Ben--perhaps my choice of words was misleading. I didn't mean any sort of legal ramifications (such as someone being put on trial for their words). I meant consequences that are perfectly legitimate and that people have a right to engage in (such as boycotts, attempts to influence advertisers, protests, etc.) My problem is that someone who says hateful things thinks that somehow the right to free speech prevents them from having someone criticize them or work against them having a public platform. It doesn't.
That is, Rush has the right to say what he wants and others have the right to protest against him but the government doesn't have the right to prevent either side from voicing their opinions.
They certainly do, citizen. My point was that many seem to think that criticizing something that Limbaugh (or any other hatemonger) says, trying to get him off the air, or pressuring his advertisers to sever ties with him is a violation of his free speech rights. It's not. He's free to say what he wants but there are consequences for doing so. It's only a violation of free speech rights if the government tries to prevent it (restricting the activities of lawful protestors, for instance, or confining them to so-called free speech zones).
Just to clarify as there seems to be some misunderstanding--the First Amendment only protects against government infringements on free speech. Circulating a petition to get Clear Channel to take Limbaugh off the air is not a violation of anyone's right to free speech. Limbaugh is free to say all the hateful, ignorant things he's always said and people are free to try to influence Clear Channel and Limbaugh's advertisers. The right to free speech doesn't mean that you should somehow be protected from the perfectly legal consequences of that speech.
I know I'll regret wading into the cesspool that is the Vindicator comments section but I'd like to clear up one glaring error--the assumption that rational market forces, rather than governmental planners at the behest of groups with money and power are responsible for the mass suburbanization of the post-WWII era. Surely there are benefits to suburban living just as there are benefits to living in the city but governmental policy of the last 60 years has been geared toward the suburbs at the expense of cities. The interstate highway system, tax incentives for suburban building, government subsidized infrastructure in the suburbs, and the like have drawn as many people to the suburbs as a desire for a somewhat bigger front yard. These are all governmental policies that have led to artificial growth of suburbs and exurbs. There's nothing wrong with a fraction of the money/incentives finally being used to try to improve city living.
Hagan wants Rush off air
Ben--perhaps my choice of words was misleading. I didn't mean any sort of legal ramifications (such as someone being put on trial for their words). I meant consequences that are perfectly legitimate and that people have a right to engage in (such as boycotts, attempts to influence advertisers, protests, etc.) My problem is that someone who says hateful things thinks that somehow the right to free speech prevents them from having someone criticize them or work against them having a public platform. It doesn't.
That is, Rush has the right to say what he wants and others have the right to protest against him but the government doesn't have the right to prevent either side from voicing their opinions.
March 9, 2012 at 10:59 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Hagan wants Rush off air
They certainly do, citizen. My point was that many seem to think that criticizing something that Limbaugh (or any other hatemonger) says, trying to get him off the air, or pressuring his advertisers to sever ties with him is a violation of his free speech rights. It's not. He's free to say what he wants but there are consequences for doing so. It's only a violation of free speech rights if the government tries to prevent it (restricting the activities of lawful protestors, for instance, or confining them to so-called free speech zones).
March 7, 2012 at 11:05 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Hagan wants Rush off air
Again, folks seem to not quite understand freedom of speech. See Rick above.
March 7, 2012 at 10:43 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Hagan wants Rush off air
I see Rick beat me to it.
March 7, 2012 at 9:53 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Hagan wants Rush off air
Just to clarify as there seems to be some misunderstanding--the First Amendment only protects against government infringements on free speech. Circulating a petition to get Clear Channel to take Limbaugh off the air is not a violation of anyone's right to free speech. Limbaugh is free to say all the hateful, ignorant things he's always said and people are free to try to influence Clear Channel and Limbaugh's advertisers. The right to free speech doesn't mean that you should somehow be protected from the perfectly legal consequences of that speech.
March 7, 2012 at 9:52 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Lowdown on downtown Youngstown
I know I'll regret wading into the cesspool that is the Vindicator comments section but I'd like to clear up one glaring error--the assumption that rational market forces, rather than governmental planners at the behest of groups with money and power are responsible for the mass suburbanization of the post-WWII era.
Surely there are benefits to suburban living just as there are benefits to living in the city but governmental policy of the last 60 years has been geared toward the suburbs at the expense of cities. The interstate highway system, tax incentives for suburban building, government subsidized infrastructure in the suburbs, and the like have drawn as many people to the suburbs as a desire for a somewhat bigger front yard. These are all governmental policies that have led to artificial growth of suburbs and exurbs. There's nothing wrong with a fraction of the money/incentives finally being used to try to improve city living.
February 20, 2012 at 1:39 p.m. permalink suggest removal