# 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:** 12
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/221 "2010-08-20T17:25:43Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > > [@newcomer](#): > > > > Care to debate? You think it’s okay if a group has enough power to silence people you disagree with? > > As someone has already pointed out, how is the Dr. Laura situation different from the firestorm that the Dixie Chicks created when they criticized President Bush? Didn’t radio stations stop playing their music? It was wrong then. It is wrong now. Period. However, this analogy shows that some people base their opinions re: First Amendment based on the message and not the principle. Unless, of course, the posters who have opinion opposite of mine claim that then, they too were arguing in favor of the decision to remove Dixie Chicks from the radio waves using same logic as presented here. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/222 "2010-08-20T17:29:15Z")
The answer to your little puzzler is that it was not wrong under the First Amendment to call for the boycotting of the Dixie Chicks and to work to get their music taken off the radio. Considering the content of their message, it was reprehensible (in my opinion, of course), but it wasn’t a violation of their rights. Accordingly, the same principle applies to Dr. Laura. If you agree with her message (or even if you don’t), you may find the campaign to boycott her sponsors reprehensible. But it’s still got nothing to do with the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/223 "2010-08-20T17:39:47Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Well, no. She’s not, unless you can show me instances where she’s tried to boycott or otherwise suppress someone else’s speech. Her position seems to be that she can say foolish things, and no one should take any action against her. > > > > I don’t get the sense that she’s saying no one should say anything critical of her; I get the sense she’s saying no one should take actions calculated to threaten her job. > > > > What would make her a hypocrite is showing that she took action against someone else based on their speech. (Which she may have, but it hasn’t been mentioned so far). > > Um. You do realize that the “actions calculated to threaten her job” that she is complaining about are people “say[ing] anything critical of her”, right? Specifically, they’re saying critical things about her to her sponsors. > > So yeah. By your own definition: hypocrite city. Well, I’ll agree it’s a closer question. And I’m not really that motivated to defend her, because I can’t stand her. But I think there’s a difference between generalized criticism, as in a blogger or commentator, and a directed communication to a sponsor. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/224 "2010-08-20T17:40:50Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Do you think Michael Moore is considered an unimpeachable moral authority around here, **Bricker**? It’s not 2002. From what I can tell, a lot of people regard him as a jerk who is correct about some issues. No, no – just pointing out that Moore made the same mistake others did vis-a-vis. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/225 "2010-08-20T17:42:56Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Dopers take positions based on facts; they just don’t do things like that. > > But apparently _tu quoque_ remains fair game. That was indeed _tu quoque_. ---
**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 20, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/226 "2010-08-20T17:45:07Z")
I think she’s a hypocrite. She wants to silence people from telling her sponsors and affiliates how wrong they think she is. But she wants to be free to tell other people how wrong she thinks they are. When they do it, it’s hateful. When she doe it, she’s just saying “what’s in her heart.” She thinks she should be the only one who gets to speak. Nuts to that! ---
**Author:** ![Khaki\_Campbell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Khaki\_Campbell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khaki_Campbell)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/227 "2010-08-20T17:47:36Z")
All of that talking and quite serious consequences because of the use of a _word_ ? Anti-racism is the McCarthysm of the XXIth century. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/228 "2010-08-20T17:50:52Z")
> [@pohjonen](#): > > I think she’s a hypocrite. She wants to silence people from telling her sponsors and affiliates how wrong they think she is. But she wants to be free to tell other people how wrong she thinks they are. When they do it, it’s hateful. When she doe it, she’s just saying “what’s in her heart.” She thinks she should be the only one who gets to speak. Nuts to that! Again, I think that’s not quite it. Let’s imagine two candidates for office. One says terrible things about his opposition, and during debates levels outrageous charges against his foe. The second candidate recruits people to shout during the debate to drown out his opponent’s speech, and lobbies the debate organizer to stop sponsoring debates because it’s giving the hateful lies a forum to be spread. Do you see the distinction? ---
**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 20, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/229 "2010-08-20T17:51:50Z")
> [@Khaki\_Campbell](#): > > All of that talking and quite serious consequences because of the use of a _word_ ? Anti-racism is the McCarthysm of the XXIth century. Sure. But on the upside, you have to do something specific to get witchhunted for anti-racism, where McCarthyism could attack _anyone_. So we pity those who were blacklisted as Reds, but when people get their nigger on we rightly point out that if they didn’t want to get bit, they should have stayed out of the tiger cage. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/230 "2010-08-20T18:02:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Interestingly enough, the Board’s members were not always so sanguine about speech having consequences. > > \ > > Many other posters disagreed with me at the time. It sure is nice to see my views on the general issue coming into acceptance. > > And no – no. I won’t hear any objections about the unanimous opinions now being the result of disliking Dr. laura and her message, and the mixed opinion in 2007 arising from the fact that the message then was anti-Bush, and therefore laudable. Dopers take positions based on facts; they just don’t do things like that. Well, I would point out that it strikes me as unreasonable to hold members of the board to the standard of other members of the board, but i’m not sure your point works out anyway. I read the thread (very quickly and briefly, admittedly), but so far as I can tell, while there were certainly members who disagreed with you, I can’t really tell which members disagreed with you on the speech having consequences issue, except perhaps\*\* Muffin\*\*. People generally seem to have argued about whether there were rules to break. ---
