Free speech causes trouble again
When Bill Maher‘s fans (both regular fans and fans who are members of the MSM) talk about him, they like to cite just how influential he is, how wickedly insightful, how capable he is when it comes to “speaking truth to power.” When he gets into a bit of hot water, his fans/defenders dismiss the controversy and say that he’s merely a comedian. He deserves every protection afforded by freedom of speech. Move along, there’s nothing to see here. Just a comedian flapping his gums. Pay him no mind.
When Rush Limbaugh says something that is influential, he’s dismissed as “an entertainer” or “a clown.” He’s no more consequential than Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. Move along, there’s nothing to see here. When he gets into a bit of hot water, his critics say that he’s the de facto leader of the Republican National Committee and that he should resign. And if he doesn’t resign, we’ll circulate a petition to have him removed from the airwaves.
This is a textbook example of a double standard.
We’ve always held that a double standard is bad. It never works out the way you want it to. (A standard, on the other hand, is a good thing. It is what it is.)
In the pages of this magazine, we have always stated that it is important to defend the free speech of all– even those you may not agree with. Especially when it comes to humor. And make no mistake, the slut comment was a joke. It was a rhetorical flourish to make a larger point about a current issue.
In a sane world, comedians (who are inclined and capable of making jokes of a somewhat socio-political nature) would have viewed the testimony of Sandra Fluke as a “comedy wet dream.” How else to characterize a 30-year-old woman who testifies in front of our elected officials in Washington, in a highly-publicized event, that she spends a thousand dollars a year in birth control?!
Again, your propensities may vary– making jokes about sex or politics or contraception may not be your bag– but Limbaugh had no such reservation. He went for it and wrote the “slut” joke that got him into hot water. We can debate all day long as to whether it was well-constructed or bulletproof or even all that uproarious. But the premise– the basic underlying thrust, if you’ll excuse the poor choie of words– made sense. It may not have been riotous, and the execution might have lacked, but it was sound. A woman who is spending a grand a year on contraception is having a lot of sex.
To be sure, there were some brave souls– fellow comics– who attempted to make similar jokes online (particularly on Facebook or on Twitter), but they were few. And their efforts were quickly swamped by a tsunami of petitions and scolding and name-calling and shaming by those who felt it far more important to get Rush Limbaugh off the air. The spectacle of standup comics seeking to silence an entertainer and force him off the air was truly disheartening.
And it was only a matter of time before the “other side” could stand the double standard no more. There are reports out there that thousands of HBO subscribers are fleeing. Up until now, folks were perfectly willing to put up with Maher calling Sarah Palin a “cunt.” Even though the insults were somewhat asymmetrical. (As The Female Half points out, on the insult scale, “cunt” far outweighs “slut.” “You may see hundreds of women walking behind a sign that proudly advertises a “slut walk,” says she. “But you’ll never seen anyone walking behind a banner that trumpets a “cunt walk.”)
We would have been distressed if any of our colleagues were to circulate petitions to have Maher removed from his chair at HBO. And, let’s face it, the transition, “And speaking of dumb cunts…” is perhaps less of a joke than Limbaugh’s… but it’s a joke nonetheless.
But where’s the harm? Why not try and silence that big bag of wind Limbaugh? He’s nothing but a racist, drug-addled hate-monger. Here’s the harm: Louis CK is now officially collateral damage. He has canceled his appearance as the guest speaker at the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner.
The pushback continues. It has been known for quite some time now that CK tweeted some rather “vulgar and inappropriate” “jokes” about (again) Sarah Palin during a flight to Los Angeles. (“@SarahPalinUSA kudos to your hole, you fucking jackoff cunt-face jazzy wondergirl.” among others.) Those tweets were sent out well over a year ago and, though he got some grief for his drunken tweeting, it’s been smooth sailing by and large with critical acclaim for his FX television show and wildly positive buzz for the tech-savvy marketing of his digital DVD.
