Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Free Speech vs Boycotts

Zen Peach





Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 02:08 PM
Any number of sites online are providing information on Rush Limbaugh's advertisers - urging folks to bombard these companies with letters, phone calls, and e-mails.

There's nothing new about this tactic, and it's well within a persons rights to boycott and go after advertisers that sponsor someone you disagree with....

But how is it possible to be a proponent of the Right to free speech/free expression and engage in this type of activity at the same time?

 
Replies:

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3238
(3241 all sites)
Registered: 1/7/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 02:16 PM
is someone asking the government to step in and stop Rush or anyone else? Because if not what in the world does it have to do with the right to frees speech?
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67570
(68087 all sites)
Registered: 10/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 02:31 PM
Free speech doesn't include slandering college students, no matter who you are.

 

____________________
Hittin' The Web::Hugh Duty Memorial Giveaway has begun!

RIP Hugh Duty

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 02:33 PM
quote:
is someone asking the government to step in and stop Rush or anyone else? Because if not what in the world does it have to do with the right to frees speech?


It has everything to do with it, which is probably why you didn't answer the question. Going after advertisers, imploring them to drop their sponsorship is not exactly synonomous with support of the Right to Free Speech. Any reasonable person would likely agree with that.

Even if you disagree, you do support Limbaugh's right to say it, correct? If so, why the retribution? Just turn the dial...

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20406
(20466 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 03:55 PM
quote:
Going after advertisers, imploring them to drop their sponsorship is not exactly synonymous with support of the Right to Free Speech.


Sure it is, I am choosing to hit them right smack dab in the middle of their wallets.

And the advertiser can exercise his/her right of free speech simply by telling the complainer...NO.

 

____________________
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners."
- George Carlin -

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 23381
(23380 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 04:06 PM
quote:
Any number of sites online are providing information on Rush Limbaugh's advertisers - urging folks to bombard these companies with letters, phone calls, and e-mails.

There's nothing new about this tactic, and it's well within a persons rights to boycott and go after advertisers that sponsor someone you disagree with....

But how is it possible to be a proponent of the Right to free speech/free expression and engage in this type of activity at the same time?


Gee, it seemed to be the only way Rush was going to 'apologize'.


“In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.” -Rush

And here's his not "a personal attack".

He said on Wednesday, “What does it say about the college coed ... who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.” - Rush

He dug in a day later, refusing to give ground.

“If we’re going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke,” Limbaugh said. “And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we’re getting for our money.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/limbaugh-apologizes-to-law-student-f or-insult-says-he-intended-no-personal-attack/2012/03/03/gIQAz53LpR_story.h tml

Cry me a f-ing river.

Reap what you sow.

 

____________________
Quit!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 23381
(23380 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 04:09 PM
Also, nobody is saying Rush can't say those vile things. What's happening now is he can't be PAID for it.

Being paid for vile remarks is not in the first amendment.

 

____________________
Quit!

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11689
(12132 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 04:49 PM
quote:
quote:
is someone asking the government to step in and stop Rush or anyone else? Because if not what in the world does it have to do with the right to frees speech?


It has everything to do with it, which is probably why you didn't answer the question. Going after advertisers, imploring them to drop their sponsorship is not exactly synonomous with support of the Right to Free Speech. Any reasonable person would likely agree with that.

Even if you disagree, you do support Limbaugh's right to say it, correct? If so, why the retribution? Just turn the dial...

Sure Rush has the right to free speech, and people have the rights to express their opinions by voting with their dollars. I don't see any conflict at all. I guess I'm not getting your point.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 05:00 PM
I started one of those facebook groups, Stop the War on Women, participating in the boydotts and I agree completely with what bob1954 just said. He can say those things all he wants, but we're going to make certain his sponsors know if they support him, we're taking our dollars elsewhere. So far nine of his sponsors have dropped him, ProFlowers being the latest.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19472
(19486 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 05:01 PM
I don't mind the use of boycotts as they can either work or be ignored. I'm glad to see these companies boycott Rush as he deserves everything he gets. Why Rush chose to go the route of MSNBC's liberal host ED Schultz,who called sweetheart radio host Laura Ingraham a slut last year, is beyond me.

[Edited on 3/4/2012 by DerekFromCincinnati]

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11689
(12132 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 05:02 PM
quote:
I agree completely with what bob1954 just said.

