Dr. Laura Slapped in Canada

Great Debates
21

Then please respond to this part of my post:

I’m interested in seeing what you think.

And I am very insulted (and I find it slightly racist) that you are comparing me to Hitler. I don’t see how the enslavement and slaughter of millions of people is related to a radio talk show. Let’s keep this in perspective.

I never said that we should take away their right to vote or own a baseball bat (it’s what they USE it for that counts). All I was saying is that we should do all we can to prevent the incitement of hatred and violence in our society.
We have to take a stand and say that hatred and lies are NOT First Amendment rights. Theoretically, it would be nice if they could be, but as a race, human beings are incapable of handling such lofty concepts AND being peaceful. I would choose peace for my children over the freedom to pass out leaflets about “The Jewish Parasite” and “The Homosexual Agenda”. Kooky me.

22

Yes, Kooky you. I think Ben Franklin said it best. “Those who would give up their rights for “security” deserve neither.” I despise Ms. Laura. She is a putrid fountain of filth, and when I happen to catch a few seconds of her program, I feel compeleld to rush home and shower. Repeatedly. I Hate the KKK, the neo-nazis, the John Birch society and many others, and yet I will fight to the death to defend their right to hold such horrible opinions. It is IMPOSSIBLE to selective censor just the “bad” things. Once those inalienable rights outlined in the Constitution are breached, even a little, It’s a long, slippert slope downhill to a police state. Censor Laura? Fine. She’s a wacko who has been hit over the head one to many times with a bag of What The Fuck?. Who’s next? Who decides? You? Me? Jerry Faldwell? Charles Manson? Who’s agenda gets pushed and whos gets squelched? There is no way to know, and the only solution is to stay off that path entirely! So count me as one who will NOT trade any of my rights for “security”, even if it means that I have to be exposed to goat feltching hemmoroids like those mentioned in this post. It is a small price to pay, and I pay it gladly.

23

Weirddave:

I agree with you for the most part. I have not protested against Dr. Laura’s new show. Nor do I fully agree with Canada’s new decision. Her views on Matthew Sheppard’s death, while cold-hearted and distorted, are just opinions. Nor do I like GLAAD’s attempt to negotiate the content of Dr. Laura’s show.

However, when she states the following:

[ul]
[li]“paedophilia is more common among members of the gay community than the heterosexual community”[/li]
[li]“that paedophilia has to do with being gay”[/li]
[li]“a majority of gay men are predatory towards boys”[/li][/ul]

She has crossed from stating opinions to trying to declare something as a fact. Don’t you think that a television station (a business) has the right to say, “we don’t want our customers seeing us as the source of misinformation. Either produce some documentation or we’ll air an alternative version of the show.”?

She is operating within a business, and as far as I know a business has some control over its content. As Paramount’s employee next year, they would have the right to take her show off the air if they decided they didn’t like her content. Is this censorship? Not in my opinion. That’s because she still has the rights to state her views with or without her show, she just doesn’t have the right to a Paramount financed platform.

I see this as fair because I am just as comforatble with the idea of a television station being forced to air something they are uncomfortable with as Dr. Laura’s free speech being violated.**

In the case of Canada, it does sound like censorship, because it is an oversight council dictating how the various station are to handle their programming. While the intent is well-meaning, it is a dangerous precedent to set.

**Already I can sense some possible counter arguements. Unfortunately, anti-discrimination laws show that business rights are subjective to an individual’s rights. However, I think that in the cases of information purveyors, they have some legal protections for control of their content. Otherwise, I could successfully sue a religious magazine for the right to publish my article regarding the blessed Pink Unicorn.

24

I was argueing the general concept of censoring “bad” things. I would not argue that a private business has every right to controll the content it puts out. I was speaking in regards to government censorship.

25

I agree with Beakerxf (and those before him who brought this up) that a lot of Dr. Laura’s comments are way out of line. However, I would like to point out that she’s coming from a very religious standpoint, and from a religious standpoint (especially Jewish), homosexuality is quite horrid. Does that make it okay? Hell no. I’m not saying her religious background excuses her behavior, I’m just saying it explains it.

With regards to her show… the format really isn’t that well-planned. In fact, just about any advice show (or advice column, at that) can only provide the most generalized of advice, since Dr. Laura only has a set amount of time to get through each caller. It’s not her decision, it’s the station’s decision.

And with the “controversy” about her title… she’s a doctor, people. Get over it. Arguing otherwise is just being petty. Same goes with her nude posing… as far as I understand it, that was a long time ago. Aren’t people entitled to mistakes?

Dr. Laura is really obnoxious… however, just because some of her beliefs and comments are really off-base, that doesn’t mean they ALL are. Of course, I’D never go to her for advice.