Greta van Susteren cited the drunken tweets and suggested that her colleagues refuse to attend the bash in D.C. CK has canceled. (And in a backflip double-double standard, some of those who were, 24 hours ago aghast at the vile treatment a 30-year-old political activist/law student are now calling van Susteren a “cunt” and a “hag” and making cracks about her plastic surgery.)
We’re reminded of a saying, “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” It is a saying that’s so old that it was coined when people actually knew what to do with a goose and how to make sauce! Try finding a recipe for goose sauce in any modern cookbook! Why is such a golden rule (which addresses the “ethic of reciprocity”) either forgotten by some or deemed outmoded by others? Consistency has never been more of a virtue in this day and age of the WWW and instant lookup-ability.
Mind you, we don’t mind if someone gets grief for public statements. Rush is getting it, Maher moved from one network to another because of it, Louis CK is no doubt exercising caution when using Twitter (if he uses it at all)… or alcohol… or both in concert and now has had to back out of a sweet gig.
We do mind, however, when people (people who should know better, i.e. comedians) are the ones who are leading the charge and behaving like some sort of dime store Terry Rakolta and circulating petitions via Facebook to have Rush Limbaugh taken off the air! Well, excuse us while we wretch our guts out.
If anything, comedians should be locking arms and leading the charge in defense of speech, not spearheading efforts to curtail it.
It’s easy to defend speech when it’s something you agree with. It’s difficult– but necessary– to defend speech when you disagree with it. Doing so isn’t heroic. Doing the opposite is cowardly.
Like it or not, there is a connection between us comedians and Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher and Opie & Anthony and Dennis Miller and Adam Corolla and Chelsea Handler. When it comes to comedy and free speech, we can’t play ideological Kerplunk.
And if you doubt that there is a connection, you haven’t been paying attention for the past 72 hours.
33 Responses
Reply to: Free speech causes trouble again
What’s so wrong about consumers expressing their own free speech rights by telling Rush’s advertisers that they will not support their business as long as their advertising dollars ultimately pay Limbaugh’s paycheck?
There’s nothing wrong about consumers expressing “their own free speech rights.” We love the free market. But there’s only one problem: We said NOTHING about advertisers or boycotts or ad dollars, outside of a fleeting mention of HBO subscribers fleeing the premium cable outlet. It’s bad for Maher, it’s bad for HBO. We never said that the folks who are fleeing haven’t right to do so. But we would be disheartened if a charge to have Maher silenced were to be led by comedians. We Please go back and read the posting. Your response misses our point entirely.
Thank you for providing a clearheaded synopsis of the situation. It is sad that there are so few unbiased commentaries about a subject such as this anymore. As something that affects me & you personally, it makes me wonder about the viability of comedy in the long run unless certain attitudes change.
Well written, and a point of view all those who speak publicly should embrace. Worthy of a much larger circulation.
Mostly with you, Brian. But my problem with this piece is also a problem that a lot of people have with Rush’s statement; your assertion that” A woman who is spending a grand a year on contraception is having a lot of sex.”
She might be, but she also might be having NO sex.
The cost is the same, regardless of the amount of sex, you know that, right?
First: How about, in a belated acknowledgement of International Women’s Day, we recognize that our magazine is written by two people– one male and one female– and not just “Brian?”
Second: The lady said she was spending money on contraception. Contraception is in the dictionary.
Third: We write jokes on the facts as they are, or as they appear.
While a third of Fluke’s testimony dealt with the use of birth control pills not as contraceptives, two-thirds of her testimony did. And that two-thirds is the part that was emphasized in news accounts of her appearance (before the House Oversight Committee hearing on women’s reproductive health) and that’s the part that most people are aware of.
Should we pass on writing a joke because another “possibility” might exist to nullify the joke, or that certain details– that aren’t as salient– might be slightly at odds with the joke? There wouldn’t be a joke written if that was the way we operated. To hear a joke and then ponder the myriad ways in which the joke might be untrue or somewhat at odds with reality is the thinking of a person who lacks a sense of humor.