**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 20, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/231 "2010-08-20T18:06:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@pohjonen](#): > > > > I think she’s a hypocrite. She wants to silence people from telling her sponsors and affiliates how wrong they think she is. But she wants to be free to tell other people how wrong she thinks they are. When they do it, it’s hateful. When she doe it, she’s just saying “what’s in her heart.” She thinks she should be the only one who gets to speak. Nuts to that! > > Again, I think that’s not quite it. > > Let’s imagine two candidates for office. One says terrible things about his opposition, and during debates levels outrageous charges against his foe. > > The second candidate recruits people to shout during the debate to drown out his opponent’s speech, and lobbies the debate organizer to stop sponsoring debates because it’s giving the hateful lies a forum to be spread. > > Do you see the distinction? Not really? Who does your hypothetical second candidate represent? Assuming your first one represents Dr. Laura? ---
**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 20, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/232 "2010-08-20T18:08:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@pohjonen](#): > > > > I think she’s a hypocrite. She wants to silence people from telling her sponsors and affiliates how wrong they think she is. But she wants to be free to tell other people how wrong she thinks they are. When they do it, it’s hateful. When she doe it, she’s just saying “what’s in her heart.” She thinks she should be the only one who gets to speak. Nuts to that! > > Again, I think that’s not quite it. > > Let’s imagine two candidates for office. One says terrible things about his opposition, and during debates levels outrageous charges against his foe. > > The second candidate recruits people to shout during the debate to drown out his opponent’s speech, and lobbies the debate organizer to stop sponsoring debates because it’s giving the hateful lies a forum to be spread. > > Do you see the distinction? “One says terrible things about his opposition, and during debates levels outrageous charges against his foe” and “recruits people to shout during the debate to drown out his opponent’s speech” aren’t really two separate and distinct things; they’re actually on a continuum. Shouting terrible things _is_ recruiting other people to shout. As I think Palin ably demonstrated. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/233 "2010-08-20T18:11:05Z")
A more apt analogy would be Candidate A says, “Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger …” at the debates and then nobody votes for her. Is that a violation of her right to be elected to office? ---
**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 20, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/234 "2010-08-20T18:21:25Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > A more apt analogy would be Candidate A says, “Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger …” at the debates and then nobody votes for her. Is that a violation of her right to be elected to office? To be entirely correct to the analogy, Candidate B would have to be saying “Hey you people, Candidate A is shouting “nigger”! Do you want to vote for that person?” And then Candidate B would be the bad person for asking people to take action against A (despite the fact that Candidate B stuck to the truth). Of course, the _real_ place where the analogy fails is that when people want to stick it to a candidate, they know the way to do it is not vote for them. There’s very little incentive to shout them down at debates and try to get their sponsors to abandon them, since there is a more direct approach. Whereas if you want to stick it to Dr. Laura, her sponsors _are_ the voting booth. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/235 "2010-08-20T18:27:47Z")
> [@Khaki\_Campbell](#): > > All of that talking and quite serious consequences because of the use of a _word_ ? Anti-racism is the McCarthysm of the XXIth century. “The well-funded and well-connected homosexual activist movement has become the McCarthyism of the 21st century.” -Laura Schlessinger Don’t you know that by disagreeing with her, you’re infringing on her constitutional right to free speech? Why are you doing that, **Khaki Campbell**? LEAVE LAURA ALONE!!! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/236 "2010-08-20T18:36:01Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > A more apt analogy would be Candidate A says, “Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger …” at the debates and then nobody votes for her. Is that a violation of her right to be elected to office? No. My analogy had nothing to do with rights at all. It was on the subject of whether she’s a hypocrite. ---
**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 20, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/237 "2010-08-20T18:40:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > > > A more apt analogy would be Candidate A says, “Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger …” at the debates and then nobody votes for her. Is that a violation of her right to be elected to office? > > No. My analogy had nothing to do with rights at all. It was on the subject of whether she’s a hypocrite. I don’t see how your analogy addresses that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/238 "2010-08-20T18:40:24Z")
> [@pohjonen](#): > > Not really? Who does your hypothetical second candidate represent? Assuming your first one represents Dr. Laura? The second candidate represents the people asking her sponsors to stop sponsoring her show. ---
**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 20, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/239 "2010-08-20T18:43:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@pohjonen](#): > > > > Not really? Who does your hypothetical second candidate represent? Assuming your first one represents Dr. Laura? > > The second candidate represents the people asking her sponsors to stop sponsoring her show. The the first candidate ought to be calling for the protesters to be silenced. Dr. Laura has only failed to demand that people boycott _their_ sponsors because they don’t have any to boycott. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594/240 "2010-08-20T18:44:01Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > No. My analogy had nothing to do with rights at all. It was on the subject of whether she’s a hypocrite. > > I don’t see how your analogy addresses that. Hypocrisy occurs when a person encourages or expresses a belief in one thing, but then actually practices something that’s generally regarded as opposite or antithetical to the original belief. In this case, “Dr.” Laura objects to people trying to silence her by complaining to her sponsors in an effort to cause her employer to fire her. To show hypocrisy, you have to show that she herself has attempted to silence others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dr-laura-wants-her-first-amendment-rights-back/550594.md?page=13)