Skip to main content

View Diary: 2,200+ Limbaugh Sponsors - Gone! (127 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do What You Think You Need to Do (0+ / 0-)

    I absolutely understand your feelings. Limbaugh is a blight. It is physically, and emotionally and intellectually painful to know that his filth contaminates the public airwaves and discourse.

    But you need to understand: if there comes a clear cut point where you are about to succeed in getting this guy off the air, there are a number of people, including me, who will finance and work for a "Liberals for Diversity of Speech" or something to keep him going.

    These are people who believe what you are doing is fundamentally wrong and damaging to our still fragile notion of democracy. There are people, also, who believe the buffoon Limbaugh and his ilk have and will provide a healthy safety valve preventing massive numbers of armed wingnuts to wreak havoc against local government officials nation-wide.

    I understand that freedom of speech, as a constitutional protection, protects only government aggression against freedom, not your private action. But the constitutional right flows from an inherently individual human concept of right and fairness, and your aggression against that right shall not stand.

    Now, Limbaugh may well choose, in the unlikely, nighmare-for-him outcome that you folks succeed, to work for peanuts in a makeshift national network that will be made available to him. But that will be his choice as to whether his voice will be heard, not the choice of opinion suppressors like you.

    •  with respect: baloney (26+ / 0-)

      As you note, this isn't about legislating against him. (Although i remain convinced that, technically, he's made several cases for that.)

      But the freedom of speech doesn't protect you against public dissent.

      This is about making enough noise that the people funding his "free speech" take notice that the man can be pretty goddamned offensive to many people.

      All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

      by subtropolis on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 11:46:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fight His Words With Better Words (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RUNDOWN, elwior, subtropolis

        "freedom of speech doesn't protect you against public dissent"

        Then dissent. Try to finesse your way through his screeners and talk on his show; hundreds do. Call other shows. Write letters, articles, blogs. Try even to write reasonable posts on the nut logs; I have and I've had them stand for hours.

        Know your (our) target BTW, it's the independent, not-party-registered, apathetic, turned-off 22-33% of our nation's voters. They decide everything. Limbaugh has little effect on most of these people, but a successful organized effort by the left to force him off the air will have a HUGELY damaging effect.

        Yes, Limbaugh (temporarily) off-the-air or with a drastically reduced audience will generate dancing in the streets from those already with us. I am claiming (and I'm saying this partly to hear other opinions to test whether I'm wrong), I think it's wrong-headed and dangerous.

        •  I think you are ignoring a few layers (33+ / 0-)

          in the total construct of what Rush Limbaugh actually consists of.

          First it is a company which produces a product. The product consists of broadcasting content over the commercial airwaves. The company makes money from this and is the reason it produces the product resulting in Rush Limbaugh making a lot  of money for producing the product.

          Free speech has very little to do with this. It is just a vehicle for the product and making money.

          If Rush Limbaugh wants to exercise his free speech he can do so on any street corner any time he wishes to do so.

          People have every right to tell companies who buy advertising that they find the product that they are supporting by their advertising is such a poor product that they object to them providing monetary support to further the production of this product.

          The advertisers can ignore those objections, the radio stations can keep carrying the broadcast product.

          Very little to do with free speech per se.

          The Fierce Urgency of Later

          by Faroutman on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:10:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed (8+ / 0-)

            If he were doing what he does for "free", then I would support his constitutional right to free speech.

            We've been spelling it wrong all these years. It's actually: PRO-GOP-ANDA

            by Patriot4peace on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:43:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Publc Speech Can't be Purchased? Gack! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Leslie Salzillo, CoExistNow

            "If Rush Limbaugh wants to exercise his free speech he can do so on any street corner any time he wishes to do so"

            But if advertisers want to buy him air time that's not OK?

            I'm certainly willing to be persuaded but I was brought up differently. There have been times where it was difficult to get liberal voices heard. There was an inefficient and misdirected effort called "the Black List" from the 1940s and through the 1950s in which true believers tried to suppress opinion through advertiser threats, to benefit their concept of what America was and stood for. My grandparents and parents happened to think those true believers were wrong. My family heroes did not stand strong for America and suffer the consequences so that we could throw their ideals away a few years later when it suited our "noble" purpose.

