The Limbaugh crisis

Great Debates
1

Recently, on the radio Rush Limbaugh made a comment that contained the phrase “phony soldiers.” In the actual soundbite it is not clear exactly what context he is giving to this term.

Rush Limbaugh claims subsequently that he was referring specifically to Special Forces Corporal Jesse Macbeth. Macbeth received some publicity for claiming to have witnessed and partcipated in atrocities in Iraq. Hanging women in mosques, slaughtering innocents, etc. Macbeth was lionized for his purple heart and his service and received notable publicity from the anti-war movement.

Later it turned out that Macbeth had never served in Iraq, been a corporal, been in the Special Forces, received a purple heart, and had in fact washed out of boot camp within 45 days.

Rush Limbaugh has made a fair point with this example and gotten a lot of mileage out of it, and then played this example for all it was worth… and then some. He’s compared Macbeth’s fake testimony to John Kerry’s testimony about Vietnam, and argued about the damage that this kind of false testimony does when it is given credence. He has likened this falsehood to Rather’s fake forged documents on CBS, etc. etc.

This fraudulent fake smearing of the troops by fake soldiers has been a longstanding theme on the show.

Rush Limbaugh has always been a strong vocal supporter of the military and our soldiers.

Mediamatters and many others have taken Limbaugh out of context and attempted to attribute to him opinions that he does not hold and in good faith cannot be said to hold.

And this is all well and good. Limbaugh does not always play nice with his enemies and there is no reason why his enemies should play nice with him. You can read about this incident all you want and interpret it as you will. That’s not the debate.

An incident however has taken this issue to another level, and I think regardless of politics deserves support.

Congress has moved to officially censure Limbaugh for these comments. Wesley Clark has argued that Limbaugh be taken off the air. There is a movement among the left-leaning politicians to legislate against Limbaugh because of the attitudes which have been attributed to him.

Even if you beleive that Rush Limbaugh hates the soldiers I would hope that you would not think that the US Govenment should have the power to censor him based on his beleifs.

An attack against him in this manner is scary and stalinistic regardless of your politics.

2

Do you have a cite for this? All I’ve heard is the Clarke wants Rush to be taken of armed forces radio, which whether you think its a good idea or not, is certainly something Congress has the power to do and certainly isn’t equivalent to taking him off the air.

ETA: And here’s the man himself in an article (or blog or whatever) saying he wants Rush to be taken off armed forces radio, which he specifically argues congress has the power to do since its a tax-funded entity. I think you’re misrepresenting him

3

That’s what I meant. Sorry for not being clear.

4

So you don’t think there are ANY circumstances in which one should be removed from Armed Forces Radio? I mean, insulting the troops is enough for me.

If there aren’t any criteria, when do I get MY show?

5

Malodorous:

Armed Forces Radio is a government entity. Don’t you think that political speech is protected?

To me, the idea that Clark wishes to falsely attribute a political stance to Limbaugh that he does not hold and use that as grounds to remove him is terrifying.

6

I would think that profanity and such and failure to follow the rules and standards and laws that govern broadcasting on the airways would serve as grounds.

I would think that the actual political opinions that one holds should be protected.

7

I see a world of difference between the US Government kicking him off Armed Forces Radio and off commercial radio. In fact I don’t think a pundit* is suitable material for Armed Forces Radio anyway.

No matter how little I like Rush, I would hate to see a government attempt to censor on him, but this is not censorship to me.

Jim

  • Right or Left wing. Michael Moore and Rush would both be bad choices for Armed Forces Radio.
8

Okay, Scylla, when I show up next week in my tie die and michael moore cap I’ll tell 'em you sent me.

(but I’m more of the opinion that no political shows should be allowed than all.)

9

Comments are being taken out of context and used to attribrute attitudes to Limbaugh that he categorically denies and cannot in good faith be said to hold.

This is being used as grounds for an attempt to prevent citizens of the US from being able to listen to him.

Fucking scary.

10

It’s Armed Forces Radio not Westwood One. Let him make or not make any statements he wants on commericial radio, but don’t you see a difference here?

Jim

11

I have no disagreement with your advocating an equal standard blind to political beleif.

Rush however is currently on Armed Forces. He is being censured by Congress and some are attempting to remove him on the grounds of attitudes that are being falsely attributed to him. In short, they are not making your argument (which would be a fair one.)

They are trying to remove him on different grounds.

12

Why specifically is political speech not protected on Armed Forces radio?

13

I agree that Congress has no right to censor or censure Limbaugh for his views or statements or pass any laws against him. That would be completely unconstitutional and a ridiculous over-reaction as well. I was in complete agreement with the OP.

But that doesn’t seem to be the actual issue here. Wesley Clark, who isn’t even a member of Congress, says that Congress should take Rush Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio.

I agree that Clark’s case that Limbaugh is anti-military is weak but I think there’s a reasonable argument to be made that Limbaugh is clearly a partisan commentator and that a government-owned radio station should try to be as non-partisan as possible. I’d be equally against my tax dollars being used to run a radio station so a commentator could tell his audience what a great job Democrats are doing and how evil Republicans are.

14

Political speech in the sense of speech about politics is protected, I don’t think the gov’t is required to give a forum through publically paid radio networks to all political speech though. Rush can say whatever the hell he wants on private radio stations.

Well if people falsely attributing political stances to their opponents terrifies you, paying attention to American politics will surely drive you insane.

But in anycase, I don’t really have an opinion on what Rush really said/meant. But I don’t think there’s a legal (read: first amendment) problem with congress dictating whats on the radio stations it funds, so if Clarke can convince a majority of Congress that his position is correct, Rush will be down one radio station to broadcast on (which will leave him with only the paltry gajillion private radio stations that broadcast his show).

15

Should what’s on NPR also be censored?

16

I think you are missing my point. Whether or not Rush belongs on AFR is a worthy debate, but not the topic.

Regardless of one’s view on that topic, I am arguing that this is not the way to remove him.

17

I don’t think there’s a first amendment problem if Congress wants to kick, say, Prairie Home Companion off NPR (though its more complicated in that case, since I think NPR just produces programming for state public radio stations broadcast, so I’m not sure that Congress actually funds those stations, while I assume they directly pay for AFN).

18

Actually political speech should not be on Armed Forces Radio. That is of course just my opinion.

19

What if they want to do it because PHC suddenly is critical of the war?

20

Ok. Is this the proper way to get rid of it?