Dr. Laura and Gay Protests

Great Debates
1

I was recently reading about the “showdown” between gay/lesbian activists and the new Dr. Laura television show.

(I must note first off that I’m not a listener of Dr. Laura’s so I only know her by reputation. My opinions regarding either side’s viewpoint are not the subject of this post.)

My first feeling on this is that the protest group is not so much trying to present an opposing point of view, but trying to abridge her right to free speech. I don’t think the reasoning presented by StopDrLaura is valid: By attempting to shutting down one’s avenue to free speech, they are actually trying to abridge her right to free speech.

Protests like this have always gotten under my skin a little… whether I am for or against something, who ever is presenting their opinion should always be allowed to do so. For example, I may not approve of white supremacists, but hate is not illegal nor is their vocalization of their hate. Any attempt to stop them from speaking, marching, or whatever, IMHO, is not only illegal, it’s immoral.

And so, in their attempt to stop “intolerance, and double standards”, the StopDrLaura protest is itself being intolerant and thus guilty of having a double-standard.

What do you think?

But then in the back of my mind is a little twitch. I always believe that a person is directly responsible for his or her own actions, regardless of who or what may have been an influence. However, removing the influence{s} may have a tendency to remove people who would illegally act out upon influences in their lives and thus would lead to a better society.

“So,” this little twitch says to me, “would it not be worth it to abridge the freedom of speech in order for a greater societal good?”

The twitch is not silenced, but my idealistic self comes back into action. “It is worth the pain and suffering of a few… or sometimes even many… in order to preserve the nearly complete freedom of speech. A wrong in society may continue, but at least a path of greater wrong will not have been taken.”

What do you think?

2

Woulden’t the activists just be advocating a boycott? Not actually any laws right? Everyone has the right to free speech but not everyone has the right to a radio station.

3

Just to head off any potential canards regarding who exactly is trying to do what to whose rights to free speech, any argument in this thread from those grounds should clearly understand that the right to free speech outlined in the First Amendment is protected only from abridgement by the Federal government (and, by extension via the 14th Amendment, the states). The Dr. Laura fracas relates only to dealings between private entities: Dr. Laura, her program syndicator, and the TV networks. Any argument from any grounds other than those is invalid.

The First Amendment does not have anything to say on the topic of private citizens attempting to muzzle each other.

4

This assumes there is a case in which abridging someone’s right to say what they want is for the greater good. I don’t believe there is ever such a case.

Any time anyone spouts lies and hatred the only solution “for the greater good” is to educate the public as to what are the lies, and to provide a voise of reason against hate-filled emotional rhetoric.

I believe, furthermore, that the anti-Laura protesters have the right to challenge those that support “Dr.” Laura, both directly (by carrying her show) and indirectly (say, by advertising on her show) to defend their positions, and to argue that those positions are morally reprehensible.

Your quote from StopDrLaura does not say they refuse her the right to speak, only that those who support her speech should be held accountable for that fact. I agree with that sentiment.

5

It’s the age old battle for media’s free speech but needing to make money also.

You are always going to hack someone off when you go on the air. A jock(air personality) is always going to have people that either love’em or hate’em. And if they don’t, they do terrible in the ratings. I mean look at Howard Stern. He offends people all the time with his show but he is still on the air. He gets boycotted all the time.

Sure the homosexual group can try to boycott the products that advertise on her show. But if she has ratings, advertisers will buy time on her show. My suggestion to the people not liking her show is if you don’t like it don’t listen.

6

So, to take the devil’s advocate position using the Hitler standard ;), do you not think that society would have been better off had Hitler’s free speech rights been abriged?

Very true. However, I guess I’m trying to argue this on the “absolute” idea of freedom of speech, not just the legal portion.

7

I agree that the people trying to take her off the air are going too far (in the moral sense), because the result is that they are denying the public’s right to make up their own minds.

But, as others have pointed out, they are breaking no laws.

I would judge their actions (and the actions of anybody who prevents me from making up my own mind about a TV show, movie, video game, etc) as immoral.

8

Not in Canada, where Dr. Laura’s show is censored. When the Canadian broadcasting group censored her show, these people put out a press release celebrating. They’re just another Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Pat Buchanan type group…

9

Absolutely not. Any day, I’d rather let him talk and then educate people as to why he’s a nut. Otherwise you get people who are just waiting for any nut with sufficient charisma to come along, and it wouldn’t have to be Hitler.

First off, it wasn’t the fact that Hitler was a nut and was allowed to prove it that caused the problem, it was the frustration of the people (due to many issues, many of them the result of the economic situation in Germany following WWI) funneled into nationalism, and anti-semitism. If not Hitler it could easily have been some other fanatic. He was a lightning rod, in the right time at the right place.

People voted for Hitler, people agreed with Hitler’s policies, or at the very least, people were to apathetic to take a stand early on when they started to realize they DIDN’T agree with him. As charismatic as the man was, nobody was FORCED to elect him.

Free speech did not cause WWII. You could have let Hitler say whatever he wanted, without voting him into office, without sitting idly by as he turned the political system into a dictatorship, without “appeasing him”, without letting him decide he owns Poland, etc.

Secondly, as to what might have been a better solution, if the sources of frustration had been addressed (more economic aid, etc.) and if there had been, a more agressive history of debunking anti-semitism, instead of quietly sweeping it under the rug, and if, in general, the sort of ignorance that leads to fascism had been combatted, now that might have made a difference.

