So...how many progressives and Democrats agree with Voltaire? I wonder.
It should be obvious by now that the furious indignation leveled at Rush Limbaugh for his denigrating rhetoric against activist Sandra Fluke has been expropriated by those who want to limit free speech to their own standards of what constitutes acceptable discourse….and opinion. This has made itself evident both by the strained efforts of eager Limbaugh boycotters to distinguish his use of misogynistic words and the same or worse language used by friendly boors and misogynists against conservative targets. There is a distinction: Rush was engaging in illogical below-the-belt bullying of a barely-public figure for the offense of disagreeing with him, while Bill Maher, for example, was just showing his contempt and disrespect for women generally, which is what anyone who uses the terms “twat” and “cunt,” as he did, is doing. The argument that this ethical divide is so great that it justifies boycotts on one side and complete apathy—or even appreciation!—on the other is unsustainable, which is why Limbaugh’s statement that the organized campaign to take him off the air is not based on the Fluke affair at all. “They’re not even really offended by what happened,” he said. “This is just an opportunity to execute a plan they’ve had in their drawer since 2009.”
“They” is the left-wing media attack-dog Media Matters, which is spending $100,000 to run ads in eight cities telling listeners to bombard stations carrying Limbaugh with protests because “we don’t talk to women like that” in our city. Nobody should talk to women “like that.” Nobody should talk to men like that. either. But Media Matters, and too many like them, don’t care one bit if Maher, Louis C.K., Ed Schultz, Maxine Waters, Charles M. Blow or, of course, Occupy Wall Street denigrate, ridicule or threaten anyone–or their race, religion or gender— from the right end of the political spectrum. The speech police only want to stifle political dissent from the critics who they think make it harder for the progressives to achieve their policy goals.
Proving the point in jaw-dropping fashion today was the ridiculous Los Angeles City Council, which passed a non-binding resolution aimed at chilling free speech. The Limbaugh flap was obviously the catalyst (and is mentioned in the resolution), though the specific excuse was two local shock jocks who joked about Whitney Houston being a “crack whore.” (Interestingly, the same pair, KFI 640 talk radio hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, have been frequent critics of the Council. But that’s not why they were in the Council’s cross-hairs, any more than Limbaugh’s relentless assaults on progressives and the Obama Administration had anything to do with Media Matters trying to get him off the air. How could you think such a thing?)
The rationalization for the resolution can be imagined already. “We’re not regulating speech, just urging that the stations do the right thing!” But when a government uses vague and adjustable terms like “racist” and “sexist,” and makes an official statement suggesting that media outlets need to better understand what various groups find “intolerable,” and darkly noting that something needs to be done to make certain that “negative comments” don’t go “unchecked,” that’s a clear, obvious and intentional threat to free speech, and specifically political speech. Many of the people trying to drive off Limbaugh find objections to abortion “sexist” and opposition to affirmative action—or President Obama as racist. They will argue that wanting to enforce immigration laws is racist as well.
I view this moment is as an important integrity test for Democrats, progressives and journalists, who, as we all know, are about 85% Democrats and progressives. They should be as revolted by this transparent effort to strangle public discourse and rig the policy debates as the most rabid Ditto -head, and if they aren’t, or if they are but keep quite about it because they’d still like conservative talk radio and Fox News to go away, it might be time to start colonizing Mars. When liberals won’t stand up for free speech and dissent, even if it violates civility standards now and then, the Bill of Rights belongs in intensive care.
The first individual who should be defending free speech from Media Matters and company is Barack Obama. Sadly, I’m not about to hold my breath waiting for that.
Ethics Alarms 
This is only the latest in a long stream of such outrages from the Left, Jack. No lie too big, no hypocrisy too great.
I agree but I think both they and the far right are both guilty of telling what ever lies further their agenda.
I don’t think we can leave this with a pox on both their houses verdict, Bill. Since ay least the 80’s, the main attacks against free speech have come from the left, as in the campus speech codes.The days when it was the Right that aimed to suppress speech are far in the past. Lies are one thing (though as the 9th Circuit ruled last year, also protected), but trying to shut down dissent using economic boycotts on the lily-livered private sector should be offensive to everyone.
