Rush Limbaugh: The Limits of Speech

[Opoponax]

https://thinkprogress.org/rush-limb...oblem-warns-of-second-civil-war-dc4de3a1a3fe/

From the article:

According to Limbaugh, people did not show up in Charlottesville to protest Nazis but to “erase American history.” He cast the counter-protests in Charlottesville as part of an “ongoing effort to erase America by discrediting the entire premise of our culture, our history, our founding.”

“[The KKK] are not the problem. The problem is on the other side,” Limbaugh says. By the “other side” he means “the Antifa, the Occupy Wall Street, the Black Lives Matter, the United States mainstream media, the Democrat Party.”

“[T]he American people are being misdirected and told to fear the wrong people,” Limbaugh concludes.

Is this any different from the anti-Jewish and anti-communist garbage that used to come from Goebbles' propaganda machine? It truly is not. The only difference is that Limbaugh isn't paid directly by the GOP. Rather, he's permitted to say these things because private sponsors pay his bills.

Should he continue to be allowed to lie to the public every single day, day after day, regardless of the consequences? Should "incitement" be expanded beyond what it means now?

I apologize in a advance for adding not a lot to this. I'm sick, tired, and depressed. But this just really bothers the fuck out of me and seems representative of where American conservatism is at these days.

 

[fromderinside]

It's more like where american buck sucking and influence sucking are today than is is like where conservatism is today. I chose my terms very judiciously. We've become completely monetized and data loving here in GOUSA limited.

Rush is just witlessly high speeding down his particular drug infused mental lane to oblivion.

 

[Bronzeage]

Rush Limbaugh's career strategy has always been to figure out which way the crowd is headed and run out in front, so he can look like he's leading. He's never managed to do more than be a cheerleader for whoever or whatever is popular with conservatives at the moment. There's never been any real substance to him.

 

[laughing dog]

Finally, Limbaugh gets something right:

“[T]he American people are being misdirected and told to fear the wrong people,” Limbaugh concludes.

 

[untermensche]

You can't erase American history. No matter how hard you try.

His premise is absurd.

What people are trying to do is remove public adoration for people involved in upholding and defending the worst in human nature.

There are many great Americans who did not own slaves or violently defend the "Southern way of life" which was based on slavery.

 

[J842P]

https://thinkprogress.org/rush-limb...oblem-warns-of-second-civil-war-dc4de3a1a3fe/

From the article:

“[The KKK] are not the problem. The problem is on the other side,” Limbaugh says. By the “other side” he means “the Antifa, the Occupy Wall Street, the Black Lives Matter, the United States mainstream media, the Democrat Party.”

“[T]he American people are being misdirected and told to fear the wrong people,” Limbaugh concludes.

Is this any different from the anti-Jewish and anti-communist garbage that used to come from Goebbles' propaganda machine? It truly is not. The only difference is that Limbaugh isn't paid directly by the GOP. Rather, he's permitted to say these things because private sponsors pay his bills.

Should he continue to be allowed to lie to the public every single day, day after day, regardless of the consequences? Should "incitement" be expanded beyond what it means now?

I apologize in a advance for adding not a lot to this. I'm sick, tired, and depressed. But this just really bothers the fuck out of me and seems representative of where American conservatism is at these days.

Yes, he is allowed to say this.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Rush is just witlessly high speeding down his particular drug infused mental lane to oblivion.

I remember Rush's early shows. You can still find some of them around. He's drugged out, glassy eyed. He looks stoned. The biggest loudmouth conservative was a fucking drug addict.

Say it ain't so, Santonio!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Finally, Limbaugh gets something right:

“[T]he American people are being misdirected and told to fear the wrong people,” Limbaugh concludes.

He usually does. His standard procedure is to say something that actually is true but conveys the wrong idea.

 

[Opoponax]

Rush Limbaugh's career strategy has always been to figure out which way the crowd is headed and run out in front, so he can look like he's leading. He's never managed to do more than be a cheerleader for whoever or whatever is popular with conservatives at the moment. There's never been any real substance to him.

Yeah, but Limbaugh can say whatever the fuck he wants and his audience will believe it. And maybe that's where I'm trying to with this: responsibility.

The issue I'm trying to get at is whether a broadcaster has a responsibility to present a reasonable point of view when disseminating information. Can it reasonably be said that Limbaugh routinely represents things in a responsible manner? I don't think that he does. And what are the consequences of Limbaugh's "style"?

Let's suppose that we have an electorate grossly misinformed because of Limbaugh, and because of that, the Republic has suffered measurable harm, and it's foreseeable that such harm will continue.

Why should this speech continue to be protected?

We have laws against incitement. We're all familiar with those. But what happens when a certain type of speech that is provably false moves millions of people to make decisions and take action they would not have otherwise? Outside of what's known as "commercial speech" it's something that's never really been dealt with before.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I can understand where you're coming from with regards to Limbaugh, but to be fair, he wouldn't be what he is if there wasn't a readily built market eager to hear his bullshit. I don't favor stifling free speech because then one has to ask who will judge whether something is factual, or whether a broadcaster is living up to their responsibility to disseminate information in an accurate manner. Does Rush know he's full of shit? I think so. What about Alex Jones? Ditto.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's like the recent Supreme Court decision where it was held that a person who obtains medals of valor and then lies to people falsely presenting himself as someone who was awarded those decorations is merely practicing free speech. That person is under no obligation to point out your ignorance for believing him and has broken no laws. Further, you cannot pass a law that makes such behavior unlawful.

