze, this is about generating enough smoke and BS to make sure that no serious discussions can ever occur so that any resemblance to "Fair and Balanced" is removed. I can recall when Limburgers favorite quote was the Mich-attributed Herman Goering "If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, it will come to be thought of as the truth". See the man can;t even tell the truth when it comes to telling lies about his childhood hero.
The big problem is that hate speech and slander is still protected as free speech. They shouldn't be. I hope we're seeing the beginning of a whole movement to make the distinction.
The only thing more disgraceful than Rush is that people are still defending him.
Time to dust off and re-read RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A BIG, FAT IDIOT! by Al Franken, now a U.S. Senator from Minnesota.
just always question a person's parenting when witness bad bad bad social/communication behavior being rewarded ? finally, this funny fat fugitive from civility is getting his hand slapped….wah wah wah !
All the conservatives stand up and have a big laugh with Rush over the pot calling the kettle black Libs.We are still waiting for an apology for years of personal insult toward EVERY conservative woman in the lime light.You now have one and counting
Ms. Rachel Nelson is quoted above saying, "It's a direct attack on America's guaranteed First Amendment right to free speech. It's essentially a call for censorship masquerading as high-minded indignation."
Well, Ms. Nelson needs to do a bit of legal research. The First Amendment has never protected defamation of character. Courts have ruled consistently that freedom of speech does not include slander. Not only were Mr. Limbaugh's comments factually inaccurate, they were slanderous. Perhaps he will be sued and learn a lesson about constitutional law, which incidentally would not be lost on the folks at Premier networks.
Thanks for that, Gary Beene. The hatefulness and misogyny in Limbaugh's diatribes and paranoid rants mask the true outrage–he's an ignorant fool, and a goddamn liar. And slander is still illegal.
Rush's rants are becoming more and more outrageous. I say, let him rant. He's lost sponsors, not necessarily because of public outrage, but, perhaps, because he's gone way over the top. I would bet that over half his sponsors never listen to what he says and would be shocked to find they were supporting such drivel. Rush will eventually insult too many (and the wrong) people and his career will end. I'm against censorship and have to bite my tongue to say these things, but, his tasteless diatribes seem to be within his rights. Too bad he chooses to abuse his listeners in this way. Too bad they continue to listen to him and his ignorant, often hupocritical rants.
Well, we plan to exercise our right of free speech to drive Limbaugh off the air and we have just begin.
Rush should be off the air. Clear Channel should be boycotted.
Robert A.First what a hypocrite you are.Before you waste your time trying to drive mr L off the air .How abouts you look at all those on the left who have been insulting conservative woman for years now.Attack them first.Then in about 50 years you can come back around to Rush.For years we on the conservative side have been pointing out personal attacks on conservative woman.You didn't give a F-ing rats ass.Now you get one shot back(apologized for by the way)and you pee yourselves.You really don't want to go there.You really dont.
Jo ann same to you…….I will trade you Rush for oh say a couple "gazillion" Libs.
Elizabeth…You are 100% correct.You don't like him…I love his show.You click it off while I listen.Thats the way it works folks
It's very simple. Rush does not have the constitutional right to be on a talk show. He can speak his mind off the air anytime he likes.
michael e wrote: "How abouts you look at all those on the left who have been insulting conservative woman for years now.Attack them first.Then in about 50 years you can come back around to Rush.For years we on the conservative side have been pointing out personal attacks on conservative woman."
______________________________________________
Yeah, there was Bill Maher and… and… you know… all those thousands of other liberals… and that guy who always wears a shirt…
Look: I'm having trouble thinking of 50 years' worth of conservative women victimhood. Perhaps you can provide some examples, Mr. Awesome-Memory?
I believe that the full context of what Mr. Limbaugh did should be looked at. To do that one would need to listen closely to what Ms. Fluke statement contained; that means listening to all of the testimony. What that close examination would show is: she was discussing women's gynecological conditions which is a statement pertaining to the medicinal necessity of regulation ovarian cycles. Mr. Limbaugh made comments that in their entirety can only be termed obscene and pornographic. Having made that determination where in the first amendment rights do we see that a person has to be granted the freedom to spread pornography on the air waves from 11am to 2pm? If the radio stations who broadcast this pornography want to announce it as such-then OK-let them do that. "The programming content that you are about to hear is X-rated and may not be appropriate for audience members under the age of 18. If you wish to turn your radio dial away from this station to avoid hearing this material please do so now."
Fine-the audience is warned. Also, if pornography is to be broadcast by Mr. Limbaugh don't we have the right to ask that it be labeled for what it is in the name of fairness in broadcasting? Otherwise, the audience and the sponsors are being misled.
If the people of this Idiocracy had half a brain they wouldn't listen to those who spew crap all over the airwaves. Then Limbaugh, the lamebrains at Fox New's, et. al. would be looking for a job elsewhere, like stocking shelves at Wal-Mart.
Ray …Give it a break pal.That is a huge stretch in anyones game book.Rush made a stupid joke of the fact that anyone asking to be paid to have sex(i.e supporting their chosen form of contraception)is a HO.I thought is over the line and not all that funny.He seemed to think it was hysterical-for a time.He was wrong, and said he was sorry.But porn?As i said…we will trade you Rush for damn near every lib commentator i can think of.Conservative woman have been taking it on the chin for ages.Stop crying ya big baby.
Marjorie…..It is Rush's right to speak anywhere at anytime .Especially on a show HE OWNS.You have the same right.Want him to go away?Instantly?Stop listening
John We could do a year on Sarah Palin and her daughters.Remember when a certain liberal talking head called her a venereal disease?How about a slut in a flight attendant suit?How about saying her 16 year old daughter was banging Alex Rodrigez?
