Media Matters targeting radio stations

[Luddly Neddite]

The tax exempt Media Matters is now buying radio messages targeting individual radio stations by name that carry the Rush Limbaugh show. What's going on?

They hate freedom of speech.

No stupid, they are exercising freedom of speech.

This is not an issue of freedom of speech as defined by our Constitution. READ the First Amendment. Watch for the word, "government".

If you DON'T hate freedom of speech, you will be as much in favor of Media Matters exercising theirs as you are of limb-a-a-a-a exercising his.

Get it?

 

[Liability]

How is it any different from the American Family Association's boycott of JcPenney over hiring Ellen as a spokesperson?

I'm not sure it is.

Why?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How is it any different from the American Family Association's boycott of JcPenney over hiring Ellen as a spokesperson?

And, why would any American object to a group or an individual exercising their right to speak their opinion?

Something else that is being ignored in this as well as the asinine crap that Geraldo is spewing is that the more outrageous the comments, the better his ratings.

Lushbo is paid by Kochs and others to spew hate. THAT is his only job. I have no doubt that limb-a-a-a-a gained some listeners because of his stupid and vicious comments. His ignorant ASSumptions that his Viagra works the same as bc pills probably also got him a few listeners. His ratings have been going down for some time now and there are currently no accurate numbers being published - just his own wishful thinking - but his hatred of all things female gets him listeners, if only for a short time.

Try to listen to one entire program and you'll see what I mean. He is beyond stupid, he never speaks facts, his whole purpose is to stir up hate. But, that's true of the KKK too and, as much as we hate them and their message, who of us would want to live in a country where they can't speak out.

How about the Westboro "church"? You want the govt to "step in" and stop them?

The GObP/pubs/rw's all want to control our sex lives, contraception, abortion, gay marriage and some other freedoms. I haven't heard of any Dems/libs/progressives wanting to do the same thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's called Fascism.

that is what's going on.

They don't have a right to demand his silence either 1st amendment is a bitch, and he's rich enough to pay for his own soapbox and other people will pay to have him speak on their transmitters and millions more choose to listen.

Mediasplatters is adamant in denying all those people their rights because it offends their imagined right of not being offended, AND thwarts their ability to help forward fascism in secret.

That’s extremely ignorant: MM has nothing to do with enacting legislation.

Pursuit of happiness.

That’s the DoI.

The tolerant progressives want to silence conservatives. How progressive and tolerant is that?

He's entitled to speak his opinion in any legal fashion.

You do not have the right to silence him because you're butthurt.

More ignorance from the right – MM has neither the authority nor ability to ‘silence’ Limbaugh.

Then why does the LEFT want to shut Limbaugh up? Freedom of speech????

And yet more ignorance from the right – telling…

The ‘left’ doesn’t want to ‘shut Limbaugh up.’ Again, they have neither the authority nor ability to do so. First Amendment restrictions apply only governmental actions.

MM isn’t the ‘left,’ it’s only one non-profit origination. Its efforts are inane and foolish, as they’ll likely backfire – but MM is no more representative of the ‘left’ than Limbaugh is of the right.

 

[Polk]

How is it any different from the American Family Association's boycott of JcPenney over hiring Ellen as a spokesperson?

I'm not sure it is.

Why?

Because it's the same sort of thing, just coming from people on your side. People are free to boycott something if they want to, be in JcPenney or Limbaugh's advertisers.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's called Fascism.

that is what's going on.

They don't have a right to demand his silence either 1st amendment is a bitch, and he's rich enough to pay for his own soapbox and other people will pay to have him speak on their transmitters and millions more choose to listen.

Mediasplatters is adamant in denying all those people their rights because it offends their imagined right of not being offended, AND thwarts their ability to help forward fascism in secret.

That’s extremely ignorant: MM has nothing to do with enacting legislation.



That’s the DoI.

He's entitled to speak his opinion in any legal fashion.

You do not have the right to silence him because you're butthurt.

More ignorance from the right – MM has neither the authority nor ability to ‘silence’ Limbaugh.

Then why does the LEFT want to shut Limbaugh up? Freedom of speech????

And yet more ignorance from the right – telling…

The ‘left’ doesn’t want to ‘shut Limbaugh up.’ Again, they have neither the authority nor ability to do so. First Amendment restrictions apply only governmental actions.

MM isn’t the ‘left,’ it’s only one non-profit origination. Its efforts are inane and foolish, as they’ll likely backfire – but MM is no more representative of the ‘left’ than Limbaugh is of the right.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo]Dr. Evil "Riiiiight" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Liability]

How is it any different from the American Family Association's boycott of JcPenney over hiring Ellen as a spokesperson?

I'm not sure it is.

Why?

Because it's the same sort of thing, just coming from people on your side. People are free to boycott something if they want to, be in JcPenney or Limbaugh's advertisers.

Utterly beside the point. Of course people are free to boycott those whose speech offends them. That was never doubted.

The question isn't whether they are free to do it or endorse it or rally for it. The question is whether doing so is in keeping with our notions of the value of free speech.

