Bill Maher is a contrarian...But often that appears to be just for the sake of getting attention by being “different” from a “typical” liberal. He never seems to go beneath the surface of an issue or an event and constantly misses what is really going on.
Maher’s take on David Hogg’s response to Laura Ingraham is just another one of his “surprise” opinions that he springs on his unsuspecting guests and audience.
Maher likes to present himself as the “reasonable” liberal and a “principled” free speech advocate who defends “the free-speech rights of some of the nation’s most vitriolic, controversial voices” www.washingtonpost.com/… Like Laura Ingraham who he believes is a “deliberately terrible person”…
Maher makes it clear he doesn’t agree with Ingraham and has been supportive of “those kids”...but he feels the need to lecture them on being public figures.
“I think those kids did a great thing. They put this issue in a place we’ve never had it before. And I wish them success. But if you are going to be out there in the arena and make yourselves the champions of this cause, people are going to have the right to argue back.”
So of course he says:
“I want to defend Laura Ingraham,” Maher told the audience. "I know it sounds ridiculous, but it has to do with the Parkland kids and guns and free speech.”
“[Hogg] complains about bullying? That’s bullying!” he continued.
“I have been the victim of a boycott ... I've lost a job as a result. It is wrong. You shouldn’t do this by team, you should do it by principle,” Maher said and then stuck his tongue out to the audience. www.nydailynews.com/...
It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous! How does Maher’s defense of Ingraham’s bullying behavior have anything to do with “guns and free speech”??? Sounds like a personal issue for Maher and the “team” he plays on is those who are on the receiving end of boycotts!
It just doesn't really matter what schools accepted or rejected David Hogg. That has NOTHING to do with the movement David Hogg supports. The issue of gun violence isn’t even about David Hogg.
Hogg showed us all how to respond to a bully want to remind people what this is REALLY about...ESPECIALLY Bill Maher who said the boycott of Laura Ingraham's advertisers was form of "bullying" and "the modern way of cutting off free speech."
Maher frames his defense of Ingraham's bullying by framing his argument as follows:
"Hogg and the other Parkland teens are advocating a specific policy position, and it should be fair game for people to question that position."
Fair enough...but THAT civil or even uncivil discusion of the issues surrounding gun violence had NOTHING to do with Ingraham's losing advertisers.
Hogg has never called for a boycott of people that "question" or oppose his position...this is what prompted his response.
Laura Ingraham tweeted:
"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.),"
Laura Ingraham has a cable and syndicated radio show...She used her position to post what she though was something that would embarrass David Hogg...She smugly acted as if she were “punching down” on a hapless teenager...never mind that is was a teenager who also happened to survive a school shooting and saw his classmates brutally murdered.
Ingraham didm’t discuss his position she simply tried to insult and humiliate Hogg…
So who was really trying to cut off free speech?
Maher criticized the root of the boycott, remaining incredulous that of all the controversial things Ingraham had said over the years, "this was the straw that broke the camel's back." www.nj.com/…
Maher criticizes Hogg who instead of engaging with the bully simply informed advertisers that Ingraham is presenting an image that might reflect badly on them. Unfortunately, It doesn’t appear that even people who support David Hogg actually understand what this was all about.
"The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to have a soap advertisement in between your segments," said "Real Time" panelist Heather McGhee, president of Demos, a public policy organization.
"Effectively it is the modern way of cutting off free speech," Maher argued, calling the willingness to boycott advertisers of shows "chilling."
Max Boot, a columnist for the Washington Post and fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the reason to boycott Ingraham had less to do with her comment about Hogg than her larger presence on Fox News.
"She is part of this Fox news propaganda machine, which is bombarding the American people with alternative facts, i.e. fake news, every single day," he said. "And that's a reason why large companies should not be underwriting her message. It goes way beyond David Hogg."
Maher characterizes the reason sponsors left Ingraham’s show which he finds “chilling” ...although I’m not exactly sure what he thinks is being “chilled”...Is he worried that the public will stop tolerating petty vindictive behavior from talk show hosts?
This “boycott” is not about taking a position on gun regulation or even being against “propaganda”...and framing it that way completely misses an important way of combating the bad faith methods of arguing against progressives used by rightwing ideologues like Laura Ingraham and the myriad of alt-right YouTube “celebrities” and neo-nazi social network trolls.
Their main tactic involves putting their opposition on defense using irrelevant attacks designed to express and assert power, dominance and control. This is exactly what Ingraham clumsily attempted to do to Hogg...she just picked the WRONG target!
David Hogg also showed that focusing on the bigger picture and finding the oppositions real weakness is an effective way of defending one’s position. Fox News personalities are dependent on advertisers...Sean Hannity decided losing Keurig was more important to him than his fans who pointlessly tried to boycott the coffeemaker...Maybe David Hogg saw that and understood the best way to fight against Fox News bullies?
Bill Maher agrees that Ingraham is a "deliberately terrible person" but for some reason he can't understand why a company would not want to be associated with a person like Ingraham.
Elliot Spitzer’s response was a much more accurate assessment of why advertisers decided to bail on Ingraham’s show...but he still insists the consumers rather than the advertisers were the ones who Hogg convinced to act.
Former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was a guest on Friday’s show, responded that the right to boycott is also “central to the First Amendment.”
“[Ingraham] has the right to say whatever she wants, with very, very few exceptions,” he said. “We have the right to speak back. Boycotting, think of the Civil Rights movement. Boycotting is part of free speech, saying I don’t want to work with that person. Saying I will not buy a product from that person.”
This isn’t really a “boycott” which tries to get consumers to stop buying a product. David Hogg’s tactic was much more effective...he went straight to the source and asked advertisers to stop supporting Ingraham.
Ingraham's former advertisers did NOT take a position in the gun debate...they simply decided Ingraham's petty vindictive behavior was unacceptable and not good for their company images.
Maher is right about Ingraham having the 1st Amendment right to say whatever she wants...she can use that right to "bully" or engage in personal attacks all she wants...the government will not fine or jail her...but what people defending Ingraham are actually defending is a "right" to use free speech to bully and intimidate...they are criticizing the target of bullying for having an effective response that ended the bullying! So Maher is taking an ANTI-anti-bullying position!
Free speech is never guaranteed to be free of consequence...nor is there any implied guarantee of an audience or sponsorship. If you believe in free speech, how can you be against calling attention to another's words? Isn’t that actually showing respect for their right to speak freely?
In the end, Ingraham spoke freely and in so doing the only one who ended up "cutting off" Ingraham's "freedoms" was Ingraham herself.