How often do you get to say THAT?

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 05:04 PM
About as often as you get to hear it.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 07:16 PM
quote:
Sure Rush has the right to free speech, and people have the rights to express their opinions by voting with their dollars. I don't see any conflict at all. I guess I'm not getting your point.


Obviously he DOESN'T have that right, not without financial penalties attatched and that's not really freedom at all. Probably the reason nobody has answered the question in the OP.

It's no secret that we've heard plenty of "vile" comments from broadcasters on the Left, and those who are highly offended now made no move to go after their advertisers. Why?

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3911
(3918 all sites)
Registered: 11/19/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 07:29 PM
quote:
Why Rush chose to go the route of MSNBC's liberal host ED Schultz,who called sweetheart radio host Laura Ingraham a slut last year, is beyond me.


Ed Schultz wasn't slandering a young college student, like Rush did. Ed's comments were directed at a Right-Wing mouthpiece.

 

____________________


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11689
(12132 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 07:35 PM
quote:
Obviously he DOESN'T have that right, not without financial penalties attatched and that's not really freedom at all.

Financial penalties? There are no financial penalties being imposed. The only thing that's happened is sponsors who no longer want to be associated with Limbaugh have exercised their right to free speech by withdrawing their sponsorship. Limbaugh execised his right. The sponsors exercised their right. What could be more American than that?

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 07:39 PM
quote:
quote:
Why Rush chose to go the route of MSNBC's liberal host ED Schultz,who called sweetheart radio host Laura Ingraham a slut last year, is beyond me.


Ed Schultz wasn't slandering a young college student, like Rush did. Ed's comments were directed at a Right-Wing mouthpiece.


I think Woodsdweller has captured the whole dynamic to a T. The same comment aimed at someone on the Right is no problem. No big offense taken, no move to go after advertisers. Hell, in that case it's probably even something to laugh about.

Nothing like a two-faced phony getting all "offended."

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11689
(12132 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 07:42 PM
quote:
quote:
Why Rush chose to go the route of MSNBC's liberal host ED Schultz,who called sweetheart radio host Laura Ingraham a slut last year, is beyond me.

Ed Schultz wasn't slandering a young college student, like Rush did. Ed's comments were directed at a Right-Wing mouthpiece.

I think Limbaugh's comments were more akin to when Don Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos". Imus lost his gig on CBS radio and MSNBC. That's how Morning Joe was born.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6443
(8688 all sites)
Registered: 12/12/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 07:46 PM
quote:
I'm not getting your point.
No one is. This is about as American as it gets. He's free to say it. People are free to complain to the sponsors. Sponsors are free to pull their sponsorship.

 

____________________
This one goes to eleven...

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 07:49 PM
quote:
quote:
Obviously he DOESN'T have that right, not without financial penalties attatched and that's not really freedom at all.

Financial penalties? There are no financial penalties being imposed. The only thing that's happened is sponsors who no longer want to be associated with Limbaugh have exercised their right to free speech by withdrawing their sponsorship. Limbaugh execised his right. The sponsors exercised their right. What could be more American than that?


No financial penalties? You think those ads are free?

You're twisting the question into what you want it to be. The question wasn't about Limbaugh's advertisers, it pertained to folks who would claim to support a broadcaster's right to free speech - then boycotting him out of the other side of their face. Twist it anyway you like, but that's NOT support, especially when the applied outrage exists only in certain cases.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11689
(12132 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 07:53 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Obviously he DOESN'T have that right, not without financial penalties attatched and that's not really freedom at all.

Financial penalties? There are no financial penalties being imposed. The only thing that's happened is sponsors who no longer want to be associated with Limbaugh have exercised their right to free speech by withdrawing their sponsorship. Limbaugh execised his right. The sponsors exercised their right. What could be more American than that?


No financial penalties? You think those ads are free?

You're twisting the question into what you want it to be. The question wasn't about Limbaugh's advertisers, it pertained to folks who would claim to support a broadcaster's right to free speech - then boycotting him out of the other side of their face. Twist it anyway you like, but that's NOT support, especially when the applied outrage exists only in certain cases.

