I don't care what anyone says

[malaise]

You cannot be bombarded with racist comments, anti-Democratic party rants and dog whistles 24/7 by the likes of Rush Scumbaugh and more than a few ReTHUG politicians and not facilitate murders like that of Trayvon Martin or attacks on Gabby Giffords.

Add to that laws that allow these lunatics to not just purchase weapons but also to claim self defense on flimsy grounds.

Hate speech is hate speech and there is no first amendment right to promote hate.

[spanone]

1. k&r...

[Hubert Flottz]

2. K&R

:kick:

[sarcasmo]

3. Boycotting the advertisers sent a message.

Last edited Tue Mar 20, 2012, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

[shcrane71]

4. Rush definitely contributes to a toxic national dialogue.

Facilitated by the right-wing's monopoly on our AM radio (PUBLIC) airwaves.

[stop them]

5. "and there is no first amendment right to promote hate"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

sounds to me like a right to say whatever you want....consider some of the things said on DU about conservatives...pretty much hate speech...

[RobertEarl]

6. ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...

But it can deny the right to un-peaceably assemble.

Which is what Rush and his ilk conspire to do. They assemble to create discord and destroy peace. They should be arrested, tried and then punished to hard labor. Hard labor transmogrifies a person and makes one peaceful. Rush and his ilk need hard lessons.

[stop them]

7. you're joking, right?

no other response comes to mind...

[RobertEarl]

8. No not at all

But you might be.

""Rush and his ilk assemble to destroy peace. And create discord.""

Can you argue against that statement or just act like a joker?

[stop them]

9. sure...

Rush et al. say things that are intended to change or impact the thinking of people...their goal could be viewed as 'to destroy peace' if you're liberal, or to create peace if you're conservative, if you define peace as agreement... advocating disagreement is not violence...ask OWS...

I think we'd have a difficult time finding an instance where Limbaugh or other radio hosts actually advocate violence, which can be different...

[RobertEarl]

10. difficult?

Haven't listened to the gas-bag racist in years, but I sincerely think it would not be difficult to quote the hater wherein he advocates violence.

In fact, it should be easy.

Maybe your idea of peace and Rush's is compatible? Not so with me. To me, Rush's desire is to destroy true peace. For instance: I was against the Iraq invasion, and he (not you?) was for making war on those innocents.

There.... was that easy enough for you to begin seeing what the Rush does to destroy peace?

[stop them]

11. that's true, he was in favor of the Iraq war...

along with the majority of the US public at the time...do you believe they should all be subject to arrest and trial?

[Morning Dew]

13. stop them?

stop who?

[RobertEarl]

14. Did the public make money doing so?

Did they have a profit motive?

Did they lie? Did they spread untruths in order to deceive?

Rush did. He and his buds assembled to create war, just as Bush and Cheney did. Yes, they should be tried convicted and imprisoned. Duh!

[chknltl]

24. It could be argued that he wasn't advocating violence but.....

Last edited Wed Mar 21, 2012, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3210319

nor was this advocating violence on the air according to some folks either :

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1313

When pressed for further explanation they found alternative context for what they had said.... but thats just my opinion.

[baldguy]

15. You have no right to incite violence or panic: "...fire in a crowded theater..." and all.

They spend years creating scapegoats for the countries problems & lies to "solve" them that their dim-witted audience gobbles up, then they create the problems themselves, then they point to a target and say: "There he is! It's all his fault."

And when their target is disrespected, assaulted or killed by one of their minions, they claim "I didn't do anything! It's not my fault. I'm a comedian." As if that's supposed to let them off the hook.

[madokie]

12. I'm on your side

Outright hate is not protected speech if you ask me

[Proud Public Servant]

16. Outright hate is EXACTLY what the 1st amendment protects

And that's as it should be. A protection of freedom of speech that does not extend to speech we find reprehensible isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[stop them]

19. yep...n/t

[catrose]

17. I wish more people understood this.

I guess we just have to keep saying it. Thank you.

[EFerrari]

18. Of course. And the deal with citing the "stand your ground" atrocity

is that is a defense, not a free pass. The state attorney has all the evidence he needs to arrest Zimmerman but FL is a corrupt sewer (like so many states are) and had to be forced to do his job.

[gratuitous]

20. Yes, but . . .

The trouble is our country has gotten to the point where it's so screwed up, we can't even recognize how screwed up we are. Of course the eminently foreseeable outcome of the daily rantings by that vile human being and the fact-free hatred spewed from other popular media outlets is going to push someone somewhere over the edge. In fact, it may be a whole bunch of someones in a lot of somewheres.

But in our system, we can't or don't recognize these obvious connections, because the defense is "Well, there are hundreds/thousands/millions of other people who were subjected to this same sewage who didn't go out and shoot somebody." This is proffered in all seriousness, as if the only way we could possibly object to the vile human being and his squadron of hate acolytes is if large numbers of people all at once went on random killing sprees. We then get diverted into pleasant-sounding argument frames like "freedom of speech" or "right to keep and bear arms" and pretty soon the whole matter is lost. Except for the bodies, they're still under stones somewhere.

[malaise]

29. Nice post

[goclark]

21. K and R again and again

Malaise,

[malaise]

28. Damn you're back

Long time no see

[noiretextatique]

22. it is a hate industry hiding behind the 1st amendment to disseminate political propaganda

the hate industry continually spreads false information to further the goals of the conservative movement and the republicon party. does the 1st amendment protect blatant liars who promote hate? america needs to do some serious soul-searching.

[Proud Public Servant]

23. Do you really want the government

deciding what speech constitutes "hate" and is therefore impermissible?

Do you really think that much OWS anti-1% rhetoric won't be considered "hate"?

Do you really think that separatist-feminist rhetoric won't be considered "hate"?

Do you really think that black supremecist rhetoric won't be considered "hate"?

Do you really think that the many, many DU posts that go off on Republicans, Evangelicals, and others won't be considered "hate"?

Be very, very careful what you wish for. A government that can arrest me for expressing strong negative feeling about my enemies and oppressors is pretty much my worst nightmare.

[rufus dog]

25. I will put $10 bets on the following

1. The listening/viewing habits of Zimmerman
2. The religious affiliation of the Police Chief and his Deputies

[malaise]

30. I'll double up

[Marrah_G]

26. The first amendment is there to protect all speech

especially the kind we don't like.

[Kennah]

27. First amendment caselaw might well be the most exhaustive of all the amendments

It is an extremely tall order to say something which isn't protected.

Limbaugh's daily spew doesn't really begin to approach Brandenburg's.