Think I’m kidding about the evil part? Alas, no
(CNN) Editor’s note: Marc J. Randazza is a Las Vegas based First Amendment attorney. He is licensed to practice in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts and Nevada. He is the editor of the law blog, The Legal Satyricon.
I despise Rush Limbaugh. I despise almost everything I have ever heard him say. I wish that he were no longer on the air. That is why I write today to defend him against those who call for him to be silenced.
Far too frequently, Americans find offense in another’s art, music or other expression, and then they call for censorship. This is intolerable. (snip)
The First Amendment requires neither tact nor politeness. It requires that we permit all views to set up stalls in the marketplace of ideas, and we let that marketplace decide which ideas prevail.
Mr. Randazza has a point, and he’s mostly referring to the piece written by 3 babes…whoops, seeeeexist, one of whom is a traitor, to get the FCC to revoke Limbaugh’s broadcast license, previously published at CNN. If you want to fight against Rush’s ideas as private citizens/groups, OK. But, hey, you can also change the channel. Or, you can debate like adults.
It is a terrifying prospect that the government might review the political and social positions of a broadcaster when deciding who gets access to the airwaves. Should the government censor books that it finds to be unpopular or offensive?
And, liberals, what comes around goes around. If you start down this road, where will it lead, and will the same happen to your folks?
I despise Limbaugh not because he uttered one or two nasty words, but because his views are truly evil. I debate those who agree with him. I place my ideas into the marketplace, and I believe that ideas like mine will win out.
See? Evil! LOL.
If you don’t stand up for Limbaugh’s liberty today, someone may come for yours tomorrow. Discredit him, but don’t silence him.
Most Conservatives think MSNBC, CNN, the NY Times, Washington Post, etc, are, by Randazza’s POV, evil, yet, we do not try to silence them: we either tune them out or debate them. I’ve searched, but, I can’t find the link, unfortunately, which showed that Conservative blogs linked the NY Times way, way, way more than Liberal blogs. Because we’re calling out the liberal media’s most important newspaper, debating their viewpoint. Don’t like Rush? Turn him off, or debate his ideas, tell us why yours are better.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
And, why do I care what this LAWYER says?
Who the bleep cares that he is anti-capitalist, which is ironic due to his profession.
If you can’t stand the defense of personal liberty, personal freedom and individual responsibility, then SHUTUP!!
I link to The New York Times for a different reason. Whenever I have a statistic or fact which needs documentation, I seek out sources which our friends on the left won’t challenge as biased. (The Times is biased, of course, but the lefties can’t make that claim.)
One of the bigger problems I find in documentation is that it so often occurs that a million openly conservative sources will have used a particular fact, but the liberals, anxious to keep it quiet, have far fewer documentary sites noting it on the internet. There are times it takes a lot of scrolling through to find a source which won’t be challenged as biased.
Here here Dana! I’ve tried to do the same thing- whether it’s a liberal issue that they don’t want talked about and I can’t locate one single liberal source to confirm, or a conservative one where there are no honest liberal evaluations of whatever the charge was. The bias is absolute.