(Crossposted from Cobalt6)
I noticed a huge amount of anger in the blogosphere over the remarks of, as Keith Olbermann is fond of calling him, “comedian Rush Limbaugh”.
He was not seen as funny.
By me, or anyone else that I know of on our side of the aisle.
Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.
He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.
“Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don’t elect Democrats,” Limbaugh said during Wednesday’s radio broadcast. He then went on to say that’s the best thing that could happen to the country.
The question that repeatedly came up:
How is this legal?
How can a nationally syndicated, hugely popular talk show host incite this kind of violence on his show and not end up in shackles?
The answer is below the fold.
From Wikipedia:
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
Now Brandenburg does a number of things in practice, but one thing it DOESN’T do is draw an especially bright line.
Here’s the essence of it:
Brandenburg was a Klansman. He called for “revengeance” (lol) against those the klukkers generally call for revengeance against. You know the drill.
Anyway, he got busted, sent to the slam, appealed, lost the appeal, took it to the SCOTUS….where he won. His conviction was overturned.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg’s conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The unanimous majority opinion was per curiam (issued from the Court as an institution rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice)
So now you know why Ann Coulter can advocate the poisoning of a Supreme Court justice.
Etc etc etc etc and how many times have we had this conversation?
How many time have we… OMG!!1!!
Wingnut So and so said blow something up or kill someone and they should be thrown into t3h dung3on!!!!!!!!!!!!
This ain’t the first time.
Some folks know I’ve been boxing with this hater dude for a couple years.
I know I shouldn’t.
But I do it anyway.
Never mind that.
I won’t favor him with a link, but here’s what he said about what Rush said:
LIMBAUGH PULLS A “HAL TURNER”
CALLS FOR “RIOTS” AT DEMOCRAT CONVENTIONMost popular radio host in America said he dreamed of riots in the streets, cars overturned and neighborhoods burning. Sound familiar? Gee. . . . . who else on radio says things like that? ME!
Anyway, are you getting the picture?
Hal Turner called for Nancy Pelosi to be killed. Hal Turner called for a number of United States Senators to be killed. Hal Turner put out an order for “barbaric retaliation” against ME!
We’re all still here; had you noticed? 🙂
SO that begs the question: Why do they do this?
It’s self-aggrandizement. Nothing more; nothing less.
They do it for the attention and the ratings, and they hide behind the skirts of Brandenburg.
Or, wait. That would be, “robes”, not “skirts.”
So we see then, that Rush Limbaugh, as well as Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, et al, are following the example of a notorious homophobic, antiSemitic white supremacist, in defending their scurrilous invective by cowering behind a Supreme Court decision that was rendered in favor of a Klansman.
Well, hell.
You know what they say: Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.
The solution?
Whenever possible, ignore.
They hate that. They lose business if that happens.
18 comments
Skip to comment form
prove your still here?
His Neo-Contin-ness is all about bringing up the shit so more people will say his name on the medium he loves most and pretends to hate most.
The Media. Or in his words, the drive by media. Without which, he would still be in Sacremento spinning oldies and classic rock to aging baby boomers and musically appreciative young un’s.
His employees’s plan how far he can go legally, and then he throws a shitstorm for weeks about how “they are coming after him” because of his TELLING THE TRUTH.
Ignore the fuck and he will go away. Keep being outraged and he will defeat you every time.
if Comedian Limbaugh knew more history, I doubt he’d be using his radio show to incite crazed, devotee, jackbooted dittoheads to go to Denver and riot. He might remember The Chicago Seven who were charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot and gave us the greatest. federal. circus. trial. ever.
The 7, you will all recall, were convicted but the case was reversed because of the appeals court’s concerns with Judge Julius Hoffman’s demeanor and his curtailment of jury voir dire. US v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972). As important, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal Anti Riot Act, 18 USC 2101.
Limbaugh’s statements may be protected by the First Amendment because there’s no imminent danger of a breach of public peace at this moment. But let’s not forget that constitutionally protected free speech is frequently proven as an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Put another way, it’s probably too early to prosecute Limbaugh. But let’s see what happens in the unlikely circumstance that his knuckle dragging minions, in response to his calling for them to riot, show up in Denver and actually riot.
in the sense that he has nothing to hang his hat on. He and the GOP machine are so desperate, as they have nothing of substance they can argue to support their party. So, they’re going to resort to a childish call to “riot” at the Democratic convention.
One must ask – why would loyal Republicans riot at the convention? Give me a good reason why a Republican would riot there, or even protest there? What happens at the convention – at this particular convention – that should cause people to riot? The answer is that NOTHING would cause them to do so, unless they are hapless trained housepets that do whatever this gasbag tells them to do. It’s actually really pathetic.
“Why are you protesting and rioting,” the reporter asks.
“Because, the Democrats um, want to um, raise taxes and, um, let the terrorists free,” the little parrot responds.
The reporter follows up, “but, why protest the convention? Do you have a problem with democracy – with citizens being represented at their convention to pick a Presidential nominee?”
How does the parrot respond?
This has to be one of the most illogical things Rush has ever proposed. He knows that large numbers of people are not going to fly to Denver to riot because he says so. He’s just trying to get under Democrats skin. Like Kestrel said, it’s a desperate ploy for attention, for us to cry foul at how he’s coyly trying to promote violence at the Democratic convention.
He’s a dick. A desperate dick, clinging to anything that will get him attention. It’s pretty sad, comical, and pathetic.
We have only two choices with this type of provocateur – either ignore, or go to his sponsors and employers en masse. The second option probably doesn’t work that well, as he’s still a cash cow to his employers. (And, under a Democratic Presidency staring next year, his popularity will likely rise again, just for being a contrarian).
So, ignore the desperate little attention-whore dick. The only time I’d ever do anything against him is to write/call any decent pundit/news show that uses his opinions as if they were valid and fair. Remind them that Limbaugh is a lying, manipulating, riot-cheering jerk, and his biased, shrill drivel denigrates their reputation as a news organization. That said, I’d rarely (if ever) do it, because I have much better things to do in life than pump up his ego about how he got under another Democrat’s skin.
Oh, and buhdy, I am still here.
The Famous Pig Song
…a great deal of latitude (and should be). And prior restraint should never be permitted.
But what happens AFTER the convention if trouble does erupt? Will anyone investigate the Limbaugh connection? What if the troublemakers were conservatives who deliberately provoked the violence?
In that scenario a case could be made against Limbaugh if the dots could be connected.