It sounds like you're saying you think people who support a broadcasters right to free speech must give up their own rights or risk being labeled as hypocrites. What you are saying makes no sense.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 08:08 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Obviously he DOESN'T have that right, not without financial penalties attatched and that's not really freedom at all.

Financial penalties? There are no financial penalties being imposed. The only thing that's happened is sponsors who no longer want to be associated with Limbaugh have exercised their right to free speech by withdrawing their sponsorship. Limbaugh execised his right. The sponsors exercised their right. What could be more American than that?


No financial penalties? You think those ads are free?

You're twisting the question into what you want it to be. The question wasn't about Limbaugh's advertisers, it pertained to folks who would claim to support a broadcaster's right to free speech - then boycotting him out of the other side of their face. Twist it anyway you like, but that's NOT support, especially when the applied outrage exists only in certain cases.

It sounds like you're saying you think people who support a broadcasters right to free speech must give up their own rights or risk being labeled as hypocrites. What you are saying makes no sense.


Oh, I think it does. And I can say it honestly because I fully support the Mahers, Olbermans, Schutzs right to express their point of view. Hell, I want them out there! I will never have any desire to go after advertisers, boycott, whatever. I support their rights fullly with no strings attatched. To my mind, the more visable the better!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 08:20 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Obviously he DOESN'T have that right, not without financial penalties attatched and that's not really freedom at all.

Financial penalties? There are no financial penalties being imposed. The only thing that's happened is sponsors who no longer want to be associated with Limbaugh have exercised their right to free speech by withdrawing their sponsorship. Limbaugh execised his right. The sponsors exercised their right. What could be more American than that?


No financial penalties? You think those ads are free?

You're twisting the question into what you want it to be. The question wasn't about Limbaugh's advertisers, it pertained to folks who would claim to support a broadcaster's right to free speech - then boycotting him out of the other side of their face. Twist it anyway you like, but that's NOT support, especially when the applied outrage exists only in certain cases.

It sounds like you're saying you think people who support a broadcasters right to free speech must give up their own rights or risk being labeled as hypocrites. What you are saying makes no sense.


Oh, I think it does. And I can say it honestly because I fully support the Mahers, Olbermans, Schutzs right to express their point of view. Hell, I want them out there! I will never have any desire to go after advertisers, boycott, whatever. I support their rights fullly with no strings attatched. To my mind, the more visable the better!


So can you show me the thread you started defending Maher when he lost his show for saying the terrorists that flew the planes into the twin towers were not cowards?


I want Maher back on regular cable. I want Olbermann back on prime time. I want them to have a list of prominent sponsors a mile long!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 23381
(23380 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 08:24 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Obviously he DOESN'T have that right, not without financial penalties attatched and that's not really freedom at all.

Financial penalties? There are no financial penalties being imposed. The only thing that's happened is sponsors who no longer want to be associated with Limbaugh have exercised their right to free speech by withdrawing their sponsorship. Limbaugh execised his right. The sponsors exercised their right. What could be more American than that?


No financial penalties? You think those ads are free?

You're twisting the question into what you want it to be. The question wasn't about Limbaugh's advertisers, it pertained to folks who would claim to support a broadcaster's right to free speech - then boycotting him out of the other side of their face. Twist it anyway you like, but that's NOT support, especially when the applied outrage exists only in certain cases.

It sounds like you're saying you think people who support a broadcasters right to free speech must give up their own rights or risk being labeled as hypocrites. What you are saying makes no sense.


Oh, I think it does. And I can say it honestly because I fully support the Mahers, Olbermans, Schutzs right to express their point of view. Hell, I want them out there! I will never have any desire to go after advertisers, boycott, whatever. I support their rights fullly with no strings attatched. To my mind, the more visable the better!


So can you show me the thread you started defending Maher when he lost his show for saying the terrorists that flew the planes into the twin towers were not cowards?


I want Maher back on regular cable. I want Olbermann back on prime time. I want them to have a list of prominent sponsors a mile long!


I deleted my previous posts because it's fruitless to argue with you.

 

____________________
Quit!

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11689
(12132 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 08:28 PM
This thread is a good case study in twisted logic.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2012 at 08:32 PM
Why not just admit you'd like to see the likes of Limbaugh silenced. Wouldn't be the end of the world. Signing on to boycotts and going after advertisers pretty much telegraphs that position.
 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com