Revtim–
To call Dr. Laura a cunt is to insult the cunts of the world.
I listened to Dr. Laura for the first time in several years just a few weeks ago (my mom used to listen to her occasionally, but I’d never paid much attention before). Wow, did she piss me off. She explained that Elian had to remain in the U.S. because Cuba was the equivalent to the South during slavery. If a little boy reached the North, but his father died during the attempt, and his father wanted him back, would we let him go back to suffer slavery? Hell, no! And that’s why we shouldn’t let Elian return to Cuba.
On a personal level, I am embarrassed that Dr. Laura is Jewish. Please do not think that her views represent the tenets of Judaism, no matter what she might say.
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG WRONG!
“Censorship” can only be engaged in by the state. The state acts with the force of law, and if it uses that law to prevent a person from saying something, it has engaged in censorship.
When a private citizen calls for a public boycott of a product, that person is exercising his or her right to free speech, not “censoring” anything. Dr. Laura is appealing to the marketplace of ideas to adopt her principles, and to not buy Big Brother magazine. Larry Flynt has every right to say what he wants in Big Brother magazine, and Dr. Laura has every right to encourage people not to support it.
You may disagree with Dr. Laura’s position, annd you have every right to use your own speech to oppose her opposition to Larry Flynt’s. But unless and until she invokes the power of the govenment, she is not engaging in “censorship.”
Amen, Satan! (Is that oxymoronic?)
The few times I’ve attempted to stomach her show, I noticed that she doesn’t even seem to like people. That’s of course in addition to the undiluted ego, sanctimony and chutzpah she displays in actually pretending she can pinpoint people’s life problems in a 30-second phone call.
I agree, she may be the only female out there for whom I want to use ‘the C-word.’
Dr. Laura doesn’t quite edge out Vanna White for “most worthless profession on the planet,” but she comes damn close. (Vanna stays ahead, now that she doesn’t even have to actually turn the letters.)
“Nothing is so firmly believed as what is least known” - Michel Gyquem de Montaigne
Nurlman, you said:
She was not calling for a boycott; she filed a lawsuit which involves the state. If she had simply called for a boycott I would not have asked the original question of censorship. Even though no censoring has been done by the gov’t, I consider threatening state involvement to be a threat of censorship.
Dear Mr. Satan, et al,
Cease immediatly your slanderous remarks. This is totally unfair, uncalled for, and serves no useful purpose other than to defame us.
Take notice that we expect a full public apology by the end of today, or we will take legal action against all parties involved.
Micheal Hunt
President/CEO
Acme Douchebag Company
Sorry, I don’t buy it. I did misread the initial mention of the issue made by TVBlen, and didn’t notice that it mentioned a “lawsuit.” But it’s hard to imagine how she could sue a store owner over alleged pornography being available there-- private citizens don’t have the sort of police powers to do that. So I looked into it a little more. Here’s an excerpt of a story from MSN.com on the matter (sorry, no link-- I’m too lazy to code it):
This is a totally different issue than using the state’s legal system to censor something. Dr. Laura is contending that the shop owner made false statements about her that injured her reputation, and is asking for money as compensation. (And the shop owner is countersuing on similar grounds.) Whether the magazine is or is not available on the stands is not an issue to be decided in the lawsuit, nor is it even particularly relevant.
Except in extraordinary circumstances, it’s hard to imagine how a defamation suit like this one could constitute “censorship.” The notion of “censorship” is usually tied to the idea of “prior restraint”-- that is, the government preventing you from saying something (or preventing your written statements from being disseminated, such as pulling a magazine off the newsstand). The lawsuit Dr. Laura filed doesn’t seek to prevent the shop owner from speaking (or, even more remotely, the magazine from being disseminated), but rather forcing him to remedy damage that his (allegedly) false statements caused.
Remember that your right to speak freely does not include the right to speak falsely. If one or both of the parties to this lawsuit made false statements about the other, awarding damages against them is not an issue of censorship. It’s a matter of repairing harm caused by someone exceeding his or her rights. The courts are simply the mechanism by which that determination is made.
I don’t disagree that the courts play an essential role in censorship, but it’s usually in the context of criminal law-- where record store owners are criminally prosecuted for selling 2LiveCrew albums for example. If Dr. Laura had pressured the Costa Mesa District Attorney to bring criminal charges against the shop for carrying the magazine, you’d be right that the legal system was being used as a tool of the state to censor someone. But that’s just not what’s happening here.
Well smack my lips and call me “biologically deviant!”
I think she’s a repressed lesbian. Or an emasculated man in drag.
At least Howard Stern makes fun of himself along with everyone else. (Hell, at least he’s funny once in a while.)
Dr. Laura turns my stomach. If she gets her show, fine, but I hope it dies a quick death, or gets relegated to 12:30 am on Sunday nights. I’ll watch her show once just to find out which sponors I won’t support any more.
Esprix
I must disagree with Nurlman when he says that only the state can censor. Parents can and do, schools and teachers do, companies do, and individuals can do it if they have the power. Censoring is determing what others can and cannot hear/say/write/read/express/etc. If it has the force of censorship, it is censorhip. Thus, if she’s trying to stop someone’s expression, she’s trying to censor.
IF I believed in censorship, I would censor her, or at least enjoin her from using “Doctor” as a title in anything not relating to physiology. I do not believe in censorship. All I can do in censure her instead.