This letter in today’s Post was classic:
“Kathleen Parker’s March 18 op-ed column, “Misogyny hurts everyone,” served only to confuse the recent discussion about misogyny in the media. By drawing parallels between Rush Limbaugh’s remarks and Louis C.K.’s comedy, Ms. Parker has conflated two very different commentaries. While Mr. Limbaugh may be a hack and a demagogue of the most dangerous type, many view him as he certainly views himself: as a viable source of news commentary. His intention is to influence his listeners. Louis C.K. — and all similar comedians — are entertainers who thrive on attacking the lies and hypocrisies of public figures. To do this, they use sarcasm, irony and, yes, often the type of over-the-top rant Ms. Parker quoted in her column. Their intention in this is to get laughs. The distinction ought to be noted.
It should also be pointed out that Louis C.K. is one of the most talented comedians working today and reserves plenty of bile for all of our society’s hypocrites, no matter their gender.
Jordy VandeBunte, Washington
Talk about hypocrisy and self-delusion. Rush tries to “influence people” (while entertaining), but C.K. is different because he is an entertainer who attacks “the lies and hypocrisies of public figures.”—what, NOT to influence people? So figures that Jordy thinks are lying.get called cunts,and that’s entertainment. Rush attacks Jordy’s heroes, who RUSH thinks are lying, and that’s mysogeny. C.K. is “talented”, and Limbaugh is a “hack”. No bias there. This is a big difference to Jordy, who is so blinded by confirmation bias that he needs a seeing eye dog. . Maher and Shumer and MSNBC are trying to sell the same, dishonest and fake distinction.
I was speaking of how both sides tell lies to further their causes.
I completely agree that the left has been the major force trying to shut down free speech in this country. Its gotten to the point where I don’t even try to have political discussions with some of my extreme liberal friends because they have no interest in my opinion and find the fact that I have an opinion different then theirs offensive.
It is definitely on both sides of the political spectrum. I have seen both sides from my military experience and civilian life. I have been in arguments on both sides of the fence. I have issues that I am passionate about from both sides. There have been many times when I’ve been in mixed company and stayed silent in fear of being ostracised. I have lost business and employment because of these situations. It was bigotry. Sometimes sexist. Sometimes racial — sometimes ethnic and religion. Most of the time it was around people who haven’t been anywhere but a small town and are very ignorant outside their culture. It’s easy to speak freely, worship freely or have outside interests where people are tolerant. It is extremely difficult without the government as it is. If someone says that Fox, MSNBC, or Media Matters aren’t biased or embellish the truth for the motives of their owners or business, are smoking something.
Extremists are inclined to do this because it, 1) draws attention and potential supporters and, 2) their own agenda is so hate driven and radical that they need to smokescreen it in this manner. Therefore, with this as a definition of what constitutes extremism, where do we draw the line between “extreme” and “honest” with the two conflicting philosophies? By liberal terms, ALL conservatives who do not kowtow to their agenda on cue are extremist. It’s a term they’ve applied to the entire Right repeatedly for as long as I’ve been alive.
But what does that say, in turn, for the Left? Personally- on the back of what I’ve seen- I’d say the same for their leadership. By our traditionalist standards, much of their agenda is both dangerous and lunatic. The difference comes when you consider that, to expose the Left, lies are not really needed, even if one were so inclined. The truth suffices. And, on our side, truth remains a virtue. When someone on the Right goes bad, both sides will denounce the deed. When it comes from the Left, the leftists are largely silent.
Well spoken.
Isn’t Santorum’s attack on the porn industry, an attack on free speech. Given free will and if you don’t like it-don’t read, listen, or watch it.
Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it. Martyrdom is the test.-Samuel Johnson
Sure it is ( as are efforts to censor videogames and hip-hop music), but pornography isn’t political speech, which warrants the most vigorous—in fact, absolute— protection of all.
But cant pornography also been defined as prostitution as they are perfoming sex for money?