            •  A Few Blacklist Victims (Our Side but ...) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior

              I don't have a feel for how well-educated members of this forum are, but here is a lowest-common-denominator list of a few well-known entertainment industry figures of the late 1940s early 1950s whose careers were destroyed or negatively impacted because vigilante committees who thought they had the country's best interest at heart decided to deny them sponsors or employment.

              To mention Rush Limbaugh's name in the company of these people kinda makes me sick, but what you people are trying to do to Limbaugh makes me sick, and dishonors their memory, so here we are.

              Stella Adler, Eddie Albert, Richard Attenborough, Orson Bean, Harry Belafonte, Herschel Bernardi, Leonard Bernstein, Walter Bernstein, Oscar Brand, J Edward Bromberg, Abe Burrows, Morris Carnovsky, Charles Chaplin, Lee J Cobb, Charles Collingwood, Dorothy Comingore, Marc Connelly, Aaron Copland, Jeff Corey, Irwin Corey, John Cromwell, Howard Da Silva, Jules Dassin, Karen DeWolf, Howard Duff, Frances Farmer, John Henry Faulk, José Ferrer, Carl Foreman, Martin Gabel, John Garfield, Barbara Bel Geddes, Will Geer, Jack Gilford, Ruth Gordon, Michael Gordon, Lee Grant, Ben Grauer, Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Nat Hiken, Judy Holliday, Lena Horne, Langston Hughes, Marsha Hunt, Kim Hunter, John Ireland, Burl Ives, Sam Jaffe, Gordon Kahn, Garson Kanin, Victor Kilian, Sidney Kingsley, Alexander Knox, Gypsy Rose Lee, Irving Lerner, Norman Lloyd, Joseph Losey, Peter Lyon, Ben Maddow, Myron McCormick, John McGrew, Bill Meléndez, Burgess Meredith, Arthur Miller, Henry Morgan, Zero Mostel, Jean Muir, Dorothy Parker, Larry Parks, Leo Penn, Irving Pichel, Louis Pollock, William Pomerance, John Randolph, Anne Revere, Dolores del Rio, Martin Ritt, Edward G Robinson, William Robson, Hazel Scott, Pete Seeger, Artie Shaw, Irwin Shaw, Madeleine Sherwood, William L Shirer, Howard K Smith, Gale Sondergaard, Lionel Stander, Paul Stewart, Sam Wanamaker, Orson Welles, Josh White

              •  Absolute crap (15+ / 0-)

                You are seriously making a contextual connection between McCarthyism and Flush Rush? I would suggest that you both reread your history and hone your critical analysis skills.

                As for this:

                To mention Rush Limbaugh's name in the company of these people kinda makes me sick,
                Well don't then.
                •  McCarthyism (0+ / 0-)

                  The political persecution of most of the people on this list pre-dated Tailgunner Joe McCarthy. And if I had made the list longer (with names even less familiar to modern audiences) it would have included an even higher percentage.

                  But I didn't mean to stop you; you're on a roll.

                  •  You are seriously, and I mean seriously in error (0+ / 0-)

                    You are comparing the deliberate political and economic suppression of numerous people because of accused ties to an ideology to... A lying bloviator who deliberately misrepresents news, facts, and discourse in order to communicate the underlying message that rich people should never pay taxes and that those other poor people are out to get you, the listener.  This lying bloviator is kept on hundreds of radio stations not by the free market but by rich people with an agenda paying for that agenda to stay out there.  Similarly, these same rich people deliberately shut down any station broadcasting competing points of view. Do you really think there is no, as in zero market for liberal radio?

                    And you think organizing people to say, enough, we don't need the wellspring of common discourse poisoned by this lying bloviator anymore is equivalent to conspiring to firing hundreds of people who were accused of endorsing an idea, or knowing someone who endorsed such an idea, or accused of knowing someone accused of an endorsing an idea.

                    You really think that?

                    Really?

                    You think the tool of the military-industrial complex is the equivalent of its VICTIMS?  You think organizing to protest its tactics is the equivalent of the way it crushes innocent people?

                    I can't figure out if you're a wide-eyed complete naïf or a really ineffective troll.

              •  At the risk of Godwin's Law (10+ / 0-)

                If A.H. (you know who I mean) had a radio show today, and was spewing his special brand of ant-semitic hate upon the listening population, would you be trying to keep him on the air for the sake of what you see as "balance"?

