Eighty-nine years ago, in Schenck v. United States,Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes , Jr reminded us that free speech was not absolute.

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire...crowded_theater

Although Rush is downplaying a recent statement about dreaming of riots at the Democratic National Convention in Denver - Click Here - I have the following questions for debate:

1. Has Limbaugh finally exceeded the limits of 1st Amendment protected speech?

2. If so, should he be forced to ride off into the sunset with the likes of Don Imus and Randi Rhodes?

I don't see how you can equate his words to yelling fire in a movie. He's expressing his opinion.

Why is it that freedom of speech only applies to liberals? Why are they so afraid of conservative voices? Is it because those voices represent the majority opinion?

I can't speak for all liberals, but for me Limbaugh is more of a perpetual annoyance than a fear factor.

I seriously doubt the majority of people in the country - of either party - is hoping for riots in Denver this summer.

BTW: HtL, I have not yet expressed an opinion on whether Limbaugh has exceeded 1st Amendment protections as limited by Holmes. I just asked the question. I think you may have jumped the gun, the shark or whatever.

Uh, no, what riot has he "incited"? They burning cars in Denver? Assaulting police officers? Where's the riot?



Of course he should. He offends liberals and that's a crime. We should only have liberals on the air who offend conservatives. That's freedom of speech after all. Meanwhile, Bof, I have some really slimy Okra here thst's just dying to be thrown at someone. Want it?


Aquilla

Yeah, Aquilla you should know. You should have thought about the old line "what goes 'round comes 'round" before bragged about making financial contributions to the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" four years ago.

Being on the receiving end of okra doesn't feel so good does it?

Is your support of Limbaugh an indication of just how far to the right you've moved?

I don't know that I've ever "bragged" about supporting the Swift Boat Veterans and POW's for Truth or not. I'm proud that I did, but I don't know that pride is the same thing as bragging. Perhaps it s in liberal circles.


As far as Rush is concerned, I will once again remind that there ain't been no riots. So, how could he be accused of inciting something that hasn't happened?

As far as throwing Okra at me is concerned, you best be forewarned. I have some fully BBQ sauce-lathered spare ribs here and I'm not afraid to use them.


Aquilla

I really think you are grasping here BoF.

And yes it really does look like you are asking for limits on free speech from somebody because you disagree with their message. Plus it seems to me Al Sharpton's comments are far more inciteful of riots than Limbaugh's.

There is actually much truth to what Limbaugh is saying here as well. If the democrats don't get their act together and start showing some unity this will go down much like the conventions of '68.

1. Has Limbaugh finally exceeded the limits of 1st Amendment protected speech?

If he is actually seen as encouraging violent, lawless behavior and if some people actually do start riots outside of the Democratic Convention in Denver, then there are grounds for Limbaugh being arrested and prosecuted for incitement.

2. If so, should he be forced to ride off into the sunset with the likes of Don Imus and Randi Rhodes?

I think that it would be much better if the "Ditto Heads" got brains, realized what a waste of the airwaves Limbaugh really is, and have the radio program cancelled due to lack of interest. That would hurt Rush Limbaugh far more than being fired or suspended, for he would have to look at himself and consider that his drivel is irrelevant and uninteresting.

But as long as there are Ditto Heads...

He said he was "dreaming" about riots. Does not the power of suggestion make him makes his comments, if nothing else, irresponsible?


It seems you are playing word games Aquilla. It seems you are "proud" of throwing the same "slimy okra" you are accusing me of hurling.

1. No. Please.
2. Like Don Imus who has the morning drive spot on 770 WABC and who knows what other stations?

I think it is a serious stretch to consider this a 'fire" incident- though, since I have not heard it myself- I would say it is still in context- for instance, if I say "oh I am dreaming about a FIRE


and you do that in a crowded theatre- that would rise to the occasion- now- if he also said "I have a dream, that tonight, now, it is only a dream, that my listeners go out and do some violence to "X"- that would be trying to act like your not inciting- I think most would agree that it IS inciting to a riot- also important in this- does anyone actually riot?