No. I mean, you can call porn baseball too (too many bad puns here to count), but that doesn’t mean it is baseball.
It’s what I call “visual prostitution”. You could make a case that it’s not strictly prostitution because physical contact (usually!) does not occur in the released images. That applies only if, 1) the “model” did this without coercion and, 2) was of legal age. I maintain that child pornographic images- to any degree- are on the same level of vileness with each other and with an actual act of child sexual abuse. But all porn with whatever degree of co-operation represents legalized degradation that extends to all in society. It also is not political speech and has no moral claim to protection under the 1st Amendment.
“In order to have enough free speech, we must have too much free speech” I can’t remember who said that (or exactly how) but when I searched for “too much free speech”, I sadly found only references to efforts to curb free speech. Sigh.
“In order to have enough freedom, it is necessary to have too much.”
——-Clarence Darrow!
How about when radio stations refused to play Dixie Chick songs on their playlists or when some people threatened Natalie Maines and her children’s lives?
How about it? “Some people” are nuts, and singers who turn their concerts into political rants risk alienating fans. a) It’s a different phenomenon; b) deciding that you personally don’t care to patronize a performer (disc jockeys can play whatever they want) isn’t the same as trying to stop others from doing so and c) how people reacted to the Dixie Chicks has no bearing on whether city councils should be threatening free speech.
ok….I get it now after rereading. I agree with you. I usually shake my head and roll my eyes, if I don’t agree with their public opinion. It doesn’t mean they aren’t right. They do have rights to express their thoughts, ideas, or belief. But couldn’t people see through this and think of it as one of those silly ordinances? For instance an ordinace against walking across the street on your hands.
Jack’s got it right, Michael. The entire purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee free political discourse and the transferral of information necessary for that discourse to occur. However, that does not mean that others are obliged to listen or agree. Nor does it mean that persons or entities, in public or private modes, are obliged to support displays that promote civil unrest or criminality… particularly in the non-political mode. What IS required for this to work is an understanding by the individual citizen of not just his rights, but his balancing responsibilities to his fellow citizens in his own actions.
I wholeheartedly agree with some your sentiments and vehemently disagree with others.
The Los Angeles City Council’s resolution? Absolutely horrible. But do you know what else would be absolutely horrible? Obama telling media matters that what they’re doing is wrong. Media matters isn’t violating free speech. Instead, they are engaging in counter speech. Their motives for their speech may be disengenuous, but that doesn’t make it any less speech. The way to counter it is more speech, not government intervention.
Obama and Media Matters are virtually joined at the hip, TGT. Again, free political discourse carries with it the burden of HONEST discourse. When one repeatedly alters or edits the words or actions of another with the intent to deceive their viewers or readers, such entities need to be exposed and taken to task. Mistakes happen, of course. When they do, an honest retraction should be immediately forthcoming for the sake of integrity. Jack does this on his blogsite. So have I on mine.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government [OR those groups who would abet this by lies and slanders- SMP] and to provide new guards for their future security.”
This, I maintain, is the state of Media Matters; an overt propaganda organ funded by George Soros- a man as intent on lording over a subservient world was was the man he first worked for… Adolf Hitler.
Obama and Media Matters are virtually joined at the hip, TGT.
Are you claiming that Media Matters is directed by a government organization? That’d be a huge deal.
Again, free political discourse carries with it the burden of HONEST discourse. When one repeatedly alters or edits the words or actions of another with the intent to deceive their viewers or readers, such entities need to be exposed and taken to task.
So, did Media Matters actually do any of those things, or are you just leveling your general accusations again? Also, while I don’t agree with this, lies are protected. Being exposed and taken to task? Absolutely. By other people’s speech, not by government.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government [OR those groups who would abet this by lies and slanders- SMP] and to provide new guards for their future security.”
This, I maintain, is the state of Media Matters; an overt propaganda organ funded by George Soros- a man as intent on lording over a subservient world was was the man he first worked for… Adolf Hitler.
