 |
| Sandra Fluke: Limbaugh says she's a "slut." He's an idiot. |
 |
| Limbaugh's mouth doesn't seem to be able to close. |
Limbaugh is in trouble--this time--for his remarks about a courageous young woman (Sandra Fluke) who was speaking out for health care coverage for women, calling her a "slut" among other things. This is pretty typical of Limbaugh's rhetoric, but it seems to be the one that is resonating with a wide range of Americans fed up with his bullshit.
The only way you can make Limbaugh pay--short of violence and I won't call for that--is to hit his pocket. Remember this throwback makes $25 million a year because we buy products advertised on his radio show. You and I are supporting him. We can just as easily stop by not buying products from companies like the ones listed on this link. Some of them have already pulled their ads; let's get them all to do that.
i suppose freedom of speech means nothing to you, unless it's call Sarah Palin OR Michelle Bachman disgusting names... David Rogers
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech reflects only the government not infringing....the government is not going after Rush Limbaugh, the people are, that my dear is called the FREE MARKET - and it is the main tenant of Capitalism!!
DeleteAnonymous: Calling a young lady a slut and a prostitute and suggesting she post videos of herself having sex has very little to do with free speech. It crosses the line, and as Limbaugh spoke the words rather than write them down, it is considered slander (rather than libel) in regards to her reputation, under the law. She could sue, and win. Also, free speech has nothing to do with Capitalism - that is an economic system. Look it up.
ReplyDeleteRush Limbaugh is a fool who doesn't even understand, on multiple levels, the nature of the subject that he commented about. I hope his advertisers dump him and Sandra Fluke sues him for a fortune. Calling her a slute and a prostitute has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with both libel and slander since he both said it and then published the transcript on his website.
ReplyDeleteWhich of my tax dollars pay for my insurance? If insurance pays for Viagra boy toys? does that make men jiggilos? pimps?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, please explain to me how your tax dollars are paying for the birth control of a student at a private university.
ReplyDeleteAlright here is my statement. I will not consider doing business with any advertiser who abandons Limbaugh!
ReplyDeleteDavid Rogers-
ReplyDeleteHey Anonymous, read on "My Dear" from Websters-
Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.
Theories of free speech
One justification for free speech is a general liberal or libertarian presumption against coercing individuals from living how they please and doing what they want. However, a number of more specific justifications are commonly proposed.
For example, Justice McLachlin of the Canadian Supreme Court identified the following in R. v. Keegstra, a 1990 case on hate speech:
Free speech promotes "The free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and democratic institutions" and limits the ability of the state to subvert other rights and freedoms
It promotes a marketplace of ideas, which includes, but is not limited to, the search for truth
It is intrinsically valuable as part of the self-actualization of speakers and listeners
It is justified by the dangers for good government of allowing its suppression.
Such reasons perhaps overlap. Together, they provide a widely accepted rationale for the recognition of freedom of speech as a basic civil liberty.
Each of these justifications can be elaborated in a variety of ways and some may need to be qualified. The first and fourth can be bracketed together as democratic justifications, or a justification relating to self-governance. They relate to aspects of free speech's political role in a democratic society. The second is related to the discovery of truth. The third relates most closely to general libertarian values but stresses the particular importance of language, symbolism and representation for our lives and autonomy.
This analysis suggests a number of conclusions. First, there are powerful overlapping arguments for free speech as a basic political principle in any liberal democracy. Second, however, free speech is not a simple and absolute concept but a liberty that is justified by even deeper values. Third, the values implicit in the various justifications for free speech may not apply equally strongly to all kinds of speech in all circumstances.
Noam Chomsky states that:
"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
David:
ReplyDeleteSlander and libel are not "free speech" covered under the Constitution. If I call you a pedophile (which I will not do), is that simply a matter of me exercising my Constitutional right? I think not.
I am interested in boycotting the advertisers who are abandoning Limbaugh. He is better off without them but they should pay an economic price for abandoning a person who is not afraid to speak out and tell it like it is. Obama is destroying our country not Limbaugh. Socialists are destroying our country not Limbaugh. Democrats are attempting to undermine our economy and subvert our constitution along with rags like this pitiful website unlike Limbaugh. At least Rush Limbaugh has a spine unlike the editor and publisher of this site who couldn't last 3 minutes in a debate with Limbaugh. Think about that.
ReplyDeleteYou are right. I am not a Limbaugh fan, but will boycott any business that abandons him.
DeleteAnon: This is not a website. It is a blog. And if it is pitiful in your judgement, I strongly suggest you exercise your freedom of choice (which the Supreme Court wants to remove) and go to another site that more closely allies with your prejudices.
ReplyDeleteThose of you who want to boycott those leaving Limbaugh are certainly free to do that. I'm on your side in giving you that option.
ReplyDelete