How about Kieth o saying Michelle Malcon looked like a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it" and she should die?How about Matt Taibbi saying he wanted to"Tea bag" her?How about her making the list with Megan kelly and mary Katherine of top ten woman guy Cimball wanted to hate fuck?Oh Michelle Bachman made that list as well.Lucky her.How about" the views" conservative voice?Mrs Hassekbach?No she has not had any hate speak at all?How about all the Fox woman?John how about we make this easy.You show me a strong conservative woman who has stepped into the lime light and NOT been personally attacked by the left.I just checked a list of top 100 conservative woman.Every one i know on that list has been savaged to my memory.Im actually surprised you even questioned the notion.It is so common place.Be honest what is the first notion that pops into your head when i say strong conservative woman?Where do you think that comes from?My guess is it simply flys over your head because you have never seen anything wrong with it.You laugh along with it.Accept it.Pass it along.Perpetuate the whole thought process.Maybe you and i conversing like this will wake you up to the fact that we on the right have been sick of this for a long long time.Blood shoots from our eyes at the very idea of libs getting angry that one of their own (woman)was personally insulted.And not to make too fine a point on it….Rush apologized.Where is anything apologetic coming from the left?
Rush (and O'Reilly) has no "First Amendment right" to a radio show. He can, like the rest of us, set up freely on a street corner and bloviate to his hearts content.
Goddamn, our troll apparently doesn't even know how to spell "Michelle Malkin." Perfect. The perfect response (stupidity, ignorance) to the matter. Still our troll doesn't understand (still!) the difference between Michelle Malkin and Sandra Fluke, and wonders why he and Limbaugh and other reactionaries are flambayed on sites like this. The crying is all coming from the thin-skinned right–no surprise, really; our troll and other right-wing Yahoos readily jump to the defense of their masters (Limbaugh, "Malcon", "Hassekbach"(?), etc.) in situations like this. A young woman is slandered after she merely asks to testify before a committee; she doesn't have a mega-million dollar radio show, or a perch on some right-wing web-site where she lies repeatedly and generally makes a fool of herself, and suddenly the plain and simple truths she tells get her a cruel, stupid, ignorant, puerile, and lying dressing-down from imbeciles who aren't fit to clean her garbage cans out. Again, the standard on the Right is: Condemn and villify and tell lies about the weak, the powerless, and the un-monied. Losers.
P.S.: I know, I know: I've broken my rule again, and addressed a right-wing know-nothing's fantastic mis-conceptions and lies. It's hard, people. Every once in a while, I stray. Actually, I've been thinking about treating our Right-wingers here with a bit more civility. We'll see. It's that Hope And Change thing I missed out on. And good old-fashioned Christian verity
P.P.S.: Actually, Mat Taibbi once referred to "Michelle Malcon" as a "mean little dunce." A perfect description, really. He was comparing her unfavorably to another harridan on the right, the much more celebrated (and richer) Ann Coulter.
"Mat"? Look who's talking. But it was an accident.
@michael e: Still not seeing 50 years of victimhood there, Total Recall. Remember the calendar, do ya? All the events you cite are from the last 5 years.
Remember how personally vicious Rush and some others were about Chelsea Clinton? I do. And that's about the last time I paid attention. I don't comment about what those on the left say about conservative women for the following reasons: (1) I'm simply not aware of it; (2) even if it does cross a line, two wrongs don't make a right; (3) aside from Palin's children, they are taking swings at those in power whereas Limbaugh had such guts he had to sucker-punch a private citizen law student; (4) none of the commentators you cite come anywhere near the mantle of leadership that Limbaugh holds with the Republican Party; (4) the colossal prick showed no intention of apologizing, and flatly refused to do so, until hit in the wallet; and (5) the title of this thread is "New Campaign to Silence Rush Limbaugh"– it's not "Let's Compare Limbaugh to Olberman, et al."; when I comment on such a thread and ignore these things, then you can criticize me.
Of course, all this assumes you're being accurate and truthful in your allegations against left commentators. And your track record on that is pretty poor. But some of it sounds vaguely familiar. The bottom line though is that you can't just say: "Others crossed a line and so it should be no big deal what Limbaugh did." You're comparing apples to oranges and you're assuming, without demonstrating, that the others crossed lines with no consequences at all.
In my view, Limbaugh has always been a bully. If you're gonna be a bullying dickweed for years, you can't cry foul when you finally get called out. Cry me a river, fat boy. And aside from the bullying, did anyone notice how his comments about Fluke indicates that he thinks that a woman has to take a pill every time she has sex? And that there's no other medical reason for birth control? So not only is he a bully, but he's apparently a freakin' moron, too. And this is the guy who wants to speak for conservatives?
The key thing to remember about Rush is that there are ALWAYS gonna be MILLIONS of "Angry, White Males," who are no longer given carte blanche to rave about their racial and/or social "inferiors" at home or at work without risk of social opprobrium, and who listen faithfully to Rush as the person who says publically what they can no longer even much think, much less say.
This is Rush's audience. They buy locally, from body shops, and parts stores, and liquor stores. Even if Rush were "driven" off the air, the demographic to which he panders is so large that another, equally or perhaps more loathsome exemplar would take his place. Even if one station ion a market might drop him, another would snatch it up.
Rush is a guaranteed paycheck in local markets.
He's not going ANYWHERE, unless–a la Breitbart–it's in a piano crate to dispose of his festering remains…