Some birth control pills cost up to $90 a month, which is about $1000 a year.
And if you’re on birth control, you’re on it constantly, so you’re paying constantly, regardless of the amount of sex you’re having.
The fact that “contraception” is in the dictionary has nothing to do with that. (And this is aside from the fact that many people use birth control methods for other regulatory or medical purposes.)
But the main issue is, $1000 may be on the high end of the cost spectrum, but it’s on it, and just because someone is paying it doesn’t say anything about how much sex they’re having (aside from the point that people can have as much sex as they want).
This magazine is half-written by a female. So… we don’t need to be schooled on women’s health issues. This condescension– from readers male and female– pisses off the Female Half.
As for your exquisite analysis of contraception and its costs, you are not thinking like a comedian. You have dropped the comedy ball.
You are, to put it quite simply, over-thinking it. And for the worst of reasons.
How about we stick to the subject?
How about we address the immediate issue that was covered in our original post and not go off on a tangent about some obscure (and possibly imaginary) birth control pill that costs $90?
Were we to go over each and every joke that was ever written by modern comedians– paying attention to facts, stats, “truth”– we would nearly all suffer. A good number of our jokes would not hold up to such scrutiny. And a great deal of the fun of humor would be lost. Should we set “fact-checkers” loose on each and every comic’s routine– on comics from the left, the right and the center? Oh, what fun that would be for all concerned! And, oh, how that would enhance our creative freedom.
First, my apologies to the Female Half.
Second, I still don’t understand how contraception immediately translates to “lots of sex”. That’s the premise of the joke, that if you’re spending a lot of money, it means lots of sex. You can’t be a “slut” without lots of sex, and someone else paying (john, insurance company, whatever) for lots of sex means “prostitute”. (Interestingly, Rush used civilized language to make a shocking point [Hey Mr. and Mrs. Fluke, you’re daughter’s a whore], while Maher tends to use shocking language to make slightly more civilized points. [Hey Sarah, you’re a very mean woman] No one thinks Sarah Palin is an actual vagina, but plenty of people are willing to think Sarah Fluke is sleeping around.)
But Rush’s audience believes his setup is true, and the joke is funny because it’s true. And it fundamentally isn’t, it’s just being mean to an average person that he disagrees with.
And your third point confuses the hell out of me. Please don’t imply that I have no sense of humor because I don’t like that he used a lie (or a hugely mistaken assumption) as a premise for an alleged joke. If Rush had said, “What if women had to pay separately for a contraceptive every time they had sex, like men do?” That’s a premise for a joke. “She’s spending a lot of money on contraceptives, she must be having lots of sex”, that’s a declarative and untrue statement that leads to his defaming someone for having an opinion contrary to his.
And if you’re sure it’s comedy gold that she spends a thousand dollars a year on birth control, you should care whether or not that is a valid number. I try not to over-think a joke, but I try not to under-think it, too. A joke that starts with a deeply flawed premise causes the listeners brain to jump the track. You stop listening to the punchline, because you’re busy trying to make sense of the setup…
You’re being deliberately obtuse. And you’re embarrassing yourself.
Dear Shecky. Very nice
in a side note, on the WTF podcast where Todd Glass came out, Todd mentioned how wrong it is to use “gay” as a slur, it’s hateful and wrong and mean, They talked about comics defending their right to say stuff like that. Then Marc Maron said ” you know it’s not about censorship, it’s about decency”
I thought about it, everybody involved in this whole dust up are smart and do they have to go in that direction?
Your post is concise.
Would like to hear what more people have to say about this, without going into some political debate.
Thanks
Jk
Do we understand your comment to mean that Marc Maron is now lecturing us all on decency?
This a strange (and unsettling) turn of events.
