Laura Ingraham, David Hogg and the beginning of the end of free speech.

[RealDave]

Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host of the Ingraham Angle was riding high as she presided over the fourth most watched cable news show in America. She used her freedom of speech to scrawl an emotional screed critical of David Hogg, a high school student who has become the face of the anti-gun movement. Ingraham, well educated, articulate woman, went from the penthouse to the outhouse overnight because she turned to the bathroom stall wall we call Facebook and attacked Hogg with a cheap, signed smear.

Hogg promptly identified her show’s sponsors and called for boycotts which quickly materialized leading Ingraham to take a “planned vacation” which is code for she’s likely gone. Ingraham should have known better.

Whenever or wherever opinions are expressed there is bound to be disagreement because people have different life experiences. This causes most people to reserve personal opinions especially in public settings. In the United States we have the first amendment which essentially means that we can say or write anything so long as what we say or write does not slander or bring harm to others or infringe on the rights of others to express different or unpopular opinions.

The First Amendment is a golden rule of American democracy that sets it apart from most other great civilizations not just in space but in time. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the event was hailed as a decisive victory for democracies embracing freedom of speech and the table appeared to be set for a golden age of world democracy.

But freedom of speech has a built in flaw: it raises the specter that the people could use it to call for getting rid of it. Just the fact that people are endowed with freedom of speech does not guarantee that they understand its significance or will use it responsibly. When it becomes a means to an end people will find creative ways to abuse it.

Both Laura Ingraham and David Hogg are guilty of abusing freedom of speech. Ingraham went after Hogg with the power of Fox News via Facebook and Hogg went after Ingraham’s livelihood probably on the advice of his political handlers.

Does this balance out? Not really. It’s wrong to crush opposing points of view with power and it’s just as wrong to go after a person’s income because you don’t agree with them.

If we lose freedom of speech here we’ll deserve it.

 

[protectionist]

Were you this supportive of Kaepernick?

Why would anybody support Kapernick ? An idiot who has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[protectionist]

Imbecile...

Trump: "You gotta see this guy!"

Hillary deceitfully fabricated a disability mocking, out of what was merely a mocking about pretense of a 9-11 article in the Washington Post. She deceived millions of people in the process. Now you're trying to do the same thing. You degrade yourself

PS - Nothing was wrong with Trump's mocking of Kovaleski's BS words. He DESERVED it.

 

[Faun]

That doesn't mean she isn't free to say what she wants. She can. Her employer can also say what they want. So can the sponsors and so can the Parkland kids. You have no clue what the First Amendment is all about.

You are trying to BS us around here. You're not going to do that. As I said, she was ramrodded off the air (at least temporarily), by the puppetmasters of David Hogg That was a complete disregard for her freedom of speech, and a direct attack upon it. Just like your lamebrain sig, you say things that are preposterous, and then sit back and expect us to believe it. You waste valuable USMB time.

“Ramrodded?” Like Colin Kaepernick? And there is nothing preposterous about my signature. You simply don’t like it.

 

[Faun]

Were you this supportive of Kaepernick?

Why would anybody support Kapernick ? An idiot who has no idea what he's talking about.

What’s the difference between Ingraham and Kaepernick?

Both spoke their mind. Both were supported by their respective employers. Both had political opponents calling for boycotts of their respective companies and sponsors.

The only difference is your political bias prevents you from seeing there’s no tangible difference between the two, but being the partisan you are, you support the one on the right but blast the one on the left.

 

[protectionist]

“Ramrodded?” Like Colin Kaepernick? And there is nothing preposterous about my signature. You simply don’t like it.

Colin Kaperick DESERVED to be ramrodded (or fired,as Trump said) And you 're not going to change the Kovaleski thing, by pretending what Hillary pretended. It all got exposed a long time ago.. You're just destroying your credibility that's all. Not my problem.

 

[protectionist]

What’s the difference between Ingraham and Kaepernick?

Both spoke their mind. Both were supported by their respective employers. Both had political opponents calling for boycotts of their respective companies and sponsors.

The only difference is your political bias prevents you from seeing there’s no tangible difference between the two, but being the partisan you are, you support the one on the right but blast the one on the left.

Good question Here's the good answer.>>

Kapernick disrespected America, its national anthem, its flag, and the sacrifices of thousands of military people, for hundreds of years. Ingraham disrespected a kid, being used as a pawn by gun control goofballs. Neither was good, but Laura's was a tiny fraction as bad as Kapernick.

Your description was a qualitative one, but it's the quantitative that is the real difference.

 

[RealDave]

Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host of the Ingraham Angle was riding high as she presided over the fourth most watched cable news show in America. She used her freedom of speech to scrawl an emotional screed critical of David Hogg, a high school student who has become the face of the anti-gun movement. Ingraham, well educated, articulate woman, went from the penthouse to the outhouse overnight because she turned to the bathroom stall wall we call Facebook and attacked Hogg with a cheap, signed smear.

