Is there any way to ban Limbaugh, O'Reilly and their ilk from the airwaves?

[Cyrano]

This question touches on the first amendment freedom of speech. But what about speech that provides only hatred, propaganda and divisiveness?

Can there be any doubt that these people have, through their words and support of a corrupt administration, created damage to our constitution, death to American service people and anguish to anyone with a conscience?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have the slightest clue as to the point where hate speech becomes unconstitutional. But I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

[WI_DEM]

1. the best way is for people not to watch them. FAUX ratings have been

declining for a while, too.

[warrens]

2. Sure. The airwaves are a public trust

Just have them declared hate speech or obscenity. Which they truly are.

[leftofthedial]

3. have a Congressional committee declare them "terrorists"

and use th Patriot Act to imprison and torture and execute them.

[slackmaster]

4. You could turn off your TV and your radio

Can there be any doubt that these people have, through their words and support of a corrupt administration, created damage to our constitution, death to American service people and anguish to anyone with a conscience?

Yes, there can be doubt.

[Cyrano]

12. Yes, slackmaster. I can turn off my TV and radio. But that doesn't

solve what I consider to be the damage they are doing to our country, our way of life and to basic human dignity.

[slackmaster]

25. I stand by my point about there being doubt they've done actual damage

About 1/3 of the people are going to strongly disagree with you on that. Of the remainder, many will be non-committal or willing to accept some negative fallout as the price of free speech.

I don't see trying to squelch them as a viable course of action.

[BR_Parkway]

5. Sorry, but I will support their right to say the stupidest, most hateful

things about me that they want - when we start saying this speech is good and ok, but that speech is bad and outlawed, we slip into some really nasty areas of who gets to decide which is which. I'd much rather see some laws enacted (or re-enacted) requiring equal time for both sides and probably some penalties and fines for lying.

If we can fine some TV station hundreds of thousands of dollars now for saying Fuck on TV, but nothing if Bill O'Rielly tells an out right lie - we have a problem.

[americanstranger]

53. Hear, hear.

This point was made during the michael Richards brouhaha - some here seemed to equate First Amendment absolutism with 'defending hate speech,' and just wouldn't get off it.

The First amendment has to apply to everyone - or it's worthless.

People seem to forget the saying 'I disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.' It's the American Way, and any attempt to stifle free speech is an assault on our basic freedoms.

Let 'em rant - what we need to realize is that most Americans don't even listen to these chowderheads.

-as

[Bitwit1234]

6. They're banned at my house

I don't listen or watch them.

[NOLADEM]

7. YES.

1. Re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine. This would require equal time for opposing viewpoints. This would negate the impact of four hours of Rush each day, and would really make it hard for O'Reilly, Rush et al to get their work done.

2. Revise media ownership rules. If a company is not allowed to monopolize the message and they are required to present a balanced message, then Rush, Bill et al would be neutered. The resulting competition of programming would also present the viewing audience with a choice to watch the Dem perspective, and many would do so.

3. Enforce media ownership requirements. If a company does not act according to its requirements as a corporate citizen or if that license holder promotes programming in violation of the rules, their license can be revoked and resold.

This produces a level playing field where the 'minority' position can stand for itself, where no censorship of the right is necessary.

[Benhurst]

11. A-men!

:thumbsup:

[KharmaTrain]

18. Fairness Doctrine Never Gave Equal Time...

From one who worked with it...it was to enable all candidates to be able to buy airtime for commercials and prohbit one party from monopolizing the commercial time or a station from price gouging...charging whatever they felt for ads...charging Repugnicans one rate and Democrats another or refusing to sell time to a party or candidate the owner didn't like. Last election cycle we saw the GOOP try to monopolize advertising time and it drove them into debt...also there was a ton of price gouging that kept many candidates off the air due to the high costs in the closing days of the campaign. There definitely needs to be a re-instatement of these rules, but it won't have any affect on political speech.

Programs like Rushbo & O'Reilly and other hate mongers are considered "content" and never were covered under equal time...nor was news coverage.

