Is This Supposed to Be Funny?

Originally posted by TheBloop
Be interesting to see how much is donated to relief efforts by Limbaugh's "fan base" as opposed to you idiots on the left, whose only generosity comes from spending and "donating" other people's money, and never your own

The fact that Limbaugh's fan base might be generous, charitable or even inclined to donate its time and physical energy to help the victims has no bearing at all on the fact that his mocking comments were tasteless.

Originally posted by FMF
I have no "sympathy" for Limbaugh. I just support his right to free speech. The right to free speech trumps your hypothetical 'right not to have one's feelings hurt', regardless of ideology, demagoguery, insensitivity etc.

[b]pointing out the existence of boundaries in public discourse doesn't in any way accumulate to a desire to silence all views I disagree ort of things that are in the OP certainly marks your card as an enemy of free speech.

I take it that you are not very familiar with hate speech legislation, either that or you simply have total lack of understading with regards to the practical application of the right to free speech. There are no hypotheticals involved, many countries have enacted laws protecting people, both individually and collectively, from the kind of hatred the likes of Limbaugh continually regurgitate.

Clumsy is a word which could only accurately describe your position here, not mine, I wasn't the one to provide the thread with that pompous and high-flown drivel about what is and isn't healthy in society while avoiding any engagement with the topic of this thread, which is about the real repercussions of his spiteful monologue. Talking about strawmen you have certainly constructed a fine one with your implication that I want to silence Limbaugh, I don't remember ever suggesting anything of the sort. Once again it appear to be the case that in FMF's bizarro world the word "regulation" necessarily entails the silence of all opposition. Im no more of an enemy of free speech for condemning Limbaugh than I am an enemy of finance for not having a very favorable view of dishonest banks; it is the abuse of these freedoms which bothers me, nothing more nothing less.

Originally posted by generalissimo
I take it that you are not very familiar with hate speech legislation, either that or you simply have total lack of understading with regards to the practical application of the right to free speech. There are no hypotheticals involved, many countries have enacted laws protecting people, both individually and collectively, from the kind of hatred the l ...[text shortened]... nest banks; it is the abuse of these freedoms which bothers me, nothing more nothing less.

Being a staunch supporter of the freedom of speech, I do not see Limbaugh's comments as being "evidence of the necessity for further regulation of talk radio". On the other hand you do. And as a staunch supporter of the freedom of speech, I do not support the laws that certain countries have enacted supposedly "protecting" people from the kind of comments that Limbaugh made in the OP. I note that you do.

I have not at any time suggested that you want "the silence of all opposition". It is you who has claimed that this is what I have said, when in fact I haven't. That makes it a strawman of your construction, and not mine.

Contrary to what you say, I have in fact engaged the topic of the thread by, more than once, condemning Limbaugh's comments as tasteless. Defending Limbaugh's right to free speech is, I think, entirely relevant to this thread. If I thought, like you, that his comments amounted to "hate speech" I would have said so, but I don't.

Unlike you, I do not think the Japanese people need to be "protected" from Rush Limbaugh by way of "further regulation of talk radio".

Originally posted by FMF
Being a staunch supporter of the freedom of speech, I do not see Limbaugh's comments as being "evidence of the necessity for further regulation of talk radio". On the other hand you do. And as a staunch supporter of the freedom of speech, I do not support the laws that certain countries have enacted supposedly "protecting" people from the kind of comments that L ...[text shortened]... be "protected" from Rush Limbaugh by way of "further regulation of talk radio".

I have not at any time suggested that you want "the silence of all opposition". It is you who has claimed that this is what I have said, when in fact I haven't. That makes it a strawman of your construction, and not mine.

I can see that your memory fails you, not to worry, here's a reminder of one of your accusations directed at me:

Originally posted by FMF
"...But you wanting to silence the likes of Limbaugh from saying the sort of things that are in the OP certainly marks your card as an enemy of free speech."

Now, I don't recall ever suggesting that Limbaugh should be silenced, my original post was limited to calling for further regulation, and yet you have managed to construe a desire to silence Limbaugh and his fellow demagogues from those simple and innocuous words. A fine strawman indeed.

Originally posted by generalissimo

Originally posted by generalissimo
FMF: I have not at any time suggested that you want "the silence of all opposition". It is you who has claimed that this is what I have said, when in fact I haven't. That makes it a strawman of your construction, and not mine.

generalissimo: I can see that your memory fails you, not to worry, here's a reminder of one of your accusations directed at me:

Originally posted by FMF
"...But you wanting to silence the likes of Limbaugh from saying the sort of things that are in the OP certainly marks your card as an enemy of free speech."

generalissimo: Now, I don't recall ever suggesting that Limbaugh should be silenced, my original post was limited to calling for further regulation, and yet you have managed to construe a desire to silence Limbaugh and his fellow demagogues from those simple and innocuous words. A fine strawman indeed.

So - why don't you explain, generalissimo - what would your proposal of "further regulation of talk radio" - in direct response to the kind of thing that Limbaugh said in the OP - seek to do, other than prevent him from saying "the sort of things that are in the OP"?