Hogg promptly identified her show’s sponsors and called for boycotts which quickly materialized leading Ingraham to take a “planned vacation” which is code for she’s likely gone. Ingraham should have known better.

Whenever or wherever opinions are expressed there is bound to be disagreement because people have different life experiences. This causes most people to reserve personal opinions especially in public settings. In the United States we have the first amendment which essentially means that we can say or write anything so long as what we say or write does not slander or bring harm to others or infringe on the rights of others to express different or unpopular opinions.

The First Amendment is a golden rule of American democracy that sets it apart from most other great civilizations not just in space but in time. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the event was hailed as a decisive victory for democracies embracing freedom of speech and the table appeared to be set for a golden age of world democracy.

But freedom of speech has a built in flaw: it raises the specter that the people could use it to call for getting rid of it. Just the fact that people are endowed with freedom of speech does not guarantee that they understand its significance or will use it responsibly. When it becomes a means to an end people will find creative ways to abuse it.

Both Laura Ingraham and David Hogg are guilty of abusing freedom of speech. Ingraham went after Hogg with the power of Fox News via Facebook and Hogg went after Ingraham’s livelihood probably on the advice of his political handlers.

Does this balance out? Not really. It’s wrong to crush opposing points of view with power and it’s just as wrong to go after a person’s income because you don’t agree with them.

If we lose freedom of speech here we’ll deserve it.

I think you people don't know what free speech is. You must think it means you can say anything you want without repercussions.

It does not.

For the most part, you can say what is on your mind, that is free speech.

My right to free speech says that I can choose to respond & comment on what you said.

It is also my right to choose not to buy from companies that support what you said.

 

[RealDave]

“Ramrodded?” Like Colin Kaepernick? And there is nothing preposterous about my signature. You simply don’t like it.

Colin Kaperick DESERVED to be ramrodded (or fired,as Trump said) And you 're not going to change the Kovaleski thing, by pretending what Hillary pretended. It all got exposed a long time ago.. You're just destroying your credibility that's all. Not my problem.

Yep that evil POS Kaepernick. How dare he protest against the slaughter of black men by police. I guess you think he should STFU & know his place.

The idea you dumbasses believed your Orange Hero that he was being disrespectful to the flag, to our country & lastly to our troops is laughable.

You believed a man that actually did disreprect our veterans.

This fake outrage you idiots spew just makes me laugh at your ignorance.

 

[protectionist]

Yep that evil POS Kaepernick. How dare he protest against the slaughter of black men by police. I guess you think he should STFU & know his place.

The idea you dumbasses believed your Orange Hero that he was being disrespectful to the flag, to our country & lastly to our troops is laughable.

You believed a man that actually did disreprect our veterans.

This fake outrage you idiots spew just makes me laugh at your ignorance.

He wasn't protesting any slaughter of anybody by anybody. This fake outrage you idiots spew just makes me laugh at your ignorance that the whole police brutality was nothing but a political ruse set up by Obama, Sharpton, Jackson et al race hustlers to gin up votes for the Democrat in the 2016 election (and you fall for it). The black guys shot by police CAUSED themselves to be shot, as was proven time and time again, in the courts, and justby looking at the videos.

And whether Kapernick intentionally disrespected veterans (of which I am one), or not, that's exactly what he and all the other dum dum kneelers did. We didn't need Trump to tell it to us. It's self-evident. No way around it.

 

[Faun]

“Ramrodded?” Like Colin Kaepernick? And there is nothing preposterous about my signature. You simply don’t like it.

Colin Kaperick DESERVED to be ramrodded (or fired,as Trump said) And you 're not going to change the Kovaleski thing, by pretending what Hillary pretended. It all got exposed a long time ago.. You're just destroying your credibility that's all. Not my problem.

Nothing got exposed. Trump says, “you gotta see this guy,” and proceeds to mock his disability...

And there’s no fundamental difference between Ingraham and Kaepernick. The only real difference is your bias.

 

[Faun]

Yep that evil POS Kaepernick. How dare he protest against the slaughter of black men by police. I guess you think he should STFU & know his place.

The idea you dumbasses believed your Orange Hero that he was being disrespectful to the flag, to our country & lastly to our troops is laughable.

You believed a man that actually did disreprect our veterans.

This fake outrage you idiots spew just makes me laugh at your ignorance.

He wasn't protesting any slaughter of anybody by anybody. This fake outrage you idiots spew just makes me laugh at your ignorance that the whole police brutality was nothing but a political ruse set up by Obama, Sharpton, Jackson et al race hustlers to gin up votes for the Democrat in the 2016 election (and you fall for it). The black guys shot by police CAUSED themselves to be shot, as was proven time and time again, in the courts, and justby looking at the videos.