I agree there needs to be a total revisit to the '96 dereg rules that allowed the large corporates to monopolize the airwaves and eliminate many of the rules that they operate under.

Some of my suggestions are similar to yours...re-instituting caps on the number of stations a company can own in a market, re-instating requirements for public service and news programming as a condition for license renewal, returning the licensing period from the current 10 years to 3 years and make it less expensive and time consuming for groups to challenge a license, give preference to local ownership in the sale of stations and abolishing most LMA or Limited Management Agreements that allowed corporates to control even more stations through shell corporations.

I've posted on this topic numerous times and I expect there to be changes ahead as the large corporations suffocate under their own largess. The proposed Clear Channel bail out will put over 450 small market stations on the market...or just may have them shut off (to maintain the over-inflated "stick" or license prices that prohibit all but the very, very rich from owning any broadcast license).

[VOX]

28. KLONG! KLONG! KLONG! (Loudest variant of Ding! Ding! Ding! I could think of.)

NOLADEM, you've hit center target with all three of your points.

Thank you!! :toast:

[RebelOne]

51. Heard Neal Boortz last week whining about how he was sure

that the Dems will be re-introducing the Fairness Doctrine.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Well . . .

As long as their sponsors are happy, no.

So stop listening to them on the radio or watching them on TV. The will displease their sponsors.

And if you want others to stop listening to Rush or watching the BoO'R, stop giving them free publicity like this.

[Warpy]

9. Reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine

which means stations would have to scramble to offer equal time to Democratic people. Can you imagine the hissy fit these guys would throw if they had Democratic shows leading or following or, gawd forbid, they had to debate them?

All those prima donnas of the extreme right would take the money and run as fast as they can.

[jbonkowski]

19. C'mon guys. Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply

to cable, only broadcast TV and radio. Repeat after me: the FCC doesn't regulate cable. Not even a little.

At best, you could get Rush and Hannity off of the radio.

More likely, with a new Fairness Doctrine, for every hour that Rush is on the radio during the day, you would get an hour of a watered down liberal on the radio at 1 in the morning.

Doesn't anyone remember that the programming that (supposedly) balanced things out mostly appeared at 6 AM Sunday morning?

jim

[rsdsharp]

20. The Fairness Doctrine did not require equal time

That is a separate doctrine, still in place that applies to political candidates. The Fairness Doctrine required airing multiple view points of "controversial issues." It's why station editorials always ended with a suggestion that those with differing views should contact the station. There was no requirement that the opposing view get equal time, or that the holder be allowed to go on the air to express his view point. It did, however, keep station owners from airing only one political point of view to the point of propaganda.

[originalpckelly]

10. It would kill Air America, but you the only right thing to do...

would be to re-institute the fairness doctrine. Other than that there isn't anything which wouldn't impact their right to free speech.

And even with the fairness doctrine, they would still be able to say those things, but they would be challenged.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Yeah. Abolish The Constitution, Acquire A Taste For Hypocrisy And Develop A Fondness With '1984'.

Or, we can instead respect the right to free speech even when faced with something we don't like.

The beauty of freedom is that it incorporates the notion that not only those things that are declared 'right' by an individual group are tolerated.

I don't like the hosts you mention either. What I like less is hypocrisy and the notion of banning something merely because I don't like it.

[Bake]

16. Thank you.

Here we were just yesterday, trashing Newt Gingrich for advocating the abridgement of free speech, and now we're talking about doing exactly that.

I never cease to be amazed at the so-called progressives who want freedom of speech only as long as it's speech they approve of.

Bake

[liberalhistorian]

39. Exactly, couldn't have put it

better myself! How incredibly elitist it is to be angry that one group is trying to censor/ban something WE like and agree with, yet attempt to do the same thing just because WE don't like/agree with it and we think we know better than others what's good for them and what they should watch/read/listen to, etc. OPs like this really piss me off.