So if you're stupid enough to believe something that only someone stupid would believe, all it proves is that you're stupid, not that someone did anything wrong.

So Rush's popularity only demonstrates that there are a lot of stupid people.

 

[blastula]

Right Limbuagh, you big fat idiot, those guys with torches weren't Nazis, they were history buffs. They weren't chanting about Jews, they were chanting about Lee's place in history.

 

[Bronzeage]

Rush Limbaugh's career strategy has always been to figure out which way the crowd is headed and run out in front, so he can look like he's leading. He's never managed to do more than be a cheerleader for whoever or whatever is popular with conservatives at the moment. There's never been any real substance to him.

Yeah, but Limbaugh can say whatever the fuck he wants and his audience will believe it. And maybe that's where I'm trying to with this: responsibility.

The issue I'm trying to get at is whether a broadcaster has a responsibility to present a reasonable point of view when disseminating information. Can it reasonably be said that Limbaugh routinely represents things in a responsible manner? I don't think that he does. And what are the consequences of Limbaugh's "style"?

Let's suppose that we have an electorate grossly misinformed because of Limbaugh, and because of that, the Republic has suffered measurable harm, and it's foreseeable that such harm will continue.

Why should this speech continue to be protected?

We have laws against incitement. We're all familiar with those. But what happens when a certain type of speech that is provably false moves millions of people to make decisions and take action they would not have otherwise? Outside of what's known as "commercial speech" it's something that's never really been dealt with before.

Because, none of us is smart enough to decide what speech should be restricted. Beyond that, there is no way to prevent someone from saying something, so we are left only with punishing someone who says something we don't like. Nothing that is said can be taken back from existence.

Except for testimony under oath, there is no law against lying. It's possible to prosecute someone who lies with the intent to defraud, but guilt depends upon some kind of damages or financial loss. Again, this is all after the fact.

It's a problem of practicality and impossibility.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trying to erase history? You mean like having a statue glorifying a rebellion General in a place called Emancipation Park?!

 

[ZiprHead]

Rush Limbaugh, drumming up support for Nazis and Klansmen.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rush Limbaugh, drumming up support for Nazis and Klansmen.

I have no idea why he is going down this road. He used to just be a shill for the right-wing, but now it seems he wants to be the head of Ministry of Truth.

 

[Malintent]

You can't erase American history. No matter how hard you try.

His premise is absurd.

What people are trying to do is remove public adoration for people involved in upholding and defending the worst in human nature.

There are many great Americans who did not own slaves or violently defend the "Southern way of life" which was based on slavery.

The people that say that removing a monument to a racist war-monger that attacked the US in an attempt to secede from the nation is "rewriting the history books", should probably read a history book some day (and stop getting the totality of their history lessons from placards on statues).

- - - Updated - - -

Trying to erase history? You mean like having a statue glorifying a rebellion General in a place called Emancipation Park?!

No, like reducing publically available education programs and calling all inconvenient information, "fake news".

A statue is a glorification, not a posting of historical knowledge.

 

[laughing dog]

The people that say that removing a monument to a racist war-monger that attacked the US in an attempt to secede from the nation is "rewriting the history books", should probably read a history book some day (and stop getting the totality of their history lessons from placards on statues).

- - - Updated - - -

Trying to erase history? You mean like having a statue glorifying a rebellion General in a place called Emancipation Park?!

No, like reducing publically available education programs and calling all inconvenient information, "fake news".

A statue is a glorification, not a posting of historical knowledge.

Many of those very same people who conflate removing the statues with rewriting history also deny that protecting slavery was the fundamental motivating factor for the Confederacy. In other word, many of them are actively attempting to rewrite history.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Fun story about Rush. Way back in the mid-90s, Pres. Clinton gave an interview on Air Force One in which he complained about the difficulty of getting policies in place with the massive GOP propaganda machine in his way. He mentioned Limbaugh by name and mentioned how he, Clinton, might get a small sound bite on the evening news while Limbaugh had 3 hours, 5 days a week, to blast away with no one calling his claims to account. Limbaugh took huge offense to this. The next day he had a major rant about the President taking on a "private citizen" and using the power of the office to lambaste him. No joke -- that was Rush's take on it!!!! He was just a civilian who was feeling the full brunt of Presidential censure.
Back then, it was sickeningly funny that Limbaugh portrayed himself as John Q. Citizen just trying to live his life. Today, ask yourself if Rush sees anything wrong with Trump's remarks about Gold Star families, about "dumb as a rock" Meka, about...this list, if complete would a long one.

 

[untermensche]

Many of those very same people who conflate removing the statues with rewriting history also deny that protecting slavery was the fundamental motivating factor for the Confederacy. In other word, many of them are actively attempting to rewrite history.

The people with great wealth in the South were mostly large scale slave owners.

The regions wealth was based on slavery. Not gentlemanly courtesy to damsels.

But of course nobody ever said they were starting a war to protect the source of their wealth and the wealth of the region.

Humans are not honest creatures when it comes to admitting their greed and sadism.

So they invented a bunch of high sounding reasons for going to war.

And fools still use their lies as evidence of the good nature of slave owners.