It isn't.

I disagreed with the effort attacking Ellen, too. And the effort of Media Nutters to silence their opponent is a sad commentary on basic fundamental precepts formerly held by "liberals" on matters of free speech.

 

[Polk]

I'm not sure it is.

Why?

Because it's the same sort of thing, just coming from people on your side. People are free to boycott something if they want to, be in JcPenney or Limbaugh's advertisers.

Utterly beside the point. Of course people are free to boycott those whose speech offends them. That was never doubted.

The question isn't whether they are free to do it or endorse it or rally for it. The question is whether doing so is in keeping with our notions of the value of free speech.

It isn't.

I disagreed with the effort attacking Ellen, too. And the effort of Media Nutters to silence their opponent is a sad commentary on basic fundamental precepts formerly held by "liberals" on matters of free speech.

I don't see boycotts as particular useful is most cases, but it doesn't run contrary to the idea of free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want. You don't have the right to be paid for it.

 

[Liability]

Because it's the same sort of thing, just coming from people on your side. People are free to boycott something if they want to, be in JcPenney or Limbaugh's advertisers.

Utterly beside the point. Of course people are free to boycott those whose speech offends them. That was never doubted.

The question isn't whether they are free to do it or endorse it or rally for it. The question is whether doing so is in keeping with our notions of the value of free speech.

It isn't.

I disagreed with the effort attacking Ellen, too. And the effort of Media Nutters to silence their opponent is a sad commentary on basic fundamental precepts formerly held by "liberals" on matters of free speech.

I don't see boycotts as particular useful is most cases, but it doesn't run contrary to the idea of free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want. You don't have the right to be paid for it.

It does run contrary to values of free speech. It is an effort to SILENCE the other guy, not to debate him or prove him wrong or consider what he has to say objectively.

Yes you have the right to say whatever you want (with a few well known exceptions). But, you DO have a right to get paid for it, too.

You don't have a guarantee that you WILL get paid for it. But if you can talk someone into paying for it, you absolutely have that right to get paid for it.

And when Media Nutters tries to silence Rush, they are attacking him financially to achieve that petty sordid agenda. They don't care about the fact that he makes money. They are trying to take the money out of the equation in order to shut his speech down.

 

[Polk]

No, you don't have the right to get paid for it. You get paid for it if it's something people are interested in hearing. If you had a right to get paid for your speech, you and I should go in together and get some money for all our posts here.

 

[Liability]

No, you don't have the right to get paid for it. You get paid for it if it's something people are interested in hearing. If you had a right to get paid for your speech, you and I should go in together and get some money for all our posts here.

Wrong. You DO have the right to get paid for it if somebody else is willing to provide the money.

Having a right to get paid for it, contrary to your sophistry, does not gurantee that you WILL get paid for it. But if there is a market, you have the right to charge for your speech and to accept the fees.

And Rush has the right to demand payment for his speech as long as there are stations that think they can earn money from advertisers to cover his fees and advertisers willing to pay his network directly.

YOU can't demand to get paid for your posts because there are droves of people refusing to offer you a penny for them! A perfectly fair and rational market!

 

[daveman]

The tax exempt Media Matters is now buying radio messages targeting individual radio stations by name that carry the Rush Limbaugh show. What's going on?

They hate freedom of speech.

No stupid, they are exercising freedom of speech.

Yes, they are. And attempting to abrogate Rush's.

And I'm exercising MY freedom of speech when I correctly say MM hates free speech.

This is not an issue of freedom of speech as defined by our Constitution. READ the First Amendment. Watch for the word, "government".

Indeed. The far left wants to use the power of government to silence conservative voices. That's because they know their ideas can't survive contact with others. So -- eliminate the others.

If you DON'T hate freedom of speech, you will be as much in favor of Media Matters exercising theirs as you are of limb-a-a-a-a exercising his.

Get it?

More than you. I have never demanded that MM be silenced.

 

[daveman]

He's entitled to speak his opinion in any legal fashion.

You do not have the right to silence him because you're butthurt.

More ignorance from the right – MM has neither the authority nor ability to ‘silence’ Limbaugh.

I wish to Gaea you'd learn how the extremely simple quote function works. Too hard for you?

MM has strategy sessions with a White House known for ignoring the Constitution -- a White House with an extremely thin skin and a penchant for lashing out at media sources that don't show it the proper deference.

I'd tell you to do the math, but 1. You're not capable, and 2. You'd blindly support anything Obama does.

 

[daveman]

No, you don't have the right to get paid for it. You get paid for it if it's something people are interested in hearing.

That explains the utter failure of Err America and Gore's vanity channel.

 

[yidnar]

The tax exempt Media Matters is now buying radio messages targeting individual radio stations by name that carry the Rush Limbaugh show. What's going on?

Why is a righty crying about Free speech?