[Cyrano]

23. Dear OPERATIONMINDCRIME: My post was a question, not a suggestion.

I respect the right of free speech -- including speech I don't like.
I in no way demand that we only tolerate notions that are "right."
And I resent your not-so-obscure reference to calling me a hypocrite.

At no point did I say they SHOULD be banned. I merely questioned the limits of free speech. For example, posting an idea such as "assassinating a public official" is a crime. Would you consider this a limitation on free speech?

The crux of what I was getting at was that these individuals have exceeded rational discourse and have, in many cases suggested that people such as you and I are less than "patriotic" and therefore not fit to voice our opinions without being labeled "traitors." And the right to free speech has swung enough morons to go on supporting the lies of a war that has caused countless lives, both American and Iraqi.

And if all of this sounds like I take offense to your posting, you're absolutely right.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. And My Post Was The Answer To That Question.

It doesn't mean you did or didn't want those things. My response was my assessment of what the reality would be for someone who did.

[Cyrano]

30. Then I misunderstood your post. Sorry. Peace.

[liberalhistorian]

40. But who decides the definition of

"rational discourse?" Who has the right to make that determination for everyone else? What if someone decided Keith Olberman, et al., were not "rational discourse" and posted the same thing you did regarding Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al.? I can hear the howls of fury and outrage now. How is that NOT being hypocritical? How is that NOT being elitist?

[Brazenly Liberal]

24. Amen to that!

We only really have the rights the least among us has. The price we pay for free speech is that the other guy gets it, too. It's a price I'll gladly pay.

[Lochloosa]

44. Thank you OPERATIONMINDCRIME

The Fairness Doctrine should not (does not) apply to rush, hannity or Air America.

Amendment I
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.

[ContraBass Black]

45. Seconded.

[On the Road]

14. Actually, I Think They're Becoming a Liability

to their own cause. And their followers are dropping. It might be good to keep them in the public eye to remind everyone.

[jgraz]

15. Are you kidding? Ask Claire McCaskill if she wants Limbaugh banned!

Fat Boy handed her that election. The more ugliness these freaks spew, the more it helps us.

[benddem]

17. we have to have

the fairness doctrine reinstated.

[EdwardM]

21. I hope not.

I support people's right to say whatever they want regardless of how hateful it is.

[Karenina]

31. I do not.

But I live in a country where hateful lies spewed willy-nilly unchecked produced an INDUSTRIALIZED GENOCIDE.

I watch in horror as the land of my birth takes a bobsled ride down the same track.

[Blue-Jay]

22. People have the right to say stupid things.

Just like you have the right to suggest online that those idiots should somehow be forced off the air.

Yes, they're lying douchebags who get paid to air their false outrage daily, but they have equal protections under the constitution just like you do. That's the REAL price of freedom.

[Cyrano]

27. Please see posting #23.

[Blue-Jay]

32. Please see posting #32.

:D

[NEDem]

41. Please See Amendment #1.

Of the Bill of Rights.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. Turn off your television and radio

and refuse to watch/listen to them.

Since I've followed this practice and have not heard them on their own shows (though I did hear O'Liely on Terri Gross's Fresh Air), I don't know exactly what they have said.

If they have called for violence against a specific person or a specific group, I think their actions would cause them to be liable if some nutcase took them up on it. Example: They say that all Muslims should be shot. Some idiot gets up, takes a rifle, and goes and shoots up the local Middle Eastern restaurant, killing several. The shooter brags that hate radio told him to do it-maybe even uses it as a defense. There would be, at the very least, a civil action demanding punative damages, I would say.

[Guaranteed]

33. Not directly. You can put pressure on their advertisers, though,

and you can also make a mockery of their viewpoints.

[liberalhistorian]

34. I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong.

I absolutely cannot STAND O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, etc., so I just don't listen to/watch them. I decide that for myself, but I do NOT have the right to decide that for others. You cannot just ban a person and/or show just because YOU don't like what they have to say. If you don't like it, don't listen to/watch it, it's that simple. You have every right to make that decision for yourself, you do NOT have the right to make it for others.

