LIMBAUGH WARNS OF DANGER TO FREE SPEECH

Drudge ^ | 2/26/04 | Drudge/Limbaugh

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

LIMBAUGH WARNS OF DANGER TO FREE SPEECH THU FEB 26 2004 12:28:21 ET

THE NATION'S TOP RADIO HOST RUSH LIMBAUGH WARNED OF GROWING GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN BROADCASTING CONTENT.

LIMBAUGH MADE THE COMMENTS AFTER HIS PARENT COMPANY CLEAR CHANNEL DROPPED VIACOM'S HOWARD STERN FROM ITS STATIONS.

'SMUT ON TV GETS PRAISED. SMUT ON TV WINS EMMYS. ON RADIO, THERE SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS,' LIMBAUGH EXPLAINED.

'I'VE NEVER HEARD HOWARD STERN. BUT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN THIS, I GET A LITTLE FRIGHTENED.

'IF WE ARE GOING TO SIT BY AND LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED IN THIS, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO 'CENSOR' WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT AND WRONG... WHAT HAPPENS IF A WHOLE BUNCH OF JOHN KERRYS, OR TERRY MCAULIFFES START RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. AND DECIDE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ARE LEADING TO VIOLENCE?

'I AM IN THE FREE SPEECH BUSINESS. ITS ONE THING FOR A COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTY TO IT. ITS ANOTHER THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT.'

MORE

[Prodigal Son]

Does it bother you that I change the channel when I don't like something?

[mhking]

Agreed. This is the one issue that can swing the youth vote to Kerry - a demographic that George W. Bush would otherwise win by a decent margin due to his leadership ability.

So everyone's supposed to pander to Howard Stern to keep votes in the party?

Don't insult my intelligence.

I'm no fan of the "war on decency" that the FCC seems to be waging, but the broadcast world does not rise and set on Howard Stern.

Howard is rude, crude, and patently offensive. That being said, I realize that he's been so for more than twenty years. So, as I said on my blog the other day, "what makes now any different?"

But for him to throw a tantrum and go out of his way to insult Christians simply because Clear Channel yanked his butt from six stations is childish at best.

I'm sure the "Babbabooey-heads" will follow their "leader" on to the Democratic party or wherever else Howard decides to flee.

Big fat hairy deal.

[hchutch]

These are folks who would otherwise be voting Republican. Who would vote for George W. Bush otherwise. Ask E Rocc is you don't believe me. Ask PJ-Comix. Howard has swung elections before in New York and New Jersey. If he's against Bush, Kerry can consider those states safe and fight Bush in Ohio. If between now and then, Howard can be convinced to back off criticizing Bush, we could win NJ and make New York close enough that Kerry can't do that much in Ohio.

IMHO, 2004 is pretty much a must-win election. Four Supreme Court seats and the war on terror. Unless we call off the prude patrol now, we could end up with President Kerry. If that means we call off the FCC, then the FCC needs to be called off. It doesn't do us any good over the long run to tick off a guy with millions of listeners who might be persuaded to vote our way, but will go the other way the instant the prude patrol comes into play.

[mhking]

Howard has swung elections before in New York and New Jersey. If he's against Bush, Kerry can consider those states safe and fight Bush in Ohio.

I think you overestimate Howard's "power."

He's the radio equivalent of Maxim Magazine. Any "political power" he's got is negligable.

[hchutch]

Just ask Mario Cuomo if you think Howard's pull is being overestimated.

[Middle Man]

Talk, talk, talk...just like Rush. And so uncivil.

[E Rocc]

These are folks who would otherwise be voting Republican. Who would vote for George W. Bush otherwise. Ask E Rocc is you don't believe me. Ask PJ-Comix. Howard has swung elections before in New York and New Jersey. If he's against Bush, Kerry can consider those states safe and fight Bush in Ohio. If between now and then, Howard can be convinced to back off criticizing Bush, we could win NJ and make New York close enough that Kerry can't do that much in Ohio.

If the GOP is perceived as pandering to the prude patrol, he won't have to fight hard to win Ohio either. Clinton won it in 1992 even though Ohio state politics was most of the way through a transformation from Democrat dominated to Republican dominated.

Though we have a strong religious right presence especially downstate, a lot of Ohioans have a pretty strong libertarian streak, especially where the feds are concerned.

-Eric

[Tricorn]

"Does it bother you that I change the channel when I don't like something?"

No, I just don't understand why some people would like to deny people the power to set their own societal standards. Why would Rush want the govt to prohibit this all of a sudden?

[Prodigal Son]

No, I just don't understand why some people would like to deny people the power to set their own societal standards

'Own societal standards'. Seems a contradiction in terms.

[Tricorn]

"'Own societal standards'. Seems a contradiction in terms"

My prowess with words might not be up to snuff, but the fact remains that we've been setting standards of decency for generations, and now all of a sudden we can't be allowed to do this? Let the market decide? Turn the channel? I'm just wondering how this became an idea conservatives should fight for. We can't discriminate between political speech and pornography? That's a new one on me.

[Prodigal Son]

Turning the channel works for me.