                Are you right now trying to find a radio or television venue for Stormfront or the Klan, since they offer a political viewpoint?

                Are you suggesting that the Civil Rights protesters erred in using boycotts against bus lines and other businesses that segregated in the 50's and 60s?

              •  Did u say OUR speech makes you sick? (8+ / 0-)

                People here are 1 exercising a constitutional right to organize 2 exercising a constitutional right to free speech.

                3. There is no Constitional Right involved by any action against Rush. The Constitution Protects you from the GOVERNMENT'S action. If it were close look up IIRC National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) (upholding viewpoint-based criteria for public funding of the arts).

                I have every right to post on a website the names of people who believe that a certain individual whomever they are should not be listened to nor paid for what they say. The government is the only one who can affect my rights.

                Even if it were there I would be a bit skiddish about saying what Rush does is free speech. Not all Speech is protected by the First Amendment:

                1. Advocacy of Imminent Lawless Action- I bet he's been very close to the Brandenberg test (fully UNPROTECTED)
                2.  Lewd/Profane/Indecent (partially UNPROTECTED)
                3. Defamatory  (partially UNPROTECTED)

                And don't make a strawman of someone defaming him. He is a public figure, different tests my friend. Nor are any of us Governemental Actors. Let him broadcast from his parents basement.

                Rush's broadcasts are particularly of import to the 1st Amendment- to protect against- as he is on Radio, his audience doesn't pay to hear, it is beemed into your car. You are a "Captive Audience" so subject to a higher standard than if you were on Sirius (and accessed by paying/knowing).

                And I am not even going to get into the fact that the Airwaves are theoretically the People's. . .

                I've usually invited altering viewpoints but you are clever in your condescension, clearly you aren't particularly educated.

                Rush is reeping what he sewed. There is no difference between that and us parsing your words til you slip up and we can HR you.

                P.S. Also convenient your list is in alphabetical order. I suppose you just have it organized in your head that way? Right.

                •  Alphabet (0+ / 0-)

                  "convenient your list is in alphabetical order."

                  I said "here is a lowest-common-denominator list of a few well-known entertainment industry figures of the late 1940s early 1950s whose careers were destroyed or negatively impacted because vigilante committees who thought they had the country's best interest at heart decided to deny them sponsors or employment."

                  Later I said "if I had made the list longer (with names even less familiar to modern audiences) it would have included an even higher percentage [of pre-Joe McCarthy victims]."

                  So yes, it is an abbreviated list of names, of hundreds, those few I thought might be somewhat familiar to at least some of the readers here. I do know the alphabet, though I confess I used Excel to sort it once I put it all together, and I'm sorry if that's offensive.

              •  You should have stopped at (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Leslie Salzillo, mikejay611, elwior

                To mention Rush Limbaugh's name in the company of these people kinda makes me sick-

                You will soon learn; probably the hard way, you are way out of your league here, with your projection and fear-

                Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

                by RF on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:23:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here (0+ / 0-)

                  "You will soon learn; probably the hard way, you are way out of your league here"

                  Up until today, I never had the sense I was unacceptable here. Certainly I occasionally felt different from the current norm (which I think maybe some will admit changes from time to time), but felt I was tolerated even if I had a notion to express something off-center that I felt at the moment.

                  Sparky Anderson, while manager of the Tigers I think, once said he always told the truth, but was accused of being off the reservation because he sometimes had an idea, even changed his mind.

                  But perhaps you are right. I do believe some groups need a cohesive, closed set of universally adhered to stuff, and that departures too far outside that set, as I have transgressed, are disruptive and undesirable. I'm not trying to be dismissive, I believe in ritual, the whole bonding thing. It's a Wild Wild West out there and civilized people need to stick together and comfort each other with their shared view. I believe that, without reservation.

                  My comments in this thread have been not sensitive to the general feeling.  

