Constitution protects even rude radio people
My response to Mary Coyne Wessling's letter (April 16):
Your demand that Rush Limbaugh be taken off air would meet less derision had you included real venom spewers: Air America's Al Franken and Randi Rhodes, and Rosie O'Donnell, whose tirades more suit satellite radio's verbal pornographer Howard Stern than network TV.
Fortunately, no "right" exists in our expansively interpreted Constitution from being "offended/injured" by someone else's "reprehensible speech." The First Amendment says just the opposite.
Feminists pioneered the use of politically correct speech as a club (exemplified by your letter) to successfully silence critics. The subsequent exploitation of PC by other "oppressed minority groups" represents far more danger to this country than any crudity uttered by 10 Imuses, Limbaughs, Frankens or Rosies every day.
In prewar Germany, Nazis banned two things as they consolidated power: private ownership of guns and free speech. Your demand represents precisely the type of thinking and behavior that led Limbaugh to coin the term Femi(nist) Nazi.
In the end, Ms. Wessling, your alternative remedy offers the solution most consistent with our country's values. No one compels you to listen. Simply turn off your radio (and tune in "The View").
Readers beware Democrats' attempt to re-implement the "Fairness Doctrine." It's nothing but political censorship.
J. Michael Crouch
Greensboro
Comments (13)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Partisan much, Crotch?
==
"We live in such a dialectically pre-occupied country right now. Everything is red state or blue state - good - bad - young - old. Our media culture exaggerates the fights and disagreements."
Posted on May 4, 2007 6:17 AM
Partisan much, Crotch?
==
"We live in such a dialectically pre-occupied country right now. Everything is red state or blue state - good - bad - young - old. Our media culture exaggerates the fights and disagreements." Ken Burns.
Posted on May 4, 2007 6:17 AM
I had a little different take on the lettr.
It seems to me that she was repeating the old saw "be careful what you wish for....".
She obviously has no love for Limbaugh or Imus, but rather warns that if you attempt to silence voices you don't like, you are setting yourself up for disaster.
Incidently, I don't listen to Limbaugh, but I do remember the "feminazi" storm. Criticisng a loosley structured socio-political group by associating them with authoritarian tactics is nowhere near the same as denigrating women because they on't fit your stereotypical perception of beauty.
Posted on May 4, 2007 8:15 AM
"Fairness Doctrine" = government sponsored liberal radio/media that cannot compete in the market.
Posted on May 4, 2007 8:26 AM
I can see a future in which a conservative wave brings congress and the executive back into power. After media companies have been coerced into eliminating conservative commentators and advertisers have fled the networks due to catastrophic loss of listenership(?), the "fairness doctrine" is then used as a bludgeon against the now state-supported liberal commentators. CNN, PBS, PMSNBC, ABC CBS Current and others of their ilk are forced into bankruptcy by the same doctrine that was used against the right.
Actually, I don't think the FD wil pass muster with SCOTUS.
Posted on May 4, 2007 8:36 AM
While I have to agree with several of Mr. Crouch's points, I think that Ms. Wessling's LTE was more about an even-handed application of outrage or a repeal of the double standard that we allow.
That said, I don't have a dog in this fight, as I don't listen to Imus or Limbaugh or Franken, or any talk radio for that matter. If I wanted to hear an egotistical, loudmouthed bloviating assbag flapping his yap, I'd go to work. :D
Posted on May 4, 2007 9:28 AM
I've often railed against analogies to Nazism used by LTE writers on the left. To be fair, I don't see the relevance in using the same analogy in this LTE.
I do agree, however, that political correctness or just the mere fear of offending someone has reached a point in this society in which free speech is being stifled.
I don't agree with Rosie O'Donnell on anything except for a love of food, but she certainly has the right to make a fool of herself. Whether anyone wants to listen to her antics should be for the market to decide.
Denz, your point is one of the reasons I became self-employed.
Posted on May 4, 2007 9:47 AM
This letter should be relegated to the dust bin. No substance, all rant.
Posted on May 4, 2007 9:53 AM
"Denz, your point is one of the reasons I became self-employed."
Hope you don't have a habit of talking to yourself! :P
Posted on May 4, 2007 10:05 AM
Rosie reminds me a lot of my sister; she speaks before she thinks. Her political views are so far left, it's beyond amusing. However, she does have gumption and I appreciate her for that if nothing else.
All these folks are entertainers. They wouldn't be where they were if they weren't...um...entertaining.
There are folks who take them seriously. I'm not one of them.
I support the right of all of them to speak their minds. Not that I'm gonna watch it, though.
Posted on May 4, 2007 11:13 AM
My question is "why do people feel that being 'PC' is so wrong?" Is there a problem in having empathy for others? Is it wrong to relate to the struggles that others have and then be considerate when speaking about those people and things?
What is wrong with saying "difficult" things in a polite way?
Or, do those who blog here speak in public as they do here? I would hope not!
Shalom
Posted on May 4, 2007 11:42 AM
I see Martin Eakes is to deliver the commencement speech at Guilford tomorrow. He is a fantastic citizen of this state and friend. He founded Self-Help and Center for Responsible Lending, but refuses to take more than $65,000 as CEO of the company. Wonderful fellow.
Posted on May 4, 2007 4:05 PM
TLC, wonder how he feels on taxes? (Regarding the other LTTE on Friday.)
Shalom
Posted on May 4, 2007 4:28 PM