The right wing has exploded in typically uncomprehending indignation over the idea that Rush Limbaugh can be punished for calling Sandra Fluke a slut and prostitute in response to her testimony before congress in favor of mandating insurance coverage for contraception. Actually, they have two arguments in tension with one another: the first – the near universal consensus on right wing blogs – is that Sandra Fluke is indeed a slut and prostitute, and that Limbaugh has every right to say it. The second argument – obviously insincere in light of the first – is that Rush is being subjected to a double standard. There are liberal commentators who have called women bad names without facing the same consequences.
Some writers have struggled to justify their intuition that what Limbaugh did was different than what, for instance, Bill Maher did when he called Sarah Palin a "dumb twat" or what Ed Schultz did when he called Laura Ingraham a "slut." Timothy Noah, for instance, notes that the Maher and Schultz are nowhere near as influential as Limbaugh and that their victims are public figures rather than private citizens.
These points are well-taken, but they miss the larger and more important point: Limbaugh's offence is not mere name calling, and he needn't have used the words "slut" or "prostitute" for it to have been just as egregious. He was making the argument -- his lengthy tirade makes it clear -- that we can infer from Sandra Fluke's testimony that she is actually promiscuous. He meant this literally, and he meant to punish her -- and intimidate others like her into silence -- by damaging her reputation. He was not merely making a joke or calling someone a name. He intended to use his enormous power as a popular political commentator to silence a private citizen whose opinion he didn't like by slandering her publicly, knowing that this slander would be repeated endlessly in the right-wing echo chamber, and knowing that it would make other women think twice about expressing similar opinions. What made it all the more galling is that his aim was to use a misogynist sexual double standard to silence women who would dare to speak up about their own reproductive health.
By contrast, Maher and Schultz were making a figurative use of language to call people names. No one thinks that Maher thinks Palin is literally a twat or Schultz thinks Ingraham is literally a slut. Schultz was not making an extended argument to the effect that Ingraham was sleeping around. And none of this name calling could possibly intimidate its targets. Not just because they are powerful public figures, but because there is nothing at stake in merely being called a name -- not anyone's reputation or anything else. Finally, Maher’s and Shultz’s politics are pro-feminist, and they aren’t employing name calling to some obvious misogynist political effect, such as making it harder for women to get contraception (the inherent sexism of “slut” is much weaker than the sexism of branding a woman as promiscuous and advocating policies that limit her access to contraception).
So the media is falsely equating Limbaugh's attempt at intimidation with name calling by liberal media figures. As far as I'm concerned, the name-calling can continue. Let Limbaugh, Schultz, Maher and others call others names all they want, especially in the context of some comedic bit. That's not the point. If Rush had never used the words "slut" or "prostitute" but made the argument -- in the politest, calmest terms possible -- that we can infer from Fluke's testimony that she is promiscuous, he would have achieved the same vicious end (and probably more effectively). And that end would be to harm someone's reputation in order to silence them and instill fear in others. If you doubt my claim that Limbaugh meant his claim literally, or that his right-wing comrades picked up on it in just this spirit, you need merely check out any right wing media outlet at random – especially comments sections. For three egregious examples, see this post by Pamela Geller, and two of the most idiotic and morally depraved things you will ever read here and here. (And yes, it is legitimate to say “idiotic” and “morally depraved”).
That's why Limbaugh is being punished, and that's why decent people can and should do everything they can to impair his ability to use the airwaves -- not for free speech, not even for vulgar name calling, but for the sake of intimidating others into silence.