Is it really sound to suggest that a woman who is spending a grand a year on contraception is having lots of sex? First off, the cost for the pills themselves can be up to $50/month so for the year that’s about $600. Factor in two exams a year at about $200 then total it and you have what seems to be the average expected cost of about $1000/yr. Second, there’s the fallacy that merely the use of contraception constitutes having lots of sex. Yes its primary use is to prevent pregnancy but it’s also used with increasing frequency to regulate cycles and deal with ovarian cysts. This isn’t to explain how contraceptives work or what they cost to you which I’m sure you know, but it’s to build a framework around the idea that Limbaugh is a “comedian” or an “entertainer” and thus should be supported by other entertainers. While the larger discussion of censorship is an important one to have, I’m at odds with the idea that Rush represents simple entertainment. Those that I know who listen to and follow him (sure that’s anecdotal) have never referred to him as an entertainer or a comedian. I personally think this has become a new strategy for him to avoid repercussions from his loathsome ideas since he does have the ability to sway his listeners on policy matters. Finally, I don’t think the comparisons between Sandra Fluke and Sarah Palin are accurate. Palin made herself a public figure once she accepted the VP candidacy in 2008. As a public figure over the last 3.5 years her life is rightfully subject to scrutiny (for better or worse). Greta Van Susteren also is a public figure like most mainstream media figures are. This is not true of a private citizen like Sandra Fluke who appeared once in front of a congressional hearing to open up the discussion of the wider uses of contraceptives as they relate to women’s health overall.
You are “at odds with the idea that Rush represents simple entertainment.” And you cite the fact that people “who listen to and follow him… have never referred to him as an entertainer or a comedian.”
Let’s apply that same sort of standard to Jon Stewart. We have read countless articles and seen polls that say that a large chunk of people between the ages of 18 and 35 cite The Daily Show as their only source for news. By your logic, Jon Stewart should no longer be afforded the same protection that comedians have when it comes to freedom of expression.
So… everything Stewart says, every joke he makes, should hereinafter be subject to intense, conscientious scrutiny. Every gag should be fact-checked, every bit vetted. Every one of his utterances should be kind, decent and fair. We should hold him to the same standard as we hold every news show.
Wow, would that be entertaining.
Your contention that Sandra Fluke is a private citizen is ludicrous. She appeared in front of a congressional hearing that was covered by every major news outlet in North America and a good number of publications and outlets throughout the rest of the world. Your wish to shelter her from jokes is touching but stupid. It is about as ridiculous as suggesting that the mobsters who testified at the Kefauver Hearings should be exempt from joking.
The profile of the contraception hearings was raised long before Limbaugh weighed in. Jon Stewart himself made a huge stink about the fact that the panel contained no women. And Eleanor Holmes Norton protested very loudly– in front of cameras… television cameras– that the committee “had denied us the right to present our witness.” That witness? Sandra Fluke. Who, according to MSNBC was described as someone “who has already spoken out publicly in support of the birth control mandate.”
* * * * * *
Do you really want to play this game?
Hey, that joke wasn’t very funny and I’m offended!
Hey, you’re wrong! Birth control costs a fortune!
I don’t care if the oral contraceptive Tri-Sprintec is priced at $4 for a 28-day supply, some birth control pills cost $90 per month!
Sometimes contraception is used for polycystic ovarian syndrome!
Oh, c’mon! Rush Limbaugh isn’t a comedian!
How dare you attack Sandra Fluke! Sandra Fluke isn’t a public figure!
* * * * * *
How about this: Limbaugh made a joke that a lot of folks didn’t like. Demand an apology and move on.
Take that approach and– whaddya know!– Bill Maher will still be able to call Sarah Palin a cunt and Louis CK can keep his gig at the correspondents’ dinner.
And Tina Fey won’t be subject to fact-checking when she says, “Hey! I can see Russia from my house!”