Bucky
What a sick, sick sick fucko.
Yes, fucko. First class. AAAAAAAAARGH! :mad:
[see the article](http://www.ctnow.com/scripts/editorial.dll?render=y&eetype=Article&eeid=881167&ck=&userid
=173084483&userpw=.&uh=173084483,2,&ver=hb1.2.20)
[url=http://www.ctnow.com/scripts/editorial.dll?
render=y&eetype=Article&eeid=881167&ck=&userd
=173084483&userpw=.&uh=173084483,2,&ver=hb1.2
.20] see the article
Read what she did to young Sarah Miller, 14 year old girl who won an essay contest defending free speech on the Internet.
Bigots like “Dr” Laura makes me hurl.
Elenfair
(please, UBB code, work, work, work damn you…) 
{please, please let me not mess up the code! -Lynn)
“Semper Ubi Sub Ubi.” =-)
[Note: This message has been edited by Lynn Bodoni]
I’m with Satan on this one. If your taking requests, I’d like a very special “I hope you rot in hell” to go out to Judge Judy. She’s even more authoritative than Dr. Laura. Wapner had class and he let even young punks go without a verbal thrashing unless they forgot their receipts. Judy is a bitch for bitch sake, she gets in there before she knows what’s going on and when reality starts to come out she silences the court room with her verdict, which is of course based on a possibly chemically induced fraction of reality.
Dr. Laura said:
She’s Jewish, and yet she’s arguing that God makes errors. Draw your own conclusions.
(Please read “UBB Code is ON,” the link next to the box where you write your posts. It will tell you how to make short hyperlinks that won’t s-t-r-e-t-c-h the page from left to right.)
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
:::hanging head in shame…::: :o
fuck-a-duck, sorry guys… didn’t mean to let that URL scroll…
Can a moderator edit it for me?
::::Giving moderators her best "Bambi when his mother was shot :eek: " look::::::
::::Batting eyelashes:::::
E.
“Semper Ubi Sub Ubi.” =-)
We’ve all made this mistake. BTW, it does work. I’m impressd. I’m sure if I attempted to post a link THAT long, there’d be errors.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
Off topic:
Elenfair, I’m sorry, but I can be the only one who consistently reads
as
Good dog.
[woof!]
-andros-
(ghod, am I a product of the 80’s or what?)
Glad the link actually works…
::::standing tall and proud:::: Someday, I shall master the art of UBB code, I shall understand the mysterious ways of Cecil, I shall understand the mysterious ways of SDMB, I shall kick the asses of all sorry little trolls, I shall take over the woooooorrrrllllddd…
twitch
This moment of delusion was brought to you by Overwork & Temporary Insanity, Inc.
E.
ps: Andros, that made me laugh… thanks! 
“Semper Ubi Sub Ubi.” =-)
Sheesh, I’d forgotten this thread.
Nurlman, why do you qualify censorship as a state or official action? As individuals we all choose what we see, hear and red. Censorhsip is imposing those individual choices onto other people.
Interjection: censorship is one of those juicy issues where political leanings don’t matter much. The left has censored just as much as the right.
The most challenged book in 1999 was the popular Harry Potter series for children. By “challenged” I mean formal (some legal) demands issued for the titles to be removed. The claim is that this fantasy series is “Satanic” in nature. Some of the most challenged titles include The Bible, the entire works of Shakespeare and Huckleberry Finn.
The censorship is not coming from the libraries; they are having to spend sparse dollars to defend against it. The censors are people of distinct religious views who don’t want their children reading the books…and decided that no one ELSE’S children should be permitted to read them either.
Qualitatively their actions are no different from “Dr.” Laura’s: she chose not to buy the magazine. Fine. But then she decided that no one else had the right–or reason, wisdom or sense–to decide for himself or herself.
THAT’S censorship. It is arrogant and hubris drenched. It believes that Self is able to dictate choices for Everyone. YOU don’t have to think or consider or choose; the censor will decide for you what you can or cannot read.
I’m not defending dreck and slime. God knows there’s plenty of it out there, much of it on the Net. And I’m not suggesting that kids should be exposed to it. But I AM saying those choices and limits should be made by individuals–and parents–not Big Brother in whatever guise du jour.
As an aside, as a political moderate, it amazes me that putative “conservatives” are currently so eager to embrace governmental control over individual rights–and call it “freedom”. It’s an affront to coherent conservative standards. But then again, “politics du jour” rarely appeal to sense.
FWIW, check out ALA’s Freedom to Read Foundation. It helps fund legal defenses when books are challenged.
Veb
Lynn! Cleanup on aisle six, please! And just
to make sure that my post (at least) is readable
on a single width of the monitor, I’m going
to hit a hard return whenever I come to the
right hand margin of my compose window.
(I look forward to seeing the finished product,
as the effect could be anything from striking
to really annoying)
Anyway, to some substance: While I’m as glad
as anyone to see this topic come up to the top
again, I feel that I will be doing a service
to those who missed it the first time around
that this thread is FIVE MONTHS OLD! She
already had her lawsuit thrown out. I can’t
remember if I heard whether Mr. Moore’s countersuit
is going forward (let’s just say that to all
intents and purposes, I didn’t hear).
Esprix, do you suppose you could clue me as to what you find out about her sponsors? I
not only don’t have any interest in watching
her, but my television isn’t picking up anything in the VHF band, right now.
DAMMIT! Stumbled at the goal line!