And SMP goes full Godwin. As for your addition to that great quote, it doesn’t make sense. The private groups do not rule, so there is no throwing off of them to do. Yes, we should oppose lies and slander of private organizations, but physically attacking Fox News is neither legal nor moral.
I’m claiming that they’re joined with Obama’s political campaign in full support… and with whatever it takes. As to actual government… it’s getting hard to tell where one begins and the other ends. This is the essence of my comments and address your’s.
I don’t see how that backs any of your conclusions. It also is ad odds with other comments you have made. Do you now believe the government should tell FoxNews to cut it out? It’s a horribly dangerous precedent that you want to set.
That’s NOT what I said, TGT. Read again.
What did I misstate?
You claimed that Media Matters is “joined” with Obama by fully supporting Obama. In that case, FoxNews was “joined” with Bush.
You also implied that Obama needs to refute Media Matters actions because of the ties. If that’s the case, the same applies to FoxNews.
The 1st Amendment protects Individuals (you and me) from retaliation by governmental authority for what we say. HOWEVER:
The right to freedom of speech has NEVER included a right to be free from criticism.
Who said it was?
A government action threatening free speech, which is what the Council resolution does, if obliquely, violates the spirit of the Bill of Rights, and private efforts to silence dissent by boycotts and other coercion violates that spirit as well. Censorship isn’t “criticism.” Popehat’s term for people like Media Matters, “censorious asshats” is apt—I just prefer “unethical.”
This isn’t censorship, and it is criticism.
Can you show me where Ken calls people who reply to speech with speech “censorious asshats”? I haven’t seen that in my years of reading. Now, people who try to use the courts or other government institutions to stop speech? Those are censorious asshats. And your desire to have the Barack Obama attack Media Matters’ speech fits his category exactly.
Now, is their any chance we can have another Marshall McLuhan moment? https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/08/09/ethics-quote-of-the-day-ken-of-popehat/comment-page-1/#comment-18792
It’s not government censorship. It is an attempt at censorship. Ken’s censorious asshats are generally people who use threats of lawsuits to stifle free speech. I see no difference between that and using a threatened boycott to try to silence a critic. You counter words with words, not threats designed to stop the words. You are ridiculously wrong here, tgt.
Attempting a boycott is speech. Threatening a lawsuit is not speech, it’s trying to use the law (government) to shut someone down.
Media Matters is using our right of free assembly and our right to choose who and what we support to make a point about what we tolerate. It’s Ethical shunning, but on a larger scale. If any individual doesn’t aggree with Media Matters, than they don’t join their boycott movement. That’s free expression. That’s speech.
Now someone who threatens a lawsuit is not just using speech. They are invoking the name of the government, and trying to use government power to stop speech.
I don’t see how you can say this, tgt. Media Matters’ whole objective is to silence or marginalize any criticism of Democratic/progressive policies and positions. It’s view of “winning” public policy debates is to make sure only one side gets heard. How can you defend that? And your attempted equivalency with Fox News is really unfair. Fox News has never tried to shut down any critic or commentator that I can recall
Media Matters’ whole objective is to silence or marginalize any criticism of Democratic/progressive policies and positions. It’s view of “winning” public policy debates is to make sure only one side gets heard.
Citation needed.
I don’t defend that goal. I do defend speak out against people who use inflammatory rhetoric while misrepresenting situations and committing ad hominem attacks in order to marginalize an opinion.
And your attempted equivalency with Fox News is really unfair. Fox News has never tried to shut down any critic or commentator that I can recall
My equivalence to FoxNews was on point, but you seem to have missed what it was. It was about the responsibility and propriety of government response to their actions. SMP suggested that it was necessary and proper because Media Matters supports the president. By that logic, the same went for Bush and Fox News. It’s a ridiculous position.
Also, Fox News members praised AFA for boycotts, so it even works on that level.
Sorry, but “Fox News has never tried to shut down any critic or commentator that I can recall”?
Have you read any of FoxNews’ responses to criticism? They most definitely try to marginalize their critics and commentators
Pingback: Moral Midgets | The Pink Flamingo