You’re mixing politics and comedy… and not in a good way.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, by virtue of the fact that he has a radio show. Like him or not, let’s remember that key fact. Just like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart … regardless of whether he is as talented or not. That’s the key point – if we as society (and comedians especially) go after him, who is next? Jon Stewart? Maher? Colbert? Seems like another case where he’s being judged based on his talent (or lack thereof) and his right wing view point (isn’t Denis Miller in that camp now?). I don’t listen to him, don’t enjoy his schtick – but I recognize that it is schtick. Let’s not pretend he’s anything more than a shitty entertainer – he’s Jerry fucking Springer.
Here is the difference between Bill and Rush. Rush only attacks those who are less powerful than him making him a classic bully! Bill’s targets are at least equal or have greater fame than himself and thereby have a means to respond to his criticism.
Limbaugh regularly goes after Barack Obama (who is, last time we checked, the most powerful man in the world), so your attempt to differentiate him from Bill Maher by saying that he “only attacks those who are less powerful than him (sic)” fails.
And, if the formula for determining legitimate targets for humor is determined by some sort of nebulous power differential calculation, then… whaddya say we apply it to Louis CK, just for fun. In addition to being famous for his targeting of GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, he is perhaps just as famous (infamous?) for attacking her Down Syndrome child, Trig. So, by your calculation, this makes CK a “classic bully” (and perhaps even the most vile person on the planet), as he has targeted someone who is not just less powerful than he, but totally unaware that he’s being targeted, by virtue of his age and his mental disability.
Congratulations! You have managed to portray Louis CK– and by extension, all comedians who “target” those who are less powerful than us– as a bully. Do you really want to play this game further? In everyone’s ham-handed attempt to silence Limbaugh (not merely condemn him, but attempt to silence him), all comics are now under scrutiny. And in the ham-handed attempts at damage control, everyone is now splitting hairs as to who is powerful, who is not; who is a public figure, who is not; whether birth control is expensive, or whether it’s not. None of this is doing anyone any good. And the people who will suffer the most are comedians. So far, two of the most high-profile and lauded comedians of our day are now being savaged. Again, congratulations. Job well done!
It is worth re-emphasizing that, in addition to defending the speech of Limbaugh, we are also defending the speech of Louis CK and Bill Maher… and all comedians.
…
And there are degrees of ‘public figure.’ A candidate for VP who became a TV commentator, someone surrounded by press experts and other advisors, is more of a public figure than a law student who spoke once in front of a Congressional committee to advocate for health issues.
There are not degrees. You either are or you aren’t. Regardless, Sandra Fluke testified in front of the most controversial and anticipated committee on one of the most hotly-debated issues of the day. And the committee was condemned ahead of time by countless pundits, comedians and columnists. She did so knowing full well that cameras and reporters from the world over would report her every word, analyze it, vet it and, as is their duty as journalists, eventually get around to doing backgrounders on her. Initially, she was rejected as a witness. Others fought to have her included. They eventually prevailed. She became a public figure instantly.
To argue otherwise is folly.
There are countless individuals who are thrust into the spotlight. Some become public figures against their wishes. John Wayne Bobbit comes to mind, just off the top our heads. Samuel J. Wurzelbacher? Monica Lewinsky? Comics didn’t hesitate to do thousands of jokes about these figures– in the clubs and on television and in newspapers and magazines.
Again, why are we suddenly splitting hairs on such matters as who is or is not a public figure? Or the cost of birth control pills. Or the difference in power between the joker and the jokee. This is a fairly new phenomenon.
When we said, in the initial post, “We can debate all day long as to whether it was well-constructed or bulletproof or even all that uproarious,” we were not inviting a debate. We were saying that in order to dismiss that particular debate and isolate it from the larger and more important issue at hand.
So far, few have been able to do that.
Wow. This was a well constructed and fair minded column. It put to shame all the partisan columns I’ve read concerning Maher and Limbaugh.
One point I would add. I think its sexist that the only offensive comments people bring up are about women. What about offensive jokes about men? Why do people think women need a defense? That seems rather sexist.