26

Just to clarify two points:

As I mentioned in my original post, the decision in this case was made by an industry council, with voluntary membership, made up entirely of private broadcasters. It is not the CBC, nor an arm of the CRTC (Canadian equivalent of the FCC). From my cursory scan of the websites I linked, it looked to me like a radio station could just opt out of the standards council if it wanted to. I think that is an important contextual factor for the discussion.

Second, in regard to Kyla’s post, although the 1st Amendment obviously does not apply in Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does. Section 2 of the Charter constiutitonally entrenches freedom of expression, so there most certainly would be major constitutional issues if the government tried to tell a radio station what Dr. Laura can say. That gets back to the point that this appears to be a decision that a particular station could opt out of.

27

Uhhh…no. A professor is someone with a doctorate who has managed to get a job at a university.

28

**
I agree with Beakerxf (and those before him who brought this up) that a lot of Dr. Laura’s comments are way out of line. However, I would like to point out that she’s coming from a very religious standpoint, and from a religious standpoint (especially Jewish), homosexuality is quite horrid. Does that make it okay? Hell no. I’m not saying her religious background excuses her behavior, I’m just saying it explains it.**

The problem with Dr. Laura is that she can’t make up her mind how she’s speaking. She will claim that she is speaking in a “clinical context” one moment and that she is claiming religious beliefs the next.

I have no problem with her stating her religious views. There are a lot of religious programming on that speak out against homosexuality. It’s just when she throughs in that clinical aspect that I get bothered. She is not qualified to practice psychology (hence unable to diagnose homosexuals as “disordered”).

You can read transcripts of her shows at the GLAAD website (Dr. Laura removed hers from her website after the crap hit the fan). Not much in the transcripts reflect religious statements. (I have never met a Jew who would describe a homosexual as a “biological error”. That’s critiquing God’s work!)

29

What if…

A disclaimer ran before Little Ol’ Goofy Laura’s show clearly stating that her veiws are only her opinion based on sources that may not be factually accurate?

This thread contains some very well reasoned responses, and Beakerfx’s posts show that Ms. Schlessinger’s statements are on record and easy to disprove. I welcome this information because it helps me to decide whom I ought to believe and to correct misinformation when I encounter it.

I talk to “parrots” frequently, and I love giving out the information that proves my contention (if I should adopt an antagonistic position).

We all do our part, don’t we, as Uncle Cecil’s accolytes?

The danger with censorship (if that is what this is) is that “hidden” information is prized most, and if the information is taboo…well, what the heck, every one here has seen the wacko sites, I’m sure. Dangerous ideas have their allure.

I do not believe that government ought to behave towards its citizens as though they require protection from ideas.

How are we to resist bad thinking? “I don’t know, I’m only two.” {sarcasm intended}

30

Oh, jti…

Sorry to do the Big Brother rant. I reread your post and your point is certainly salient.

I guess my question is: “Is it voluntary with an opt-out?”

If the answer is no, then I cannot see much difference between Government and Industry Standards.

If yes, I’ll just shut up and go find a seat.

31

Said photos of Dr. L. were taken prior to her finding religion and were distributed far and wide by a seriously jerkish individual.

I don’t particularly like the lady either; however, let’s give the truth a break every once in a while.

Oh, and Danny: ANYONE who holds a doctorate has a right to the title of doctor.

32

This is true. But, for example, if my dear deceased high school English teacher Dr. Harker (whose doctorate was in music) went on the radio and started dispensing psychological advice, implying that his doctorate qualified him to do the same, I wonder how that wouldn’t be fraud.

33

Actually, at http://www.stopdrlaura.com, there are several Rabbis quoted as saying that her views have NO basis in Torah, that she is guilty of lashon harah (“evil tongue”), and that she is smearing the Jewish community.

As for the “freedom” debate, I’m going to bring in something from the abortion threads - civilisation and absolute freedom cannot coexist. They annihilate one another.
Everyone is forced to give up certain freedoms in order to be a member of society. So let’s not pretend that we all have total freedom and that one change will jeopardize everything. That’s ludicrous.
In Canada, where I live, the Supreme Court ruled that hate literature/propaganda is not protected under our right to free speech. And oh my god, guess what?! Our jails did not overflow, people did not cower in their houses in terror of the Gestapo, and the earth did not open up and swallow us all. Gasp**Shocker!

Now please feel free to rant at me about how much better your country is than mine.

34

Well, I would, but damnit, I’m not Coldfire:D I just live in the U.S.of A. Hehe. Seriously,

While it is true that civilization and absolute freedom cannot co-exist,( tho, try telling that to all the so called “anarchists” who have been visible in the IMF and World Bank protests) Some freedoms are absolute. To tamper with them is to change the gesalt of the country. ( speaking as a citizen of the U.S. ) I stand behind my above post. Once freedoms are “qualified” into what’s alowable and what’s not, when all you have is a giant tug o war with each faction attempting to gain power so that they can determine what is “O.K.” Should that ever happen, I will emigrate to Canada. Care to sponser me?