He really needs to actualy advocate a riot amongst his listeners.

So no first amendment issue. No riot- no charges. Also- since he aimed this at hoping democrats rioted, instead of the mouth breathers that listen to him, who is he inciting?

So Aquilla- you are a fan of spitting on Vietnam veterans are you? Real proud of it are ya? Huh, I didn't think you were THAT low of a person.

What's next Aquilla, whiping your butt with the flag?

Seems to me that Code Pink's anti-recruitment efforts are a much closer fit with the facts of Schenck v. United States than Rush Limbaugh's comments are. Maybe we should shut them up, too. Is that a path you want to go down, BoF?

1. Has Limbaugh finally exceeded the limits of 1st Amendment protected speech?

2. If so, should he be forced to ride off into the sunset with the likes of Don Imus and Randi Rhodes?

No, Limbaugh is well within the protection of the First Amendment. So were Imus and Rhodes, for that matter -- they were fired by their employers, not silenced by the state. Big difference.

I don't listen to Rush's show, but from the news reports, it sounds like he was talking about a protest-group umbrella organization calling itself Re-Create 68. The name, of course, brings up visions of riots, but they claim to be non-violent. Some 9/11 Troofers are apparently promoting the idea that the Re-Create 68 groups are government-backed agents provacateurs, but the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement - Denver swears it isn't true:


Of course, they enjoy publishing hateful "Agitational Art" with evil white Amerikans depicted as pigs about to be slaughtered by heroic Maoist revolutionaries. It seems reckless to me -- if their agitprop achieved their goal of inspiring "revolutionary politics," without any rejection of violence "in principle," that would be basically a guarantee of violence.

Fortunately, I think the Re-Create 68 movement is doomed to failure. Nothing short of a reinstatement of the draft could recreate the anger of 1968.

If I'm wrong, though, I think the rioters will be inspired far more by revolutionary leftist agitprop, than by Limbaugh's inventing new lyrics to White Christmas.

It's a little more than Limbaugh's inventing words to "White Christmas."

That was his attempt to downplay things he said Wednesday.

Here’s what Limbaugh actually said, Wednesday. If you don’t believe the source, watch the replay of Keith Olbermann’s show at 10:00 p.m. EDT tonight. He has the video.

Limbaugh should be thrown under a bus, provided we could find one he could actually fit under.


http://www.racewire.org/archives/2008/04/l...foment_r_1.html

Anyone still want to defend the sorry dope infested, Viagra inflated bastard?

BTW: I realize conservatives generally don't care for Olbermann, but the written words and the video of Limbaugh match up perfectly.

Sure...I will.

The first amendment has no relevance with this issue. The government isn't trying to prevent his speech regardless of how much of a gasbag he is. And it appear's Rush's sponsors don't care much either. So, as long as he's not pleading for people to go out and commit a crime, he has a perfect right to act like as big an idiot as he chooses.

Bof, I have to concur with DR on this one- all of those fired were not fired by the goverment- but by thier employers. If there is a groundswell against Rush like there was against Imus or others- then he could be toast as well.

Alright, I watched the Olbermann piece. I have to assume that Olbermann being Olbermann, he omitted at least some context that would be favorable to Rush, but regardless, it's an ugly sentiment on Rush's part. It's wrong to wish for riots, just to benefit your side politically.

But there's a big difference between wishing for a riot and inciting one. Rush was wishing that Obama supporters would riot when Hillary won (or "stole") the nomination. But what possible influence could Rush Limbaugh have on Obama supporters? They're just waiting for El Rushbo's go-ahead before rioting? Come on...

If there's going to be any rioting in Denver, I suspect it will be the usual left-fringe black-balaclava-wearing punks throwing bricks through Starbucks windows. And I don't think they give a crap what Limbaugh has to say either.