                  •  Your spurious comments in this thread- (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    elwior

                    Do not add to the conversation; they serve to muddy, incessantly what is obvious fact-

                    You have come to the wrong venue to engage in subterfuge, I being not one of the strongest here to call out your stench of disingenuous bile-

                    Harsh?  Yes indeed-  

                    That is exactly how many, many citizen Americans and fellow earthlings feel regarding the mass-media "world view for you" manipulation of opinion, and when it is tried in weak-kneed pretense, as you have done so here, voluminously, well then expect to get pile driven into the ground so much so that the only faint excuse in final utterance is that folks here are a group that is only interested

                    "in closed set of universally adhered to stuff"
                    which is bogus and spurious on it's face-

                    I'm done; goodwill to the well hidden, real you-

                    RF in NH-

                    :♥)

                    Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

                    by RF on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:46:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  But these were GOVERNMENT committees (7+ / 0-)

                and this was government action against private citizens.

                A consumer boycott of an advertiser is entirely different.  It is I as an individual saying to a company "I'm not going to buy your product because it is associated with hate speech."  

                I see this as totally different from what McCarthy did.

                It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                by Radiowalla on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:25:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Reducto ad absurdum (5+ / 0-)

                The argument you make here removes the target of a given action entirely from the context of that action in order to draw a meaningless comparison. It is akin to arguing that because meritless lawsuits have been used to chill speech and harass individuals that we approve of, lawsuits should never be used to punish actual libel or infringement. Or that because the criminal justice system has been used to falsely imprison activists or suppress dissent, that we shouldn't call 911 to report an actual crime.

                It is, needless to say, utter nonsense.

                You challenge us to fight his speech with better speech. What exactly do you think a boycott is? It's a group of individuals expressing their disapproval of someone else's actions or speech. If this was simply a racist acquaintance or family member saying vile things, it would be sufficient for one or two individuals to speak up in opposition. The problem is that Limbaugh has a microphone and position of power that completely drowns out the efforts of any individual. The only solution to that is for individuals to band together as a group in order to match the volume and influence that Limbaugh wields.

                Rush has every right to say the vile things he does. But he does not have any sort of inherent right to have a radio show, media empire, or the kind of inflated influence that he has. The First Amendment covers his right to his voice and his words--not his wealth or the size of his microphone.

                You seem to think that a boycott attacks the former. It does not. A boycott seeks to undermine the influence and source of income that allows his voice to drown out millions of others.

                Please learn to distinguish between the two before launching any kind of ill-considered "counter-boycott".

                Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.

                by Catsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:43:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Stella Adler is a hero to my 19 year old daughter, (0+ / 0-)

                a drama student at NYU.

                "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

                by elwior on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:19:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  The 1% infonews media "Playing field" isn't level (5+ / 0-)

          and to assume that it is so, is to blow smoke up a person's ass by being one-

          Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

          by RF on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:27:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  How is requesting that advertisers not (0+ / 0-)

          sponsor him NOT dissenting, again?

    •  he's not a safety valve, he's an instigator (18+ / 0-)

      He's one of the voices pouring outrage and hate and fear into these people's heads on a daily basis. I wouldn't call that a safety valve.

    •  Say what? (9+ / 0-)

      Henonny,

      I'm surprised to hear anyone ascribing to being a liberal, or liberal thinking, who would want to do anything that would help Limbaugh stay on our public airways.  You would finance such a thing?. 'Liberals for Diversity of Speech'? Is that like 'Citizens United'? A name that sounds good... but means something else?

      No liberal that I know would do anything to keep Limbaugh on the air.  He pollutes our public airways, our media and our country.

      Heynonny: "But you need to understand: if there comes a clear cut point where you are about to succeed in getting this guy off the air, there are a number of people, including me, who will finance and work for a "Liberals for Diversity of Speech" or something to keep him going.These are people who believe what you are doing is fundamentally wrong and damaging to our still fragile notion of democracy".
      Respectfully, I see contradictions everywhere in your comment.

      "When faced with darkness, be the light."

      by Leslie Salzillo on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:37:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  what a load (14+ / 0-)

      he is purely a subsidized product of corporate america benefitting from a monopoly of public airwaves, bought up after reagan killed the fairness doctrine  for the purpose of giving him a protected country-wide soapbox to read think tank produced bullshit.

      the idea that 95% of americans who listen to or would listen to talk radio, which dominates politics in most areas of the country, prefer to hear the wit and wisdom of the likes of  limbaugh and hannity and beck over the progressives is ridiculous.

      damaging to our still fragile notion of democracy.
      no one is a bigger PC cop and censor-by-threat the last 20 years than limbaugh.  the only reason his is not down to 50 stations in the south and a few here and there is because  he gets a free speech free ride .  and a lot of that comes from "free speech" advocates who have no idea how much RW radio has kicked democracy around the last 20 years.

