# Dr. Laura wants her first amendment rights back... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 18, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594 "2010-08-18T01:27:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/181 "2010-08-19T19:26:18Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > I wonder if in response to the good Dr.'s use of the word nigger, the caller had asked how she felt about the word [kike](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Laura#Religious_beliefs), just how long that call would have lasted. > > CMC fnord! Umm… that doesn’t strike me as quite the same. Jews do go around calling each other [themselves] “kike”. Not even in edgy music. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/182 "2010-08-19T19:26:23Z")
> [@Pastor\_Torch](#): > > > [@Marley23](#): > > > > It’s not even the free market. Her show didn’t get canceled because of a sponsor boycott, although the free market _did_ take her down several pegs because of her comments about gays years ago. There is no evidence she was forced to resign. She says she is quitting because she doesn’t like being criticized for what she says. Unless it comes out that her network was putting pressure on her, the market doesn’t enter into it. > > But her point is a valid one. > > People have the right to be offended if they choose to be. And anyone can say that “_ **blank** _” offends them… and fill in the blank with whatever they choose to be offended by. > > Her point was that certain people, groups in our culture today nolonger will engage you to debate you. Nor are they interested in an apollogy. They attack you to silence you and hurt you. In her case the brew-ha-ha was an attack against her sponcers, affiliats, and any other organization that might support her. That sort of attack is underhanded and unethical. Sort of like what the right wing did with the Dixie Chicks back in 2003? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/183 "2010-08-19T19:34:33Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The problem is the good doctor thinks the first amendment guarantees her the right to say anything she wants without consequences. Not only doesn’t it, but when it comes to the “Court of Public Opinion”, you are not even covered by the notion that it’s a defense to be speaking truth. She now finds herself in the distinguished company of not just Don Imus (“nappy-headed Ho’s”), who represents the merely ignorant faction in the Culture War, but also of such luminaries of the Left faction thereof as the Dixie Chicks (“ashamed George W Bush is from Texas”), Bill Maher (“is it cowardly to fly a plane into a building instead of firing a missile from 100 miles away”), John Lennon (“more popular than Jesus Christ these days”) and others. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander; \*\*joebuck20 \*\*called it. Doctor Laura says she’ll stick to print and online - venues where she can absolutely control what words of her go out onto the public sphere. Good call, in view of this. But oh boy are these last months going to be a whinefest… ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/184 "2010-08-19T20:06:29Z")
> [@Pastor\_Torch](#): > > In her case the brew-ha-ha was an attack against her sponcers, affiliats, and any other organization that might support her. That sort of attack is underhanded and unethical. Nitpick : it’s “brouhaha”. It’s French. Je vous en prie. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/185 "2010-08-19T20:25:58Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Indeed, extremely tone-deaf handling of the situation by Schlessinger; even if she was drawn into it, that is something\*\*\* you don’t let yourself get drawn into\*\*\*. Problem with Dr. Laura is that she herself has made something of a name by badgering Caller X, Y or Z into agreeing to some sort of moral absolute judgement she has proclaimed, and dismissing any “but…” from the caller’s side. Then this caller put HER on the spot by insisting “but is it OK _ever_”. If it’s me in the studio, the answer is “I see what you’re doing there and I’m not walking into it, good-bye.” Agreed. I think it was more her radio persona speaking that makes her show interesting to some. That said, I’m still not convinced that Laura is racist. ---
**Author:** ![Pastor\_Torch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Pastor\_Torch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pastor_Torch)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/186 "2010-08-19T20:30:35Z")
The funny thing here is that… I have not seen any of the civil rights which give anyone the right to an offince free life, or any recourse for being offended. You have the right to be offended, as often as you like and be get upset about anything/everything if you want too. Your offence to what is said is illrelevent to my (her) first amendment rights to say whats on her mind. The only time or place that peoples senseabilites seem to matter is: When the person speaking is somehow dependent upon popularity, such as an entertainer or elected government official. Dr. Laura is an entertainer, or sorts, when she hosts a radio broadcast. If she decideds to pull back from that and act as a voice… something more like a journalist, reporter, commentator… then she would be more at liberty to express an opinion without reprocussions from the offended. If they want to change her mind, they’d have to deal with her in a more direct, open, honest forum and debate her. I think that is her point. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/187 "2010-08-19T20:42:06Z")
> [@Pastor\_Torch](#): > > The funny thing here is that… > > I have not seen any of the civil rights which give anyone the right to an offince free life, or any recourse for being offended. You have the right to be offended, as often as you like and be get upset about anything/everything if you want too. > > Your offence to what is said is illrelevent to my (her) first amendment rights to say whats on her mind. > > The only time or place that peoples senseabilites seem to matter is: When the person speaking is somehow dependent upon popularity, such as an entertainer or elected government official. > > Dr. Laura is an entertainer, or sorts, when she hosts a radio broadcast. If she decideds to pull back from that and act as a voice.. something more like a journalist, reporter, commentator… then she would be more at liberty to express an opinion without reprocussions from the offended. If they want to change her mind, they’d have to deal with her in a more direct, open, honest forum and debate her. > > I think that is her point. I think if that were her point, she might have actually said something like it at some point. And seriously - the first amendment has nothing to do with this, the government has nothing to do with this. This is her saying something that caused people to complain to her sponsors - and then, rather than waiting to see if she got fired, she quit in protest of _other_ people exercising their rights to free speech. In Dr. Laura land, you don’t have the right to complain about her. ---
