Thursday, March 15, 2012

Barbarella in Jackboots

I just read the piece from Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem (h/t Legal Insurrection for pointing it out) in which they, unbelievably, called for the FCC to silence Rush Limbaugh.  His crime?  Offending them and acting in a way that was not in the "public interest".  Take a gander:

Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh's radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.

The FCC takes such complaints into consideration when stations file for license renewal. For local listeners near a station that carries Limbaugh's show, there is plenty of evidence to bring to the FCC that their station isn't carrying out its public interest obligation. Complaints can be registered under the broadcast category of the FCC website:

This isn't political. While we disagree with Limbaugh's politics, what's at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he's really "doing humor" or "entertainment." He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people's airways.

Wait a second, spectrum is a government resource?  Since when?  Did they invent it?  Nope.  So how is it their's?  I can understand that it is a public resource which the government currently regulates but calling it a government resource is a bit much.  After all, is air a government resource?  If it is not in the "public interest" to give Republicans air, can it be denied them by bureaucrats?  Nope.

Also, shouldn't the public decide whether something is in their interest to hear?  I believe they do so by tuning in or tuning out and indications are that Rush Limbaugh's ratings are probably up in this crisis.  According to Michael Harrison, who publishes the leading industry trade journal "the irony is that he probably right now has the biggest audience he's had in years, and the double irony of all this is sponsors that are fleeing, they're missing out on the best advertising buy in radio".

Of, I forgot, the public isn't smart enough to know what is in their best interests, they need dried up old socialist hags from the 1960's to tell them what to do (rather ironic as they were rebelling against societal repression at the time).  The least they could have done was come up with some real "toxic hate-inciting speech" to give as examples because the ones they give don't seem to incite much hatred.  Offensive sure, but hate inciting?:

-- Female Cabinet members are "Sex-retaries."

-- "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

-- The National Organization for Women is "a bunch of whores to liberalism."

-- [Said to an African-American female caller]: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

Who hates sexretaries?  If given a choice, I think at least 90% of men would probably love to have one.  The two african-american statements are clearly just jokes.  Yes, uber offensive but he is not saying telling anyone to hate anybody.  The NOW quote is a metaphor and is obviously not meant to be taken literally.  He isn't telling anyone to hurt anyone he's just making comments.  Since when should that be banned from the airwaves?  I hope none of these women ever watched the Morton Downey Jr. show in the 1980's, then their panties would really have been in a bunch.

No comments:

Post a Comment