Clearly, I have not at any time suggested that you want "the silence of all opposition".

Originally posted by generalissimo
I wasn't the one to provide the thread with that pompous and high-flown drivel about what is and isn't healthy in society while avoiding any engagement with the topic of this thread, which is about the real repercussions of his spiteful monologue.

I think my defence of free speech is totally practical and down to earth, and not pompous and high-flown at all. Freedom of speech and the robust exercise - and defence - of it are healthy signs of a society's public domain, regardless of our own agreement or approval of what people say. Thus far, the only "real repercussions" of Limbaugh's comments - at least here at RHP - have been a call from you to restrict his freedom to say what he said. For this reason, I see you as an enemy of free speech, and not a staunch supporter of it. As I said, I do not think the Japanese people need to be "protected" from Rush Limbaugh by way of "further regulation of talk radio". Obviously you do.

Originally posted by FMF
Originally posted by generalissimo
FMF: [b]I have not at any time suggested that you want "the silence of all opposition". It is you who has claimed that this is what I have said, when in fact I haven't. That makes it a strawman of your construction, and not mine.

generalissimo: [i]I can see that your memory fails you, not to worry, here's a remin ...[text shortened]... y, I have not at any time suggested that you want "the silence of all opposition".[/b]

So - why don't you explain, generalissimo - what would your proposal of "further regulation of talk radio" - in direct response to the kind of thing that Limbaugh said in the OP - seek to do, other than prevent him from saying "the sort of things that are in the OP"?

So you do admit that you did construct a strawman after all, good to know we're making progress.
My only desire was to put forward, for consideration, the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine alongside legal liability for any speech which may be deemed to stir up racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, or abuse and harrassment of individuals or groups. Obviously this wouldn't in any way curtail Limbaugh's freedom to act as he wishes, but it would certainly hold him accountable for his actions. Similar laws exist in other countries, including your native United Kingdom, and yet it cannot be be reasonably said that in these countries where such laws have been enacted there is no freedom of speech.

Originally posted by generalissimo
My only desire was to put forward, for consideration, the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine alongside legal liability for any speech which may be deemed to stir up racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, or abuse and harrassment of individuals or groups.

So you are proposing "further regulation of talk radio" that wouldn't in any way restrict or penalize Limbaugh for the comments he made in the OP?

I don't think Limbaugh's comments constitute "stirring up racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, or abuse and harrassment of individuals or groups". Not at all. It's mocking. It's sneering. It's careless. It's parochial. But "hatred"? I don't think so.

Which words that he said conveyed "hatred"? Which sentence or sentences? More to the point, which part was trying to "stir up" this "hatred" you say there is? Unless Limbaugh is actively urging people to commit crimes, I don't see why his speech should be restricted by "regulation" in any way?

Do you think someone should be able to successfully sue Limbaugh for saying the sort of things that are in the OP? If so, on what grounds, specifically? If not, then what are you actually proposing?

I see no evidence in the OP of the need for "further regulation of talk radio". Clearly, you and I disagree pretty fundamentally about what it means to be a staunch defender of free speech.

Obviously this wouldn't in any way curtail Limbaugh's freedom to act as he wishes, but it would certainly hold him accountable for his actions.

Hold him accountable? In what way? Perhaps you could answer this question with specific reference to his "actions" as reported in the OP.

Similar laws exist in other countries, including your native United Kingdom, and yet it cannot be be reasonably said that in these countries where such laws have been enacted there is no freedom of speech.

This is yet another strawman. I never claimed that "there is no freedom of speech" in the U.K.

Nothing you have said has changed my mind: people like you talking about "further regulation of talk radio", in direct response to some misanthropic rhetoric by a broadcaster that you don't like, is a reminder that freedom of speech has enemies and needs to be cherished and defended every day.

I maintain that your reaction to Limbaugh simply sets you apart here at RHP as an enemy of free speech. Perhaps someone will come along and echo your point of view. In which case I will perceive them as enemies of free speech too, unless they can persuade me with better argumentation than you have offered.

Originally posted by FMF
So you are proposing "further regulation of talk radio" that wouldn't in any way restrict or penalize Limbaugh for the comments he made in the OP?

I don't think Limbaugh's comments constitute "stirring up racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, or abuse and harrassment of individuals or groups". Not at all. It's mocking. It's sneering. It's careless. It's paroch n persuade me with better argumentation than you have offered.

Rec'd. Well put (except that I don't think it's quite fair to call g-mo an "enemy of free speech" based on a vague comment about further regulation of talk radio; but that's neither here nor there).

