We are not a majority rule system, that is a HUGE misconception about the US.
Precisely. And that’s what we do. Or try to. But speech is generally not, in and of itself, a direct harm to anyone. And it’s dangerous when you start declaring it such. Also “minority” applies to minorities you don’t like or agree with as well as those that you do.
I believe the SCOTUS has drawn some pretty clear lines overall. Somebody else who has them at their fingertips will be happy to enumerate them, I’m sure.
I’ve got to wonder if this isn’t some kind of pervo trend. You want a national market and some notoriety, all you need do is stake out a extreme position on the right. Compared to Mr. Savage, Rush Limbaugh, the Orca of the Air, is positively centrist. Anne “Anne of Green Goebbels” Coulter must be looking over her shoulder, wondering where the next one is coming from.
But if even half of what I hear Mr. Savage has said is, in fact, a direct quote, this man is a pustule on the body politic. His presence represents not a freedom of speech, but a virulence that is creeping into our discourse.
Boycotting him and his sponsors is not censorship, since no force of law is applied. In a society where Moloch is worshipped above all others, we apply the power of the Dollar Almighty where reason cannot prevail.
I have to admit I haven’t read anything by him, but unless he actually inciting people to violence, I have to be on the side that lets him go on the air, as much as I loathe his opinion. If he’s on the borderline of inciting violence, it’s a tough call.
We do have laws here against that type of thing, which I was referring to when I said our freedom isn’t absolute. If he were to say “I fully support fag-bashing” or something like that he’d be off the air and hopfully do jail time. Inciting violence is a crime.
I’m actually extremely relieved to hear that. 
Yeah, so? The question remains unanswered: why is an economically derived decision that arises from ratings alone better than an economically derived decision that arises from boycotts? The bottom line to both is the same: the advertisers ultimately decide what they want to support or not, based on whether they think it serves their economic interests to do so.
So you continue to say, without explaining how that is to be achieved.
Just cuz you keep saying it, doesn’t make it so. You are simply re-stating what you said before, which is that boycotters are making decisions for viewers. Not true. Boycotters are making * their views about Savage known to those who subsidize him. * The boycotters are choosing to * actively withdraw their support from those who subsidize him. * They are letting the subsidizers know they are doing this, so that they can then decide for themselves, (not YOU or other viewers, you are just the fallout) whether subsidizing him is still worth it.
Do you understand the distinction I’m drawing?
I agree, it is not censorship. But these boycotts have one of the same negative effects of censorship, which is to cut down on the natural discourse of extremist views.
I like to hear extremist views sometimes. When I hear a lefty talking about how the US should become a communist country, it puts my own “lefty-light” views into perspective. When I hear Charlton Heston saying stuff like “We must give handguns to fetuses so they can defend themselves against abortionists!!”, it’s entertaining if nothing else.
I’m not proposing making boycotts illegal or anything, I’m just trying to explain why I don’t like 'em.
you’re back to your “limited discourse” argument again. And again…it would have more punch if there were more real balance on the air or Savage would contribute to such a balance.
Whatever else elucidator said, this is true. Boycotting is freedom of speech itself.
I don’t think Savage will survive long. But, if he can generate a large enough controversy, the free publicity generated by the boycott may carry him for a while. On MSNBC even very few viewers would be an improvement.
Let’s put this in perspective: a right-wing host is being brought in to replace a long line of failed hosts (from the left and right) from failed shows on MSNBC, the third ranked cable news network, of three. This is not Mussolini on the Tonight Show with Goebbels in the Green Room. The last place network, willing to try Phil Donahue and Alan Keyes, takes a wild swing again.
Goodness, Revtim, I’ve been missing out, media wise. Where can I find this person who represents views as extremely left as Mr. Savage represents view extremely right? Surely you are not referring to Bill Moyers?
The difference as I see it is that people who like and watch the show in enough numbers to make it economically feasible have their show taken away from them for soly idealogical reasons they do not share.
If you ever meet someone who is infected with Savage’s idiocy, then you debate them. What’s not to understand? And if you don’t meet them, all the better.
Yes, I understand. These people think that buying from a sponsor that advertises on a show with a host that supports a certain view, they are supporting that view.
That is incorrect. The vast majority people vote with their dollars on products because they like the products for the price offered, not because they approve of the list of shows they sponsor. Buying a can of peaches doesn’t make you a rabid-right winger because Del Monte ran an ad during Rush Limbaugh. Neither does it support Rush in any meaningful way, unless you make a point of letting Del Monte know you bought it from an ad you heard during Rush’s show.
The only reasonable goal of the boycott is to take the show off the air, and silence the opposing voice. And this is clearly forcing their viewpoint on others, whether that is their goal or not.
Balance has nothing to do with it. I dislike the boycott tactic against shows I like, and I’d be an hypocrite if I advocated it against shows I didn’t. Right or left should make difference. Either it’s OK, or it’s not.
Just because a viewpoint I don’t share is over-represented isn’t enough for me to approve of a tactic against it that I hate.
So I think I understand what your position is: you think that the only thing that should influence televised political speech is market forces, not politics.
:dubious:
I guess my main point is simply people should just leave the speech they don’t like alone and let those who want to hear it hear it.
Like I said before, these are opinions that are a waste of time to debate about.
No. Not enough simply to hear, and walk away. Not when the issue is war. Not when one is a citizen of the single most powerful nation in the history of the world. Not when our voice, yours and mine, counts for fifty voices of the poor, the helpless, the victims. Not nearly enough.