“But you’ll never seen anyone walking behind a banner that trumpets a “cunt walk.”)
Funny. (I may have categorized a few marches like that in my head though.)
Really nice piece. It astounds me how many comedians are incapable of recognizing the clear joke structure of Rush’s remarks, and even more that some think he should be silenced.
I thought we all fancied ourselves heirs to Lenny Bruce?
Indeed.
For the past ten or fifteen years, we’ve been told that a comedian has a duty, a solemn obligation, to not merely make people laugh, but to make them think and that the best comedians not only make people think but
quite possibly move people to action.
And the other side of that coin is that the comedian who merely makes people laugh is somehow less of a comedian.
Limbaugh often utilizes satire, parody, exaggeration, litotes– all those things you learned about in high school English (or, at the very least, in Monty Python’s “Pirhana Brothers” sketch)– in the course of political and cultural analysis. The line between him and Maher is a rather clear one. But this week, he’s not a comedian. And people who are comedians insist that he must be “taken off the air.” Curious.
This entire debate must focus on one overriding principle: liberty.
We must defend the right of individuals to say things with which we disagree or abhor.
Without that right, stand up comedy would not exist.
America has a thriving stand up comedy and entertainment industry as a result of the protection of free speech.
Disregarding political ideaology, an embrace of freedom should unite the left and right.
Regardless of whether a joke was a joke or the subject matter of the bit or whether it was in a “good taste” or whether it was “delivered by a bully”, free speech is either free or it is censored.
In a nod to pastor Martin Niemöller…
First they came for the right wing commentators
Then they came for the left wing commentators
Then they targeted the libertarians, moderates, apolitical, and apathetic
Then the stand up comedians, actors, actresses, musicians, poets, philosophers, painters, sculptors, cartoonists, and magicians
Then the bloggers
And then me
The best way to deal with this situation is to make it satirical.
Regardless of your political persuasian, we should all concentrate our energies on writing jokes about the ridiculous nature of the debate.
Rush Limbaugh called a college student a slut and Bill Mahr called a former vice presidential candidate a cunt.
That tells me…broadcasting needs more women behind the microphone.
This discussion reminds me of the old debates about “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”
What about the notion comedians should take the high ground and point out the subtler aspects of a situation (irony) that most people might overlook?
To call a woman a slut or cunt in today’s society seems to be like making fun of Richard Simmons’ shorts or Frank Perdue’s big nose – obvious targets and easy to hit. If Maher and Limbaugh are such succesful comedians, should they not be held to a higher standard? And why does John Stewart have to say FUCK so much to punctuate jokes that are funny without it? We should expect better material from them. We should demand better material from them.
And please do not say, “but Lenny Bruce said (fill in the blank.)” Lenny Bruce did brilliant pieces (Palladium, Thank You Masked Man, White Collar Drunk) that satirized contemporary society and norms without the use of easy jokes and language designed only to shock.
Bert Haas
Couldn’t agree with your sentiments more.
The foaming-at-the-mouth attackers are nothing but opportunists who ALREADY have a prejudicial grudge against Limbaugh. These hypocrites will never see their own hypocrisy, because they believe they have some superior “moral imperative” that allows them to justify any means to their intolerant ends.
How utterly pathetic. I’m surprised at some of you wannabe pricks commenting here. What in the living fuck are you even doing on a comedy site?
You’re nothing but hecklers in mob form – drunken on your own self-importance and in love with censorship, as long as it doesn’t apply to you.
Despite the fact that this was all very reasonably and thoughtfully addressed by Brian and Traci, you shitweasels still maintain your primal posture, torches and pitchforks in hand.
May those very same torches and pitchforks find their way up YOUR vindictive ass one day!
I have to agree with the tone of this story completely. If I had my druthers Rush Limbaugh would only lose his job because no one is listening to him anymore. Nice job on the article.
I’m all right with the free speech support part of this. However, the equanimity part isn’t quite right.