You are missing the nuance. The question isn't whether the government is trying to prevent Limbaugh's freedom of speech, but whether or not this meets some standard whereby they should. The FCC does regulate less important things, like swear words. So, does it come close to that standard. Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction was nothing compared to the vileness of Limbaugh's words. For those of you who haven't notice, but have assumed otherwise, I've left that question unanswered.


Although you have stated you are not one of Limbaugh's brainwashed, ditto heads, you have written, in other threads, that you listen 3 hours a day 5 days a week for the entertainment value. With devotion like that, is it any wonder his sponsors don't care. Yet I wonder how this particularly odious episode will play in Denver and how that will influence sponsors and employers.

BTW: I'll be calling radio station WBAP in Fort Worth Monday asking that they drop Limbaugh.

Don't keep us in suspense too long, BoF! And when you do answer your own question, please consider answering mine:

Your question first:

Limbaugh's listenership is reported to be around 15,000,000. What about codepink? Does codepink have a radio show regulated by the FCC?

Now mine:

I do think, based on what the FCC has done in recent years (including Howard Stern, whom I equally detest) that the FCC could impose some sanctions if only in terms of fines.

BTW: Jobius, you were not even around in 1968 when the riots in Chicago occurred, so you can't possibly have my perspective. The riots helped give us Richard Nixon. Maybe that's what Limbaugh hopes for - McNixon.

No, but neither did Schenck. Different times, I know -- you weren't even around back then.

But even if you were to apply Holmes's doctrine only to FCC-licensed radio, you'd have to shut down my local Pacifica station, with its periodic announcements of "direct action" to stop the war by blocking the Berkeley recruiting station, closing the port of Oakland for May Day, etc. I'm opposed to that sort of state suppression of speech.


But where's the "clear and present danger" to anything or anyone in what Limbaughsmoke said? (Apparently I've been misspelling his name all this time.) He's not likely to incite a riot among any of the people likely to riot. Should the FCC shut him down just because he wished for something ugly to happen?

QUOTE

2. If so, should he be forced to ride off into the sunset with the likes of Don Imus and Randi Rhodes?

If by "ride off into the sunset", you mean should he be forced to sign a brand new contract with new pay salaries and new networks... then... uh... sure.

/this isn't exactly putting them in retirement...
//didn't think Rhodes deserved her treatment
///Imus either, tho, it was nice to see that egotistical wad and his stupid hat get knocked down a few notches

1. Has Limbaugh finally exceeded the limits of 1st Amendment protected speech?

2. If so, should he be forced to ride off into the sunset with the likes of Don Imus and Randi Rhodes?

No and no.

I do know that some people do dream of riots in Denver this summer. It ain't going to happen, so dream on.

I do know that some people think that the Democrats are having a food fight right now. It's called the Democratic process as opposed to the corination process that some people seem to dream about: monolithic government.

Of course when it's on their side, it's called having passion and caring about the country. Eh, whatever. Self-delusion is still legal.

This is 2008, not 1968. The moon and planets are in a different configuration. There is no draft. Drugs have become mainstream capitalism with celebrities yanking down pills of all sorts, and getting away with it. The drug of the masses, religion, has also become big-time capitalism. Meanwhile hippies gather in fields and do their hippie things, and few people care any longer. There are no construction workers yelling at long-hairs, no sheep shears being applied to long-hairs, and really not much hair left on the heads of 1968 radicals.

Protests no longer have marijuana as a prime ingredient. Those protests that have had troubles (regarding Iraq) have resulted in wrist slaps on the police state (Colorado Springs, the St. Paddy's Day Seven). There is no fascist mayor in Denver (as opposed to Chicago 1968). There also won't be caged-off protest areas (so far). Student unrest does not exist. College people are more worried about getting a job after graduation (serving us since 1975).