And whether Kapernick intentionally disrespected veterans (of which I am one), or not, that's exactly what he and all the other dum dum kneelers did. We didn't need Trump to tell it to us. It's self-evident. No way around it.

Many on the right were outraged by Kaepernick’s behavior and called for boycotts of the NFL, his employer, and their advertisers.

Many on the left are outraged by Ingraham’s behavior and called for boycotts of Fox, her employer, and their advertisers.

Other than your own bias, you’ve failed miserably to point to any discernible difference.

 

[WEATHER53]

The slaughter of black men by police
Liberals propose a non existent situation and bang the drum for a washed out football player and try to falsely equate him to a news reporter

 

[bendog]

Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host of the Ingraham Angle was riding high as she presided over the fourth most watched cable news show in America. She used her freedom of speech to scrawl an emotional screed critical of David Hogg, a high school student who has become the face of the anti-gun movement. Ingraham, well educated, articulate woman, went from the penthouse to the outhouse overnight because she turned to the bathroom stall wall we call Facebook and attacked Hogg with a cheap, signed smear.

Hogg promptly identified her show’s sponsors and called for boycotts which quickly materialized leading Ingraham to take a “planned vacation” which is code for she’s likely gone. Ingraham should have known better.

Whenever or wherever opinions are expressed there is bound to be disagreement because people have different life experiences. This causes most people to reserve personal opinions especially in public settings. In the United States we have the first amendment which essentially means that we can say or write anything so long as what we say or write does not slander or bring harm to others or infringe on the rights of others to express different or unpopular opinions.

The First Amendment is a golden rule of American democracy that sets it apart from most other great civilizations not just in space but in time. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the event was hailed as a decisive victory for democracies embracing freedom of speech and the table appeared to be set for a golden age of world democracy.

But freedom of speech has a built in flaw: it raises the specter that the people could use it to call for getting rid of it. Just the fact that people are endowed with freedom of speech does not guarantee that they understand its significance or will use it responsibly. When it becomes a means to an end people will find creative ways to abuse it.

Both Laura Ingraham and David Hogg are guilty of abusing freedom of speech. Ingraham went after Hogg with the power of Fox News via Facebook and Hogg went after Ingraham’s livelihood probably on the advice of his political handlers.

Does this balance out? Not really. It’s wrong to crush opposing points of view with power and it’s just as wrong to go after a person’s income because you don’t agree with them.

If we lose freedom of speech here we’ll deserve it.

You don't even know what free speech is. #SAD!
I admit I only read the first five pages of the nonsense Ray engendered, but did ANYONE point out to him that Hogg's response in Ingram did not even come close to involving the first amendment, nor did Ingram's initial attack on Hogg have any first amendment connection?

 

[Ray9]

Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host of the Ingraham Angle was riding high as she presided over the fourth most watched cable news show in America. She used her freedom of speech to scrawl an emotional screed critical of David Hogg, a high school student who has become the face of the anti-gun movement. Ingraham, well educated, articulate woman, went from the penthouse to the outhouse overnight because she turned to the bathroom stall wall we call Facebook and attacked Hogg with a cheap, signed smear.

Hogg promptly identified her show’s sponsors and called for boycotts which quickly materialized leading Ingraham to take a “planned vacation” which is code for she’s likely gone. Ingraham should have known better.

Whenever or wherever opinions are expressed there is bound to be disagreement because people have different life experiences. This causes most people to reserve personal opinions especially in public settings. In the United States we have the first amendment which essentially means that we can say or write anything so long as what we say or write does not slander or bring harm to others or infringe on the rights of others to express different or unpopular opinions.

The First Amendment is a golden rule of American democracy that sets it apart from most other great civilizations not just in space but in time. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the event was hailed as a decisive victory for democracies embracing freedom of speech and the table appeared to be set for a golden age of world democracy.

But freedom of speech has a built in flaw: it raises the specter that the people could use it to call for getting rid of it. Just the fact that people are endowed with freedom of speech does not guarantee that they understand its significance or will use it responsibly. When it becomes a means to an end people will find creative ways to abuse it.

Both Laura Ingraham and David Hogg are guilty of abusing freedom of speech. Ingraham went after Hogg with the power of Fox News via Facebook and Hogg went after Ingraham’s livelihood probably on the advice of his political handlers.

Does this balance out? Not really. It’s wrong to crush opposing points of view with power and it’s just as wrong to go after a person’s income because you don’t agree with them.

If we lose freedom of speech here we’ll deserve it.