**Author:** ![pohjonen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pohjonen/32/423_2.png) [@pohjonen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pohjonen)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/188 "2010-08-19T20:46:31Z")
Good grief, she never debated anyone on her show. If things weren’t going her way, as with that caller, she just cut them off and trashed them when they couldn’t respond. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/189 "2010-08-19T20:47:31Z")
> [@Pastor\_Torch](#): > > The funny thing here is that… > > I have not seen any of the civil rights which give anyone the right to an offince free life, or any recourse for being offended. You have the right to be offended, as often as you like and be get upset about anything/everything if you want too. > > Your offence to what is said is illrelevent to my (her) first amendment rights to say whats on her mind. > > The only time or place that peoples senseabilites seem to matter is: When the person speaking is somehow dependent upon popularity, such as an entertainer or elected government official. > > Dr. Laura is an entertainer, or sorts, when she hosts a radio broadcast. If she decideds to pull back from that and act as a voice.. something more like a journalist, reporter, commentator… then she would be more at liberty to express an opinion without reprocussions from the offended. If they want to change her mind, they’d have to deal with her in a more direct, open, honest forum and debate her. > > I think that is her point. So you think Dr. Laura’s First Amendment rights have been violated? ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/190 "2010-08-19T21:35:17Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > So you think Dr. Laura’s First Amendment rights have been violated? Well, mounting an organized campaign using lies and misrepresentations to remove someone’s ability to be heard would be considered usurping the rights. Just because that is not the government, it does not mean that well organized group is not abusing its place in a democracy - in other words, today they are removing someone you do not like but tomorrow it might be someone you agree with… how would you feel then? Government itself is nothing but a super organized group. It may be too strong of an analogy but people seem to be focused on technicalities. So, if you are put in jail you are still free to say whatever you want. It’s just that your audience is reduced. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/191 "2010-08-19T21:42:18Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Well, mounting an organized campaign using lies and misrepresentations to remove someone’s ability to be heard would be considered usurping the rights. Just because that is not the government, it does not mean that well organized group is not abusing its place in a democracy - in other words, today they are removing someone you do not like but tomorrow it might be someone you agree with… how would you feel then? You know … you’re absolutely right. When do we raid Fox News? ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/192 "2010-08-19T21:59:57Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > You know … you’re absolutely right. When do we raid Fox News? Care to debate? You think it’s okay if a group has enough power to silence people you disagree with? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/193 "2010-08-19T22:07:36Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > > You know … you’re absolutely right. When do we raid Fox News? > > Care to debate? You think it’s okay if a group has enough power to silence people you disagree with? To bring this back to the case under discussion, which group are you talking about? The people who were _paying_ Schlessinger to speak, or her listeners whom the aforementioned fellows are obligated to please to retain advertising revenue? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/194 "2010-08-19T22:07:42Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Care to debate? I don’t debate matters of certitude—such as the fact Dr. Laura is not the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy to deprive her of her rights. So, no. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/195 "2010-08-19T22:12:49Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > > You know … you’re absolutely right. When do we raid Fox News? > > Care to debate? You think it’s okay if a group has enough power to silence people you disagree with? What power to silence does the vast left wing conspiracy have over Dr. Laura? ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/196 "2010-08-20T01:23:04Z")
At this point I don’t have any specific group in mind. Please debate the question of principle as posited above. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/197 "2010-08-20T01:30:39Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@newcomer](#): > > > > Care to debate? You think it’s okay if a group has enough power to silence people you disagree with? > > To bring this back to the case under discussion, which group are you talking about? The people who were _paying_ Schlessinger to speak, or her listeners whom the aforementioned fellows are obligated to please to retain advertising revenue? ^This. Piss off your sponsors, or piss off your sponsors’ potential customers, and it costs you? That is life, not an organized violation of your rights. Had she taken my advice, said _“I’m not playing this, caller: if you don’t see my point there’s nothing I can do for you, and if you are insisting just to see if you can goad me into saying it myself, you’re a troll. Good bye”_, she’d still be going on her normal business. But, wait, you say, there are groups who organize together to influence others and that gives them power! Well, whoopee. Humans attain and exercise power through organizing into groups. The “Tea Party” is a collection of (more or less) organized groups; the Southern Baptist Church is a group; the Rainbow Coalition is a group; so’s the AARP; so’s NAACP; the American Legion, Republican Party, NRA, NORML, NOW - groups. Otherwise you just have a bunch of random individuals who can be independently ignored or picked off by other, more powerful individuals. > [@](#): > > It may be too strong of an analogy but people seem to be focused on technicalities. So, if you are put in jail you are still free to say whatever you want. It’s just that your audience is reduced. Utter fail in the analogy, man. Precisely because, the crux of the position that no rights were violated (just as no rights were violated to the Dixie Chicks or Imus) _ **is** _ that she is NOT being put in JAIL over it. The First Amendment does not guarantee you that if you publish a newsletter and call your neighbors kikes, they can’t campaign for people to stop reading and advertising in your newsletter. It does not guarantee that if you call your daughter-in-law a slut and a whore in front of the children, those grandkids will not one day get together with their cousins to just cut you off from their lives and let you die alone in a cheap nursing home. It does not guarantee that the rest of the parishioners at First Congregational Church (whose Pastor, we hope, has a good command of grammar and spelling) HAVE to keep acting like nothing’s up if you insist on showing up “sky clad” for services and asking to get married to three other people of both genders in one same ceremony there. Now, if the parishioners vandalize your car over that, then they have committed a crime against you. But merely shunning you and asking others to do likewise? That’s an exercise of THEIR freedom of expression. The first amendment prohibits official censorship. It does not, can not, do anything about social censure. What it does guarantee you is that if you are willing to endure social censure for something you believe in, and are not endangering public peace and safety while you do it, the State will not interfere with your quest. All that Dr. Laura received for her expressions was _ **social censure** _. That in the end it led her to an economic decision and now she wants to spin into some sort of persecution is just opportunism. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/198 "2010-08-20T01:40:52Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Care to debate? You think it’s okay if a group has enough power to silence people you disagree with? Define “silence”. Radio is a commercial enterprise. Neither Dr. Laura nor anyone else has an absolute right to be on the radio. Dr. Laura is free to sell her product – advice – wherever she likes, and hope that people will buy it, just as with any other product. She can absolutely give it away for free, by starting her own email newsletter, or standing on a street corner sharing her opinions. What she has no right to do is to force people to buy her product – or listen to her. People have an absolute right not to listen to a radio show they disagree with, or not to purchase from the advertisers supporting that show. The alternative is to force people to listen, and then you’re in Kim Jung Il territory. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/199 "2010-08-20T02:04:17Z")
Doctor Laura is not having, and did not have, her first amendment rights violated. She’s making shit up. (not the first time, i would bet). > [@](#): > > People have an absolute right not to listen to a radio show they disagree with, or not to purchase from the advertisers supporting that show. That’s right. No one can be forced to listen, and no one can be forced to be a sponsor either. > [@](#): > > All that Dr. Laura received for her expressions was social censure. That in the end it led her to an economic decision and now she wants to spin into some sort of persecution is just opportunism. She wants to spin this episode so she will (somehow) appear to be the blameless victim. > [@](#): > > … an organized campaign using lies and misrepresentations to remove someone’s ability to be heard would be considered usurping the rights. … well organized group … abusing its place in a democracy - in other words, today they are removing someone you do not like but tomorrow it might be someone you agree with… how would you feel then? What is the alternative? Should government step in and force people to listen to her show? I would hope the government has better things to do. Force sponsors to continue financing a radio show they may be embarrassed to support now? Why? Nobody forcibly and officially removed her and tossed her in radio prison. She used the N Word, quite a bit, and it pissed people off. Now she has a problem with the idea that other people have a problem with her and are pissed off. So what? She was damn stupid and people reacted. What a huge surprise! In the final analysis, who really cares. Government did not trample her right to free speech. Her first amendment rights are safe. She just discovered the flip side of the coin, which is, You can say what you want, but you can not force anyone to listen. Personally, I never thought she had one single thing worth saying or listening to. So why listen? If I did run a company, why should I sponsor someone I could consider an embarrassment or a liability? ---
**Author:** ![sheppard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5fc32e/32.png) [@sheppard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sheppard)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/200 "2010-08-20T02:35:46Z")
I have a doctorate in psychology. Post doctoral certificates are real- it consists of training above and beyond a doctorate degree. I doubt however, Dr. Laura has one in Marriage and family therapy. It is well documented that she has a doctorate in physiology. Apparently she also has two masters degrees. One may very well be in Marriage and family therapy. However for her to make the claim, as she does, that she has a post doctoral certificate in Marriage and Family therapy, would require her to have a doctorate in Marriage and Family therapy first. I have never heard of her making this claim [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594.md?page=11)