So what's there to protest about? Where would passions boil over? Who would be swinging the clubs against those dang hippies? Where is the social injustice? Where is the communistic infiltration of the youths of America (say it like cousin Vinny would).

I think Rush is back on drugs. His dreams are pipe dreams, literally speaking. It's kinda sad when a political party can only hope that the other side screws up big time. It's a very weak position, hardly the stance of a winner.

Let Rush dream on. It's his Constitutional right to believe wrongly. And besides, what else could he do for a living? The guy would be homeless by now if it wasn't for ditto-head support.

I did not realize when I started this thread, that AM had started one on much the same topic.

My apology, for stealing your thunder AM, but I've much enjoyed seeing so many conservatives get their knickers in a wad defending .

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry243931


Admittedly I’m no Gary Trudeau, Jobius, but the cartoonist used a feather symbol for Dan Quayle and an empty gladiator’s helmet for Bush, Jr.

From now on it will just be .

It's fitting. He blows smoke in more than one sense of the phrase.

Maybe depersonalizing him will do a lot for my sanity and some of his defenders.

Once again, a liberal seeking gov't oppression of opinion. Opinion that he doesn't agree with. Well done BOF.

All we have to do is sit back and watch as liberals, leftists and socialists reveal their views and then go whining in defeat into the night. BO is on that track. Pelosi too. Reid, on his way also.

Now that the left no longer owns the available information highways to the degree they once did, they continue to self-destruct in full public view. It's not a pretty sight.

Congratulations HtL. You've managed to turn a thread about a specific statement into a general denunciation of Barack Obama and seemingly Democrats in general.

You did not answer my last post, though. Here's a link.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=243977

Let me phrase it another way. Can you say with a straight face that the majority of Americans support or the specific statement about dreaming of riots in Denver?

Read 's statement again.


http://www.racewire.org/archives/2008/04/l...foment_r_1.html

Do the majority of Americans support that kind of crap?

Edited to add:

HtL, you and some of the other conservatives have painted yourselves into a corner.

Nowhere on this thread have I said that the government should suppress , though it's rather obvious that I detest him.

I did say, I thought the FCC could impose penalties.


You can also point to the whole decency thing conservatives pushed. Remember the uproar over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, the beeping of some Rolling Stone lyrics at another Super Bowl. Did you know that the ABC affiliate in Dallas refused to show Saving Private Ryan shortly after the Jackson thing? WFAA was so scared of the FCC that it showed something else.

What gall that someone like you would lecture me on suppression of free speech. Look at the last seven years.

BTW: Does the use of the initials BO for Barak Obama have anything to do with the tired old stereotype that blacks have offensive body odor? Is this subliminal advertising?

Oh good grief BoF you're serious about this? What the Hell? Is there nothing else to be faux enraged about?

I haven't listened to cabbage spending hilbilly heroin taking flys south for whores idiot in probably 8 years and I thought he was cheap Howard Stern ripoff then but CLEARLY this Chaos thing is a JOKE. He's wishing for the Democrats to completely unfurl themselves and go stark raving mad in the streets and decimate themselves so the Republicans can cake walk to victory.

If you are sitting at home right now honestly believing that Capt. Bloatedsack is ACTUALLY calling for RIOTS and that LIBERALS are listening to him then I strongly suggest you step away from the media and go outside. Find a park. Get some popcorn and feed the birds for a while.

I suppose, BA that it's fitting that I take things seriously. You seem to be treating the board as some sort of joke these days.

Click below for an example.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=243956

Between the two of us things probably balance out.

BTW: Does it not seem strange to you that people are giving Barack Obama grief over some things his pastor said, while defending on something he himself said.

I started this thread was with the certain knowledge that, eventually,I would get to point out this bit of glaring hypocris. HtL fell right into the trap.

No problem, BoF. There are enough differences in the approaches.