35

**

Now please feel free to rant at me about how much better your country is than mine.
**

Oh, no complaints from me. Ever since the common-law spouse legislation was approved for same-sex partners, Canada started looking better and better. Not to mention they have been voted the #1 country to live in by the U.N. how many years in row?

I’m just making sure that the common-law legislation doesn’t inspire God to wipe you off the map before I move up there. :wink:

36

That’s mostly the way I look at the hate-speech provisions. They worry me, and if I were in power I’d get rid of them. But, as was said, our jails aren’t overflowing (any more than they would anyway) and we’re not cowering in fear. My objection is based more on political philosophy than on an actual crisis.

37

I disagree. As has already been pointed out, people who have PhD.'s, DD’s, and so on can be called Doctor as well. I have even met people who insisted on it.

This does not mean that “Dr.” Laura is not being misleading by referring to herself this way.

38

Two issues:

First, isn’t the “good” Dr. L. actually doing her radio stint/“practice” in a field for which she’s received training and certification?

Second, which field exactly was the first to start issuing doctorates? I’m inclined to believe that Medicine merely followed suit and thus it’s really the Medical Doctors who are the latecomers to the titlefest here. What say the TM?

39

Since I’m gainfully employed, I rarely listen to daytime talk radio. On the rare occasions that I’m home or in my car during the day, I’m far more likely to listen to Jim Rome than to Dr. Laura or Rush Limbaugh. Truth to tell, I haven’t heard Dr. Laura’s show in a couple of years (well before her famous nude photos surfaced). Now… is it POSSIBLE that she’s gone completely off the deep end in the few years since I heard her show? I guess so, just as it’s possible Rush Limbaugh has turned into Father Coughlin in the few years since I last heard his show. Still, somehow I doubt it.

I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh for one reason only: though I agreed with 90+ per cent of the things he said, I eventually asked myself, “What’s the point of listening to a radio show that just keeps telling me what I already believe”?

As for Dr. Laura… again, I agreed with the advice she gave 90% of the time, but I quit listening because… well, in spite of her moralistic posing, her show was very much like that of Jerry Springer or Geraldo Rivera! Despite the fact that she gave tough advice, the fact remains, the show’s draw is sheer smut! Listening to trailer park trash talking about their sordid problems got old in a hurry. For a day or two, it was sort of refreshing to hear Dr. Laura give those people the tongue-lashing they deserved… but it wasn’t very uplifting. Dr. Laura’s show was, ultimately, as much a freak show as Springer’s.

Side note: when the nude photos surfaced, I figured her career was over… but apparently, Dr. Laura is as shameless as Bill CLinton, and just as able to convince her devoted admirers that her crimes were “old news.” What ever happened to people like John Profumo, who had the decency to resign from public life and disappear forever, when he was nailed in a sex scandal???

Still, for the week or so that I listened, I heard VERY little about homosexuality! To hear GLAAD representatives talk, you’d think Dr. Laura was ranting about “evil Sodomites” for hours on end, but the truth is, when she went on moralistic rants, it was invariably against irresponsible HETEROsexual behavior!

I remember clearly a case in which a CHristian woman called in, saying she had a lesbian sister, and asked how to go about explaining to her daughter how wrong and sinful homosexuality was. Dr. LAura’s response was (drum roll)… “Why worry about something your daughter is highly unlikely to do? Why not spend more time telling her that DIVORCE is immoral? Why not spend more time telling her fornication and adultery are immoral? WHy make a big deal of homosexuality?”

As I said, MAYBE in the years since I stopped listening, she has changed. Maybe she now spends hours at a time screaming that gays are going straight to hell… but I doubt it. My guess is, she still spends VERY little time on gay issues. Of course, if you’re on the “wrong” side of this issue, gays will resent ANY time you spend talking about it.

40

Dr. Laura makes me ashamed to be Jewish. Many people I meet think that many observant Jewish woman are like that! Closed minded, snobby, big headed and crabby. Just listening to her makes me feel small, and her views on things (in my opinion) are totally skewed. In addition, I’m almost positive that she has never actaully helped ANYONE! All she ever does is yell at people. Here is one of her typical sessions

Caller: Well, you see, my mother will not stop pressuring me to have more children and…
Dr. Laura: Okay, stop here. I don’t want to hear any whining. Now, either tell me your problem or I’ll hang up on you.
Caller: That is my problem. My mother is causing me to feel caught…
Dr. Laura: Your whining again, dear…blah blah blah

That is really NOT a dramatization! Ugh, she pisses me off!