You don't even know what free speech is. #SAD!
I admit I only read the first five pages of the nonsense Ray engendered, but did ANYONE point out to him that Hogg's response in Ingram did not even come close to involving the first amendment, nor did Ingram's initial attack on Hogg have any first amendment connection?

I can't describe porn but I know it when I see it. Same with free speech.

 

[bendog]

Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host of the Ingraham Angle was riding high as she presided over the fourth most watched cable news show in America. She used her freedom of speech to scrawl an emotional screed critical of David Hogg, a high school student who has become the face of the anti-gun movement. Ingraham, well educated, articulate woman, went from the penthouse to the outhouse overnight because she turned to the bathroom stall wall we call Facebook and attacked Hogg with a cheap, signed smear.

Hogg promptly identified her show’s sponsors and called for boycotts which quickly materialized leading Ingraham to take a “planned vacation” which is code for she’s likely gone. Ingraham should have known better.

Whenever or wherever opinions are expressed there is bound to be disagreement because people have different life experiences. This causes most people to reserve personal opinions especially in public settings. In the United States we have the first amendment which essentially means that we can say or write anything so long as what we say or write does not slander or bring harm to others or infringe on the rights of others to express different or unpopular opinions.

The First Amendment is a golden rule of American democracy that sets it apart from most other great civilizations not just in space but in time. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the event was hailed as a decisive victory for democracies embracing freedom of speech and the table appeared to be set for a golden age of world democracy.

But freedom of speech has a built in flaw: it raises the specter that the people could use it to call for getting rid of it. Just the fact that people are endowed with freedom of speech does not guarantee that they understand its significance or will use it responsibly. When it becomes a means to an end people will find creative ways to abuse it.

Both Laura Ingraham and David Hogg are guilty of abusing freedom of speech. Ingraham went after Hogg with the power of Fox News via Facebook and Hogg went after Ingraham’s livelihood probably on the advice of his political handlers.

Does this balance out? Not really. It’s wrong to crush opposing points of view with power and it’s just as wrong to go after a person’s income because you don’t agree with them.

If we lose freedom of speech here we’ll deserve it.

You don't even know what free speech is. #SAD!
I admit I only read the first five pages of the nonsense Ray engendered, but did ANYONE point out to him that Hogg's response in Ingram did not even come close to involving the first amendment, nor did Ingram's initial attack on Hogg have any first amendment connection?

I can't describe porn but I know it when I see it. Same with free speech.

Well, I can only pray you have a better understanding of orgasms than you have of the first amendment. Wait, let me take that back. LOL

 

[ABikerSailor]

Laura Ingram said something about Hogg not getting into college and made fun of him (free speech, she is allowed her opinion).

Hogg then called for a boycott of her advertisers in response because he thought she was being hateful (she was, and he was simply expressing his free speech).

The advertisers thought about it, and decided to drop advertising from her program (free speech, the advertisers have the right to decide who they do or don't support).

Nope, no free speech was silenced in this situation, no matter how much Protectionist thinks it was.

 

[Camp]

Hogg's call for a boycott and the sponsors who decided not to advertise on a political pundits broadcast is a great example of how freedom of speech is supposed to work. No government intervention or involvement. Just people having public discourse the way Americans do every day.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Laura Ingram said something about Hogg not getting into college and made fun of him (free speech, she is allowed her opinion).

Hogg then called for a boycott of her advertisers in response because he thought she was being hateful (she was, and he was simply expressing his free speech).

The advertisers thought about it, and decided to drop advertising from her program (free speech, the advertisers have the right to decide who they do or don't support).

Nope, no free speech was silenced in this situation, no matter how much Protectionist thinks it was.

No one's free speech is being violated here, that would require government intrusion to silence someone.

However, the more you work to punish people for what they say, in time people will become too afraid to speak their mind.
What Hogg and his lemmings are doing, take us down a dangerous road where the msm may pass on reporting certain stories for fear of these sort of attacks.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Laura Ingram said something about Hogg not getting into college and made fun of him (free speech, she is allowed her opinion).

Hogg then called for a boycott of her advertisers in response because he thought she was being hateful (she was, and he was simply expressing his free speech).

The advertisers thought about it, and decided to drop advertising from her program (free speech, the advertisers have the right to decide who they do or don't support).

Nope, no free speech was silenced in this situation, no matter how much Protectionist thinks it was.

No one's free speech is being violated here, that would require government intrusion to silence someone.

However, the more you work to punish people for what they say, in time people will become too afraid to speak their mind.
What Hogg and his lemmings are doing, take us down a dangerous road where the msm may pass on reporting certain stories for fear of these sort of attacks.

Wrong. The media will continue to report on stories they think are important to the viewers. Ingram wasn't reporting news, she was offering a snarky opinion on Hogg and his grades. Hogg's grades aren't news.

Laura Ingram offered an opinion, not news.