1:30pm | Free speech lies at the epicenter of freedoms that Americans quickly resort to for rhetorical reasons, quickly boast of in regards to the greatness of our constitution, and quickly defend when it is even remotely hinted that such a right is being hindered — and all rightfully so. The idea of free speech (and the intimately attached concept of free press) is a pillar of democracy, as it refrains power from overriding the oppressed with regards to truths, discoveries, and beliefs. It invades every form of our society, from the publication of research within the scientific community to artists being permitted to tell they stories they wish and how they wish, from activists being able to speak out against what they see as wrong doings to legal scholars writing criticisms of laws.
However, it is not — and I repeat: not — a clause which permits anyone to say absolutely anything with no consequences. In fact, as our society became more progressive — particularly following cases such as Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and Street v. New York as well as the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — we have altered our definition of free speech, including limitations to what is considered free speech and what isn’t. This latter part — unprotected speech — is commonly being referred to as hate speech, slander/libel, or “fighting words” (yes, that term was used in the first case mentioned and was its main thrust of argument). The pressing importance of words and the way in which they are conveyed prompted many universities — including Cal State Long Beach, which has a particularly fascinating history attached to it — to adopt “speech codes.”
But this brouhaha with regards to Limbaugh is not an issue of hate speech and we need to avoid hyperbolic jumps to such claims. In fact, given the enormity of the backlash against Rush Limbaugh and our own readers’ reactions to the Aquarium of the Pacific pulling advertising from his show, this is what free speech should and does look like.
This is not — contrary to many — a conservative or liberal issue. And this isn’t even an issue of someone being called a slut. To elaborate, one commenter stated:
What about Rush’s right to free speech? I guess ‘slut’ is now another word that is on the ‘do not say list’ for conservative white males but everyone else can say what they want. I’m also surprised this law student needs me to pay for her birth control. If she or her parents can afford Georgetown Law, they can afford to pay for her to not get knocked up after an all nighter (studying of course). What’s next, we should pay for her tampons? She sounds like she is on her way to being the next Gloria Allred, Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi. I wish we had paid for her parents contraception the night she was conceived.
While this commenter proclaimed:
Rush has always had this crazy gear where he rants and raves like he is high on something. He was slamming back heavy prescription drugs for a long time and when we would listen to his bombast and over the edge rants, we always suspected that he was on something. He claims a bad back operation was to blame but that is a load. He chose to take Oxycodon and more for many years. He is a drug addict. Even if clean, he was and always will be. What a right wing all American junky.
Ad hominem arguments (it is true that Limbaugh had an issue with drugs and is a conservative commentator — but that doesn’t alter the concept of whether he was rightfully engaging in free speech or not) and diversion tactics (governmental social services have nothing to do with someone publicly humiliating or belittling someone on the national air waves) skirt the issue at hand.
What we have is nothing short of the free market. A radio host, given certain limitations such as inciting violence and the slander-libel duo of defamation, can say what he or she pleases. The advertisers associated with said host can just as easily pull their money if they feel an uncomfortable situation coming about. There are, of course, politics involved — but that is the free market for you: it is politics. And wherever the debris from the Fallout of Rush may fall, wherever the market so chooses to take its ride, free speech still prevails.
Despite your criticisms, we are talking about choices. If you don’t want to hear it, you don’t have to. Just as if you don’t want to give someone money, you don’t have to. The government has no right — in any way, shape, or form — to somehow stop or alter Rush’s radio show; he did not threaten Sandra Fluke, nor violate broadcasting standards or law, nor did he even step remotely into the realm of unprotected speech. That is where you, as a private citizen, exercise your free right in the market: abandon or support him or shrug your shoulders in indifference.
This is a non-issue in which the ill-conceived notion of free speech is becoming fodder for peripheral social agenda items — government-issued tampons and claims that druggies can never change… Really? Can we please — pretty please with a cherry-flavored “Move on!” on top — let someone actually exercise their rights and let them deal with the consequences?