Bill Maher is a comedian. Agreed.
Rush is an entertainer. Well, okay by me, but it’s NOT okay by his followers. I think there are about two millions listeners who would REALLY disagree that he’s a “clown” or an “entertainer”. They take him VERY seriously.
Go back and read the post. If you still feel this way, then:
Fine. Circulate petitions. Beseech the FCC to have him removed from the air. Then reap the benefits to free speech. It sounds like a good plan. It’s working already. We feel freer. We’re sure you do, too.
Relax. I’m proposing no such thing. Rush can say whatever he wants as far as I’m concerned.
I’m just suggesting that your characterization of Rush as an “entertainer” is off-target. The folks who disagree with you aren’t on the LEFT. They’re on the RIGHT.
To them, the “slut comment” ISN’T a joke at all. There are folks who honestly believe this is a serious matter and don’t see the humor at all. They aren’t laughing.
If we go by these folks, then Rush isn’t a comic, and all things are not equal.
It matters not who thinks who is what. Limbaugh uses satire, parody, exaggeration, jokes, punchlines, ridicule to make his points. He uses these devices to lampoon politics and pop culture.
We imagine that there are people who watch Bill Maher stone-faced and quietly seethe with rage at those whom Maher directs his barbs. This doesn’t make Maher any less of a comic. Nor do the people who take Limbaugh seriously make him any less of an entertainer or satirist.
We were told that Jon Stewart was “the next Mencken.” Does this make him any less of a comedian or satirist? Again, we’re also told that a significant chunk of a certain young, white male demographic gets their news from The Daily Show. Does this make Stewart any less of a comedian?
We’re not sure why we have to keep going over these points. In fact, we’re pretty much done.
Speech is speech. We’re determined, in this case, to defend it. It’s not pretty when we see fellow entertainers seeking to stifle speech. Such distinctions as those you are seeking to make are pointless.
You can say things onstage as a comedian that will get you a punch in the nose at the bar if you were a patron.
Like it or not, being a comic affords you certain protections. People give you some slack.
People view Rush as a political pundit, not a comedian. That’s why he has a bloody nose right now.
I support his right to say stupid things. However, you are taking this too far. You want me lock arms with him? You want me to step in front of the oncoming punch to puss?
Sorry, not gonna happen. His words, his consequences.
BTW, he’s still on the air, saying whatever he wants to. Nobody has curtailed his speech one iota. The FCC hasn’t stepped in. But even if they did, even if he was thrown off the air, he CAN STILL SAY WHATEVER HE WANTS TO.
The First Amendment doesn’t guarrantee your right to keep a radio gig.
Once again, you miss the point.
We’re not asking you to lock arms with Limbaugh. We’re asking our fellow comedians to lock arms and defend free speech.
Because if we don’t, we’re the ones who get a bloody nose right along with the folks who have petitions circulated against them.
You might notice that Louis CK has been damaged. You might notice that Bill Maher and his patrons at HBO have been damaged.
You might reasonably conclude that if we comics– who are on the front lines of speech right along with Stern and Limbaugh and others– don’t lock arms and defend even that speech which we may find unpleasant, we will all go down.
It’s not one incident that will take away our right to speak freely… it’s the incessant chipping away.
Some of you simply aren’t getting just how your own self-indulgence in fueling the Rush fire could ultimately result in your own grief down the road. The point is, in defending Rush – whether you like him or not – you also defend yourself, your livelihood, and the industry that feeds you. Your mantra should be: “If you give an inch, they’ll take a microphone.”
In the broader scheme, even John Cleese has lamented what a stifled society we’ve become, and how it has harmed comedy:
“Political correctness is, says Cleese, “like a maiden aunt – you’re all having fun at Christmas, and she walks into the room and it all goes quiet.”
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/entertainment/s/1405798_interview_john_cleese_goes_on_the_offensive
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/285172/John-Cleese-curses-comic-killjoys/