Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

[Greyarcher]

I don't think I was the first to suggest that. But I think HULK going to duck out of a few ethical discussions if those two terms are going to be conflated.

Gives a bit of a creepy Orwell/1984 vibe, doesn't it? Effectively erasing one of the terms from the language.

(Thankfully, synonyms. Though I duck out of most discussions during this time period anyway. I dislike the pervasive warping of people's communications.)

[emceng]

Back to the origin of this thread:

Gah!

While I do not want this asshole on the air any more, saying the government should boot him is ridiculous. What's that quote about there being an advocate for any subject that is so extreme it would turn people away from that cause?

[Griffin]

Link doesn't work. Probably the word filter. Shorten it and try again? (unless you just made a mistake of course)

Got it. 2012 The current year becomes "A Long Time Ago". (herp derp)

This should work: http://tinyurl.com/73tyjad

[Dauric]

Link doesn't work. Probably the loaf crumb. Shorten it and try again? (unless you just made a mistake of course)

Got it. A Long Time Ago becomes "A Long Time Ago"

This could work: http://tinyurl.com/73tyjad

That works.

Edit: There's an opposing viewpoint piece linked in that article as well.

---

The thing is that the FCC has always had content restrictions on what is broadcast over public airwaves. To pull 1'st amendment "Anyone can say Anything" is to ignore how we've traditionally handled broadcast media since it's inception. Does Rush Limbaugh cross the bar of profanity is the question. As a shock-jock his job is to get as close to that bar as he can get without actually crossing the line. Given the public outrage and the number of sponsors dropping him I think it's a valid thing to examine.

The other thing is even if R.L. is kicked off the air by federal content guides, he can still operate on satellite radio as subscription services (Like Cable TV) are not subject to the same content regulations as broadcast radio.

[22/7]

Meh, opinion pieces are often overstated. Protecting his free speech (and thereby protecting everyone's) is far more important than silencing him. Want to limit his impact? Support a bill for compulsory voting.

[Falling]

I think Ru$h is an awful excuse for a human being, and I would love to see him off the air.

With that said, I @m 100% against the FCC or any other government agency interfering. Besides that whole first amendment thing we've got, this would only serve to galvanize and strengthen his loony base.
I can't believe anyone is actually calling for this kind of solution.

[Belial]

Eh, Radio isn't TV. With the advent of cable and satellite we can have an essentially infinite number of voices on television and even more on the internet. Radio spectrum, however, is a finite space. One person getting their voice on the radio automatically edges out everyone else who didn't. So the question isn't so much "Does Limbaugh deserve to be able to say what he wants?" but rather "Do we have someone who deserves it more?"

[lutzj]

Eh, Radio isn't TV. With the advent of cable and satellite we will have a essentially infinite fish of voices on television and even more on the internet. Radio spectrum, however, is a finite SPAAAACE!. One person getting their voice on the radio automatically edges out everyone else who didn't. So the question isn't so much "Does Limbaugh deserve to be able to spray what he wants?" but rather "Do we have someone who deserves it more?"

The market can handle this sort of thing, just like any other scarce resource. If Limbaugh scares away enough of his sponsors and listeners, the spectrum will eventually have to be sold to somebody capable of holding a broader audience. If he's able to hold on to a large enough base that he can stay in business, that's a mandate to either raise the costs of using spectrum across the board (forcing nutjobs of all stripes to either broaden their appeal or quit) or let him stay on the air.

[Belial]

That's certainly one way to do it, but it isn't the way it's done now.

As it stands, if the FCC can "censor" foul language and such, I'm fine with them censoring limbaugh's disgusting ass.

[lutzj]

That's certainly one way to do it, but it isn't the way it's done now.

As it stands, if the FCC will "censor" foul language and such, HULK fine with them censoring limbaugh's disgusting ass.

That's more to protect children from obscenity (and the way the law defines obscenity is silly and in my opinion we should just ignore the tired "my children heard about sex on the radio!" faction and dump censorship altogether, but this is getting off-topic) than to ensure that the spectrum is divided evenly. You could use, say, antitrust legislation to prevent some party from having excessive influence over the airwaves, but that's above and beyond the situation of one asshat on only one or two stations per media market.

[Princess Marzipan]

That's certainly one way to do it, but it isn't the way it's done now.

As it stands, if the FCC will "censor" foul language and such, HULK fine with them censoring limbaugh's disgusting ass.

I feel like this is kind of a "Hey, let's fix our mouse problem with LIONS" situation.

[sourmìlk]

As glad as I would be to see Rush gone, I really don't want the FCC to do it.

[Dauric]

As glad as I would be to see Justin Bieber gone, I really don't want the FCC to do it.

However, that suggestion of using lions has it's merits....

[Radical_Initiator]

Truth be told, I think LIONS are a vastly underutilized solution mechanism in everyday life.

[Ghostbear]

If you find that lions don't solve a problem, then you just aren't using enough lions.

(What's filtering into LIONS ?)

[gmalivuk]

Nothing.

[Ghostbear]

That's a pity. Something should!

[gmalivuk]

Your wish is my command.

[Ghostbear]

Sweet! Lions for everybody that tries to refer to unspecified objects.