How many times on here have we thrashed conservatives for trying to ban or censor this or that, and said that very same thing, that they have the right to decide for themselves but NOT for others and that if they didn't like it they didn't have to listen to/watch/ read it? It's the height of hypocrisy, then, to turn around and try to do the same thing just because we don't like the person and/or show. It's also very elitist.

And who defines "hate speech?" What if someone decided that Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart and/or Steven Colbert were "hate speech?" What would our reaction be then to a post similar to yours?

[mondo joe]

35. There is no point at which hate speech becomes unconstitutional.

At least not the speech in and of itself.

You are stuck with the slow and hard ways - educate and appeal to the public.

[SmokingJacket]

36. I hope not.

"I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (Voltaire, or attributed to)

It would suck to live in a world where I agreed with everything on the radio and TV.

The problem is more generally one of monopolistic ownership of broadcast media. If there was a stricter crackdown on single corporations owning *so* much of the public airwaves, these voices would just be tiny parts of a larger tapestry.

[Kelly Rupert]

37. Hopefully not.

Speech in support of bad policy is still protected. Political speech is the most protected type; you'll never be able to ban them. Even the Klan has the right to say their beliefs. Rush and his ilk are nowhere near the threshold of hate speeh.

[zbdent]

38. Probably the only way to hit these types

is to listen to them, and then, when they inevitably make some totally f*cked up, horrendous comment, hit their sponsors with a LOT of messages and complaints, pointing out that you demand they pull their advertisements from the show ... and get your "leftie" friends to join you in it ...

It may not do any damage, but if you get enough people to send in, it might get them nervous ...

A little note to a few "friendlies" at the IRS might just help, too ... or, if it's a restaurant, hmm ... wonder how the health inspectors might feel about a few inspections ...

[CRK7376]

42. Simple!

I turn off hte Rado or TV whenever they are on. I will not listenor watch their drivel most of the time. Once in awhle out of curiosity I tune in, but can neverl last more than 5-10 minutes...then it's off or onto another channel...

[smb]

43. I Take It You Weren't Listening....

Mr. (Cyrano), the British 'broke up our capacity to use free speech' in the 1770s. The pro-slavery leaders 'broke up our capacity to use free speech' in the 1850s. The FBI and the CIA 'broke up our capacity to use free speech' in the 1960s. It is within those groups where you would have found your kindred spirits, Mr. (Cyrano). Those who had no faith in freedom, no faith in this country, and, ultimately, no faith even in the strength of their own ideas, to stand up on their own legs without having the playing field tilted entirely to their benefit....

But apparently there are some of us who cannot see that the only future for America is one that cherishes the freedoms we won in the past, an America in which we vanquish bad ideas with better ideas, in which we fight for liberty by having more liberty, and not less....

--Keith Olbermann, name changed for the occasion

[Jed Dilligan]

46. Hell no, let them talk.

Why would you want to ban radio shows? It's just sound--it doesn't hurt anyone.

I find it puzzling and disturbing, how people even here get behind the idea of "thoughtcrime."

[Tony Soprano]

47. We are progressives and therefore,

do NOT believe in censoring. If you wanna censor, join the other side.

[bryant69]

48. And after getting them banned let's go after the mainstream media

Hell even moderate liberal voices maybe - in away those guys are worse than the Rushs of the world. Soon we can create a world in which only good voices are heard. What's that, don't agree with our censorship/ I'm sorry we'll have to censor you.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Arkana]

49. As much as I hate Limbaugh and O'Reilly,

this is a slippery slope. We can't kick them off the airwaves, no matter how hateful they are.

[Tony Soprano]

50. Yeah...see post #47

n/t

[mondo joe]

52. Unfortunately, even on DU there are people who don't care about free speech,

or who think it's reserved for views they approve of.

How anyone could have come through the Bush years and not understand the peril of a government restricting speech is a complete mystery to me.

[sakabatou]

54. There is no good way to ban them as it may violate the 1st Amendment...

However, one can do it for themselves, by not watching Fox or RW Radio.