      This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

      by certainot on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:27:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Think You've Got the Crux of It (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bontemps2012

        "the idea that 95% of americans who listen to or would listen to talk radio, which dominates politics in most areas of the country, prefer to hear the wit and wisdom of the likes of  limbaugh and hannity and beck over the progressives is ridiculous."

        I'm sorry my ineptitude of posting caused my previous reply not to "take," but really it's just as well because I'm still trying to digest this seminal statement.

        If somehow Limbaugh's mass audience is being forced to listen to him, then this has to be fixed.

        If he's expressing opinions and idiots are choosing to listen to him of their own free will, then I have this silly notion that's up to them, not us.

        •  His First Amendment privilege (7+ / 0-)

          is widely recognized to come to an end when he yells the equivalent of "fire" in a crowd.

          He is not protected by the Bill of Rights to intentionally lie, coerce, propagandize, and foment hatred and violence.

          His career consists of (ab)using his popularity to get people to vote against their own economic interests.

          His "opinion" is one thing, and if he were to say things like "it's only my opinion..." then I would be closer to agreeing with you.

          He does nothing of the kind. He emphatically states lies as if they were the truth. He has no right, constitutional or moral, to do that.

          We've been spelling it wrong all these years. It's actually: PRO-GOP-ANDA

          by Patriot4peace on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:36:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Free Speech (15+ / 0-)

          Free speech does not give Limbaugh the automatic right to have a public radio show to spread hate, racism, misogyny and bigotry.

          In this boycott, citizen/consumers are reaching out to sponsors and letting them know that they do not want their money going to products that support that kind of show.

          If sponsors care about their customers, they listen. Some companies chose to ignore and stay. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. We are exercising our basic American rights to protest, petition and boycott - along with free speech.

          "When faced with darkness, be the light."

          by Leslie Salzillo on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:37:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Joseph Goebbels is wildly popular. (0+ / 0-)

          Ask his girls.

          "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

          by bontemps2012 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:41:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  you will fight for their right to have a monopoly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Leslie Salzillo, elwior, SadieSue

          that;s what you said originally, it seemed to me

          the fact is that in most parts of the country there are no free alternatives for politics while driving or working - RW AM radio is it. and they're coordinated in the important messaging, they are protected by call screeners and they use paid callers, and they protect their monopoly from competition- progressive radio. they are a 24/7 advertisement for the 1%.

          the activism re limbaugh and fluke is mostly limited to limbaugh's hate speech, which i think is fantastic but doesn't go as far as i'd want, and is just a bunch of americans that are using their free speech rights. they/we see an asshole on the corner screaming lies and hate at and about us and this is one way to get in his face and yell back.

          the coordinated RW radio monopoly is the single most effective tool for short circuiting the feedback mechanisms a democracy needs and it has been doing it effectively for 20 years. finally there is a free speech response.

          he'll always be able to find radio stations for his crap. he doesn't have the right to say whatever he wants to as many people as he wants on public airwaves without feedback. he's finally getting direct feedback and if the only place you can hear him is online from alabama he'll still have his freedom of speech.

          as for why i am concerned about what dominates the AM radio dial in most parts of the country, OUR PUBLIC AM AIR WAVES ARE DOMINATED BY LIARS WHO SELL WARS AND BY FOSSIL FUELS GLOBAL WARMING DENYING LIARS WHO ARE THREATENING TO DESTROY ME AND MY FELLOW SPECIES AND MY PLANET.

          that you would fight for their right to keep that monopoly is funny.

          This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

          by certainot on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:30:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Three points (6+ / 0-)

          1) A direct answer to your question. Example: Limbaugh is on Armed Forces Radio. No Liberal voices permitted.

          2) It turns out that most advertisers on Limbaugh's show do not know that they are doing it. Stations sell contracts to place ads throughout their schedules, so advertisers who already object to Limbaugh have to be informed when their ads run on his show, and told how to get the stations to keep him out of the rotation for their own ads.