The airwaves are PUBLICLY OWNED. They are the Commons. We actually own the airwaves. We only allow corporations to broadcast on our airwaves. They used to be regulated. There were reasons for that. Too many to go into, but one of the reasons was so that the rich wouldn't buy up all the media outlets and then brainwash us with their right wing nonsense. But like a lot of other things, Clinton went along, and the rich gobbled up all the media. Whats funny about that is it came back to bite him in the ass. The right wing media didn't stop bashing the Clinton's so much that it actually cost Hillary the nomination in 2008.

Anyways, I don't think we need to go back to the exact Fairness Doctrine that you on the right did away with, but I do think the airwaves and media are important and we can not allow the corporations to own them all. This is why things like NPR are important. If they are going to own 19 of the 20 radio stations, at least don't be crying liberal when stations like NPR don't sound exactly like what Rush is spewing.

the leftist pulled the race card on the Clintons in 08 dumb ass !!! and the reason why right wing radio is popular is unlike air Americas listeners we like to be informed with the facts where as leftist just need to be led blindly to the voting booth !!! thats why left wing talk radio is a failure !!

 

[Polk]

No, you don't have the right to get paid for it. You get paid for it if it's something people are interested in hearing. If you had a right to get paid for your speech, you and I should go in together and get some money for all our posts here.

Wrong. You DO have the right to get paid for it if somebody else is willing to provide the money.

Having a right to get paid for it, contrary to your sophistry, does not gurantee that you WILL get paid for it. But if there is a market, you have the right to charge for your speech and to accept the fees.

And Rush has the right to demand payment for his speech as long as there are stations that think they can earn money from advertisers to cover his fees and advertisers willing to pay his network directly.

YOU can't demand to get paid for your posts because there are droves of people refusing to offer you a penny for them! A perfectly fair and rational market!

That "if" a pretty big one in this discussion. People are increasingly unwilling to provide that money to Rush.

 

[Synthaholic]

They hate freedom of speech.

No stupid, they are exercising freedom of speech.

Yes, they are. And attempting to abrogate Rush's.

And I'm exercising MY freedom of speech when I correctly say MM hates free speech.

This is not an issue of freedom of speech as defined by our Constitution. READ the First Amendment. Watch for the word, "government".

Indeed. The far left wants to use the power of government to silence conservative voices. That's because they know their ideas can't survive contact with others. So -- eliminate the others.

If you DON'T hate freedom of speech, you will be as much in favor of Media Matters exercising theirs as you are of limb-a-a-a-a exercising his.

Get it?

More than you. I have never demanded that MM be silenced.

You equate losing a radio show to being silenced. That's the position of a dumbass, since Rush could fund his own radio show without advertisers if he cared that much about getting his message out. He could also go speak on any street corner, without anyone interfering with his 'free speech'.

So you are wrong again. It's a daily occurrence with you.

 

[Katzndogz]

Mark Stevens, a Rush advertiser says that libs have thretened him and his employees to stop advertising on Rush's show or get personal reprisals. He gave an interview on Fox. I think the libs picked on the wrong person to try and intimidate.

Far from stopping the advertising, he's doubling his advertising. If the threats continue, he will triple it. What a hero he is. What a downright hero to stand up to the left like this.

 

[daveman]

No stupid, they are exercising freedom of speech.

Yes, they are. And attempting to abrogate Rush's.

And I'm exercising MY freedom of speech when I correctly say MM hates free speech.

Indeed. The far left wants to use the power of government to silence conservative voices. That's because they know their ideas can't survive contact with others. So -- eliminate the others.

If you DON'T hate freedom of speech, you will be as much in favor of Media Matters exercising theirs as you are of limb-a-a-a-a exercising his.

Get it?

More than you. I have never demanded that MM be silenced.

You equate losing a radio show to being silenced. That's the position of a dumbass, since Rush could fund his own radio show without advertisers if he cared that much about getting his message out. He could also go speak on any street corner, without anyone interfering with his 'free speech'.

So you are wrong again. It's a daily occurrence with you.

I would be wrong, if I'd actually said what you wrongly insist I have.

MM and the left want to use government force to silence Rush. That is what I condemn, not this impotent boycott.

Now that your wrong ideas have been corrected, I'd expect you to not repeat them -- but you will. You're just stupid like that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, they are. And attempting to abrogate Rush's.

And I'm exercising MY freedom of speech when I correctly say MM hates free speech.

Indeed. The far left wants to use the power of government to silence conservative voices. That's because they know their ideas can't survive contact with others. So -- eliminate the others.

More than you. I have never demanded that MM be silenced.

You equate losing a radio show to being silenced. That's the position of a dumbass, since Rush could fund his own radio show without advertisers if he cared that much about getting his message out. He could also go speak on any street corner, without anyone interfering with his 'free speech'.

So you are wrong again. It's a daily occurrence with you.

I would be wrong, if I'd actually said what you wrongly insist I have.

MM and the left want to use government force to silence Rush. That is what I condemn, not this impotent boycott.

Now that your wrong ideas have been corrected, I'd expect you to not repeat them -- but you will. You're just stupid like that.

What do you base that on?