While Limbaugh's comments were clearly insensitive, nothing he said is or should be punishable in any civil or criminal context. He's pandering to his base by getting a few cheap laughs at the expense of environmentalists. The humor probably doesn't work for you if you're not a member of his base, but he doesn't care whether it works for you. He cares whether it works for his base, and it probably does. If one sincerely believes that the environmentalist movement is made up of mindless chicken littles looking to use propped up environmentalist rhetoric to achieve their socialist political ends, as many of his listeners probably do, I could definitely see how one could find these statements funny.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't think it's quite fair to call g-mo an "enemy of free speech" based on a vague comment about further regulation of talk radio

He hears a broadcaster made some insensitive comments and he goes straight to "further regulation" is needed without passing go! What is he in your book, a supporter of free speech? generalissimo has made comments before advocating curbs on freedom of speech, some of which have been directed at other posters who said things he disagreed with. I will, however, rephrase it thus: I reckon generalissimo is the biggest enemy of free speech among the regular posters here.

Originally posted by FMF
He hears a broadcaster made some insensitive comments and he goes straight to "further regulation" is needed without passing go! What is he in your book, a supporter of free speech? generalissimo has made comments before advocating curbs on freedom of speech, some of which have been directed at other posters who said things he disagreed with. I will, howe ...[text shortened]... us: I reckon generalissimo is the biggest enemy of free speech among the regular posters here.

Yeah, you know how to talk regular posts more than anyone I reckon 🙂

Originally posted by generalissimo
So - why don't you explain, generalissimo - what would your proposal of "further regulation of talk radio" - in direct response to the kind of thing that Limbaugh said in the OP - seek to do, other than prevent him from saying "the sort of things that are in the OP"?

So you do admit that you did construct a strawman after all, good to know we're ...[text shortened]... that in these countries where such laws have been enacted there is no freedom of speech.[/b]

One wonders (wholly convinced what the answer will yield) what type of regulation the good general would like to see applied to other radio broadcasts such as, for example, NPR?

Originally posted by FMF
So you are proposing "further regulation of talk radio" that wouldn't in any way restrict or penalize Limbaugh for the comments he made in the OP?

I don't think Limbaugh's comments constitute "stirring up racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, or abuse and harrassment of individuals or groups". Not at all. It's mocking. It's sneering. It's careless. It's paroch ...[text shortened]... n persuade me with better argumentation than you have offered.

You seem to be incapable of grasping the content of my posts on the subject of freedom of speech; nothing else explains your disposition to decorate your prose with countless questions with little purpose other than divert attention away from the hollowness of your argument. Not to mention the dishonest and cavalier manner in which you have misrepresented my words.

Limbaugh’s recent piece of invective is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to identifying the extent to which hatred and spite have come to dominate the American political discourse, it is well-known that the territories of talk radio and the media in general are realms where spin and vitriol have assumed increasing prominence over facts and balanced portrayal of both sides of the argument. In light of the mean-spirited and borderline offensive views which come to surface, whether it be from Glenn Beck, Bill Maher, or Liebermann, it is nothing but a shameful display of disingenuousness and selective memory for you to claim my demand was solely a response to this specific incident.

I don’t see why you keep harping on the meaning of “staunch defender of free speech”, whatever you have convinced yourself to be is of no interest to me nor does it have any relevance to this thread. I have never described myself as a staunch defender of free speech, nor have I aimed to expound on the meaning of the term, the reason why you feel the need to boast about or publicly announce whatever credentials you believe you have is a mystery to me.

My position so far has been limited to the promotion of intelligent and courteous political discourse, together with the best interests of the people, that they may have access to accurate information and balance reportage of the political issues of the day without being subjected to abuse, harassment, or any vicious hate speech. These are conditions which can only be created and preserved if public figures can be held accountable for their actions, something which doesn’t amount to any deprivation of freedom of speech.

The implication that there is no freedom of speech in the UK is certainly one of the absurdities expressed in your posts. So far you have pigeonholed me as “an enemy of free speech” solely for advocating controls which are really uncontroversial, and which exist in countries like the UK, evidently the logical progression of your surreal logic is that Her Majesty’s government too must be quite an enemy of free speech.

By insisting on the appeal to such platitudes about free speech and why it needs to be “cherished and defended” you have already aligned yourself with the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church. It’s no surprise that I haven’t been able to change your views, your stubborn commitment to absolutist stances has been crystal clear throughout the thread, and as far as I can see it’s likely to remain unaltered regardless of the cogency of my posts.

Originally posted by FMF
He hears a broadcaster made some insensitive comments and he goes straight to "further regulation" is needed without passing go! What is he in your book, a supporter of free speech? generalissimo has made comments before advocating curbs on freedom of speech, some of which have been directed at other posters who said things he disagreed with. I will, howe ...[text shortened]... us: I reckon generalissimo is the biggest enemy of free speech among the regular posters here.

Another hysterical accusation which consolidates your reputation as the forum's most unabashed and unrepentant troll and creator of lies and fabrications.

Originally posted by generalissimo
My position so far has been limited to the promotion of intelligent and courteous political discourse, together with the best interests of the people, that they may have access to accurate information and balance reportage of the political issues of the day without being subjected to abuse, harassment, or any vicious hate speech.

You want to regulate the free speech of broadcasters like Limbaugh for what you claim to be "the best interests of the people"? I see. What "vicious hate speech" did you see in the OP?