          3) Anyway, it's not as bad as sometimes made out. There simply aren't enough angry White men left to win elections with, as SC Sen. Lindsey Graham noted at the Republican convention last year. Just like the Southern Baptists, the subject of the book The Incredible Shrinking Church, and the rest of the Southern Strategy and Religious Right coalition of racism, bigotry, misogyny, and Mammonism. Their children are falling away, or as they call it, "backsliding", producing a massive new Generation Gap, and a shift of the whole US public on social issues by about 1% annually.

          We are moving faster on LGBT rights, now that we have passed the tipping point. NRA members favor gun legislation. The police favor dumping the Drug War in favor of treatment. A majority is in favor of doing something about Global Warming. The children and grandchildren of Cuban refugees want to open up relations with Cuba. The country will never go Pro-Choice, but will undoubtedly come to accept family planning and real sex education, as much more effective methods for reducing abortion than simple Prohibition.

          The Republican Party is in danger of going the way of the Federalists and the Whigs, and for much the same reasons. Only gerrymandering in state legislatures and the House, and the filibuster in the Senate, have prevented it from happening already. But the forces of Reaction are well-organized, well-funded, and increasingly desperate, and as a result increasingly loud and nasty. Their continuing purges of all voices of moderation add to the loudness and nastiness. It is necessary to go against the funders and purveyors of this hatred, not by censorship but by being organized against it, just as they are for it. Not in the same ways, of course.

          America—We built that!

          by Mokurai on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:11:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's a victory if he stays on, but with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      zero ad sponsors, fewer channels broadcasting, and funded only by the robber barons.

      A commercial withdrawal from his garbage maintains his right to spew complete and utter nonsense while giving a clear signal that the vast majority of Americans find him deplorable to the extent they think about him at all.

      This is marginalization and it is not the dysfunctional idiot's friend.

      Keep it up. Well done.

    •  Seriously? (8+ / 0-)
      But you need to understand: if there comes a clear cut point where you are about to succeed in getting this guy off the air, there are a number of people, including me, who will finance and work for a "Liberals for Diversity of Speech" or something to keep him going.
      There is a value to having a conservative viewpoint for balance.  Rush isn't it.  Rush is a bloviating, asinine, arrogant fearmonger.

      Or do you think calling a college student a slut and demanding that she provide sex tapes is somehow providing balance to political viewpoints and elevating the political discussion?

      There is a difference between providing a different viewpoint or political angle, and just being a money-grubbing, ratings hungry misogynist asshat with a microphone.

      If you want to personally finance a conservative political voice on the airwaves, fine.  But just to back Rush for Rush's sake in the idea of some kind of false balance is ludicrous.

    •  Limbaugh's freedom of speech is not in play here (9+ / 0-)

      because it is not the GOVERNMENT stopping him from being heard and Congress has not done anything to prevent him from being heard.

      seriously, do you people ever even read the First Amendment?

      Limbaugh is free to say whatever he wants.

      And people who oppose him have the right to avoid listening to him, paying his salary, or supporting those who do.

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:20:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In Praise of Reading (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JayRaye

        "it is not the GOVERNMENT stopping [Limbaugh] from being heard and Congress has not done anything to prevent him from being heard.
        seriously, do you people ever even read the First Amendment?"

        From one of the first few posts in this thread:

        "Freedom of speech, as a constitutional protection, protects only government aggression against freedom, not your private action [against Limbaugh]"

        I certainly agree with you that reading is a wonderful thing and I join with you in encouraging it.

        •  i have read the post you quoted (10+ / 0-)

          in fact, it is the comment I am responding to.

          if you truly believe that

          Freedom of speech, as a constitutional protection, protects only government aggression against freedom, not your private action [against Limbaugh]"
          then there should be no "But" that follows.

          any "inherently individual human concept of right and fairness" must include the right of people who disagree with what someone is saying to tell other people about their disagreement.

          if that persuades others to withdraw their support from the offensive speech, that is fine.

          the answer to offensive speech is more speech.

          Our speech.

          Our speech telling people that Limpbaugh is hateful and that we will not purchase products from anyone who helps pay his salary or in any way makes it possible for him to continue his bigoted attacks.

          They are free to support him and we are free to refuse to support them.  And everyone is still free to talk about it.