Perhaps in that case people would have recognized Hitler for the fruitcake he was and not been so eager to elect him.
You got people in this country like Pat Buchanan that mix racist and anti-semitic ideology with populist sentiment too, and they always get a certain following. Shutting them up doesn’t keep another one from coming along, but educating the public keeps them from getting elected.

10

Yeah, I’m troubled by the demonstrations and feel they’re going to far. I’m someone who believes that it’s better to debate than to smother.

I’d really like to see someone who is pro-gay and really know their facts to sit down and debate with Dr. Laura.

11

isn’t it interesting that a liberal group would like to ban someone?

12

It isn’t just about free speech, it’s about power. Having a widely syndicated radio show gives you enormous power, and getting a TV show gives you many times more. Prejudice and power can be a deadly combination. If these gay activists were able to reduce Dr. Laura’s power to the level that, say, they themselves have, I’m sure they’d be satisfied.

13

I used to listen to her show on almost a daily basis. There were no other shows on during work that delt with issues of right and wrong. I honestly don’t think that Dr. Laura hates homosexuals. When I listened to her radio show she said that homosexuals should not be physically attacked or harassed on many different occasions. She even said that she believed it was ok for gay couples to adopt older children. She is hardly the #1 enemy to the homosexual community.

And I’d say the homosexual community has about as much power as Dr. Laura. It isn’t as though they’ve got no influence.

Marc

14

Since I believe in a totally free market, I think the economics should decide this one because the good Dr. and the protest groups are both exercising their rights of free speech. If Dr. Laura has a large enough audience (hence a market that advertisers will pay to reach) she should and will stay on the air. The real question is wheither the very small yet highly vocal minority will win out over the popular (in some circles) telepsychiatrist who will be asking her (huge?) audience to contact the same advertisers. It will be an interesting fight for sure.

15

I dunno if this fits, but it’s fun!! :smiley:
http://sluggy.com/d/990111.html
Enjoy!

16

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ren *
**

A slight hijack to clarify - Hitler never got the majority of votes in a general election - less than 40% was the best he ever polled. He was put into office by those in executive power, partly to stop the country becoming run by Communists. The Nazi Party’s own band of thugs (the SA) had been beating up or murdering any opponents of their cause in the lead up to Hitler coming to power. Of course, very soon after, Hitler himself outlawed any freedoms that would undermine his leadership, and being too ‘free’ with your speech would probably lead to your execution, or at best imprisonment.

My point - Hitler’s probably not the best person to use as an example of whether free speech should sometimes be curtailed, because it wasn’t only his violent words that caused trouble (it was also the physical violence of his followers), and the decision of how to deal with his ideas wasn’t ultimately left up to the general population, but was handled by ‘those in charge’.

At the same time, it’s probably useful to compare the difference between having your free speech curtailed by losing advertisers on your radio show, and the consequences if you speak out in many undemocratic societies.

HenrySpencer

17

I thought Dr. Laura was a heartless cow even before she started in on gay folks, and now I find her to be an even more cruel, hate-mongering harpy.
That said, I think the gay activist groups should not be trying to force her show off the air. Sure, she’s utterly loathsome, but free speech is an absolute, even for people one wholeheartedly despises.
Would we like to see the same campaign waged by the Christians against a pro-gay pop psychologist? I say, let all points of view be heard and judged. I trust that Americans’ good sense and innate sense of fair play will let them see Dr. Laura for the intolerant, hate-filled shrew she is.

18

Reminds me of the nutcase who organized a boycott of ‘Married with children’. Basically, her argument is that this show was too sick and would rein havock upon our good society. She was wrong, and her boycott actually helped the show stay on the air. (people tuned in just to see what the fuss was about)

The same thing is going on here. These nutbags are saying Dr. Whatshername’s show is too sick and will play hell with our good society if we let her speak. Their protests will only get people to tune in to see what all the fuss is about.

Hell, now I’m curious.

19

My organization was peripherally involved with the Stop Dr. Laura campaign and we have taken all sorts of flak. We pride ourselves as an organization which fights to protect freedom of speech, yet people accused us of censorship. I am not going to quote my party line here, just offer my personal opinion.

Encouraging corporate responsibility is not a bad thing. There are many watchdog organizations that try to steer businesses away from harming the environment. There are many organizations which promote diversity, minimize exploitation, etc. All of these are tolerated to a certain degree, because by and large, people believe that it is in society’s best interests for corporations to behave.

The campaign to combat corporate sponsorship is exactly the same thing. We were not involved in protesting against the networks that carry the show, which would have been entirely inappropriate. Dr. Laura’s hate mongering is pretty similar in character and effect to dumping toxic waste in the drinking water. We urged corporations who planned on sponsoring the show to take some responsibility for the content of her program rather than ignore her spume in pursuit of profit. No one demanded that she be silenced, no one demanded that she lose her radio show. The corporations listened, and her sponsorship was pulled.

However, the first few episodes of the show have been extremely tame. While maintaining her tough-love attitude, she has managed to steer clear of any real controversy so far.

MR

20

I was unaware that the right to free speech entitled people to have their own TV shows. I don’t have my own TV show. I don’t know anyone with their own TV show. I don’t see why “Dr.” Laura should be guaranteed a show to voice her opinions when I am not. Is she somehow more equal than the rest of us so that she gets special rights that we don’t?