          "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

          by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:52:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Above Is One Of the Best Posts in Thread (0+ / 0-)

            Thanks. You crystalize my ambivalence about this.

            Essentially I agree with the right of "Clear Channels" and the other groups to do what they did, also.

            It just makes me very, very uncomfortable, no, sick. But I basically think you're probably correct.

            When the dust settles though, if the effort is successful, I will support Limbaugh's right to an audience of fools.

            I guess not so much because you and the vigalante but legal censors don't have your right, as you point out that's a freedom too, always has been, but just because my stomach can't cope with a political voice being hounded into silence by a mob, however legal.  

            •  he has a right to an audience of fools (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Radiowalla, elwior, RF

              if the fools choose to put up enough money to support him, fine.

              but i do not see any reason why I should help fools support someone I do not support by purchasing their products.

              Not only that, some of the sponsors just didn;t know what he had been saying, and once the hate speech was pointed out to them, it was the sponsors' own decision to stop advertising with him, even absent the threat of a boycott.

              Mitt Romney's political voice was silenced bv a mob also.   That doesn't mean I should give money to him, or Bain, or his SuperPACs, or do business with anyone else who does.

              your idealism is misplaced here.  I doubt if we will ever agree.  but i do thank you for the positive comments in your post.

              "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

              by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:54:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  A "political voice being hounded into silence"? (0+ / 0-)

              Good grief, he's a huckster selling a product, no more, no less.  When a product is harmful it should be taken off the shelves, like Tylenol with cyanide in it.

    •  Curious- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leslie Salzillo, elwior
      There are people, also, who believe the buffoon Limbaugh and his ilk have and will provide a healthy safety valve preventing massive numbers of armed wingnuts to wreak havoc against local government officials nation-wide.
      Have you read any reality news these days; oh boy?  Props to Lennon-

      ... About the shooters across the country gone awry?

      That "safety valve" you speak of is actually a trigger mechanism equating to "four thousand {or more potential} holes" that the law of averages sees fit to execute; all the while no one's hand is dirty, except the poor soul who cleans the blood and brains from the 1%er's car who couldn't keep going "to bat" as you continue to do here...

      Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

      by RF on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:38:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good Lord! (heynonny) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leslie Salzillo, Eyesbright, elwior

      Limbaugh's speech is a safety valve?  What about all the morons who didn't KNOW they were angry until they heard his bullshit?

      Bottom line:

      He has ever RIGHT to speak.

      And these good folks have every right to make it DIFFICULT for him to get wealthy off of spewing hatred and lies.

      Your arguments are ridiculous.

      No one is passing laws to make it illegal for him to speak, and that's all your "free speech" argument can address.

      We are the change we have been waiting for.

      by mellowinman on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:24:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is counterproductive insanity. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eyesbright, elwior, SadieSue
      I understand that freedom of speech, as a constitutional protection, protects only government aggression against freedom, not your private action.
      No, based on your comment you do not appear to understand that at all. Because this:
      But the constitutional right flows from an inherently individual human concept of right and fairness, and your aggression against that right shall not stand.
      Is utter gibberish in this context.

      Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism for toxic speech. Everyone--including Rush Limbaugh--has a right to express their opinions in public. But no one has, or should have, the right to be free of the disapproval of their peers or to be shielded from the social consequences of hate speech.

      I strongly suggest you rethink this inane course of action.

      Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.

      by Catsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:29:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe it is fundamentally wrong to spread lies (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, JayRaye, SadieSue

      as truth and news and get away with it.  I live with my rightwing sister and her boyfriend.  They truly believe all the crap Rush was saying about Sandra Fluke, and think women want taxpayers to pay for their birth control pills.  These types of lies are destroying us from within, and I for one would like to see them stopped.  You have the right to free speech but when for god's sake did that mean you have the right to spread such vicious and hateful lies that they literally are tearing this country apart.  

      "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

      by AnnieR on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:50:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not me... (0+ / 0-)

      We all have the right to boycott the companies that support hate speech. I wouldn't advocate BANNING that hate speech, but I WILL boycott supporters of that hate speech. That is MY freedom of expression.

      You of course can do what you want, but it seems silly. Put your money where your beliefs are. Plain and simple.

      FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

      by mole333 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:24:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site