As you might expect, Colorado politicians don't take kindly to celebrities calling for chaos in this state:

Ken Salazar (D) on RL's Operation Chaos

Maybe this was meant as a joke. However, the delivery has the markings of real hope for violence at the Democratic convention. It's almost like the rantings of European fascists back in the 1930s.

My question was whether this might be considered inciting riots or not. Well, there was a local political shock jock who called for people to attack the Bill Clinton White House, and danged if some crazy didn't go out there and do it. The shock jock was told in no uncertain terms to put a cork in the pie hole. The Secret Service probably had a few choice words for the guy too.

RL may have stepped on the wrong toes this time. It's not what the government can do to shut him up but how much it's going to cost RL should riots actually break out. Looks to me that he is taking personal responsibility for pushing riots during the convention. That means he's liable for the resulting injuries and damages, plus any radio stations carrying his act will be liable too.

I bet Mayor Hickenlooper has been having some interesting talks with city attorneys.

You make an interesting point. If riots did break out, they might be orchestrated by the right, not the left. Think about abortion clinic bombings, for example.

In 1963, U. N. Ambassador Adlai E. Stevenson was attack by a woman, who was part of a right-wing mob led by General Edwin A. Walker.


http://www.dealey.org/dallash16.htm

I don't think the radical right, including , has grown up much in the last 45 years.

I'm not missing anything. Rush did not plead for people to go out and commit a crime.

It's true that I do listen to Rush 3 hours a day and Hannity 2 1/2 hours a day.

For all of Hannity flaws, I like listening to him because he actually takes on people who disagree with him. He encourages liberals to call and will put them at the top of his waiting list. As much as I think he is completely full of crap, I have a lot of respect for a guy that doesn't hide behind his telephone (like Rush does) and fan base. Also, he interviews people of relevance. Rush doesn't do interviews unless it's a member of the Bush administration.

I listen to Rush because once you get through all the hot air, he's usually right on most conservative issues. Even with that, he is part of the problem with the republican party. When the rubber hits the road, he chooses politics over principle every time. Rush is the biggest phony on the air. I have no respect for anyone who is as big a hypocrite and admittedly carries water for the administration. I would bet a fairly large sum of cash that Rush actually gets talking points from Dick Cheney.

So, I wish Rush would jump off a bridge so we can make room for someone with more integrity.

I just made the same type of statement Rush did. Should I be banned? Should the FCC shut AD down? Where does your outrage stop?

Good observation. . Cheney did call to get the word out to the faithful shortly before the 2006 election. I think there may have been one or two other times. What a credible venue for the VP to use.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/arc...d_shot_say.html


I have a better idea.

If the world were flat, I would suggest dragging to the edge and dropping him off. Now, do I mean dropping him off at the edge or dropping him over the edge? You decide.

Well, you don't have millions of fans and AD isn't regulated by the FCC. But say you were a fairly popular shock jock and you promoted the suicides of celebrities. I would maintain then that you have stepped over a line of decency and law.

The difference is how much influence RL has over your own soapbox.

I do think RL has dug a big hole in which to fall. We'll see how the outrage continues in the state that he wants to go chaotic. Right now he has gained the attention of one Colorado US senator and the mayor of Denver. Did you know there's a major FBI office in Denver? They keep files on people who talk like RL. And remember the liberal talk show guy who got snuffed by the white supremists in the 1980s? Encouraging riots in Denver has got to be in the top ten most stupid things a person can do in Colorado, right next to riding the brakes when going downhill. It's very stupid if you're a celebrity.

But should RL ever visit this state, by all means, ride the brakes when coming down from Pikes Peak. Downshifting is for wussies. Only liberals think of doing it.

So, you're suggesting the first amendment applies to the rich and famous differently then highly successful anonymous internet posters like myself?

You wouldn't get much argument from me in terms of Rush Limbaugh being a blowhard idiot, but he's protected just like you and me. While there are limits in terms of public safety, I've never heard a minimum size of potential damages. Your argument would support the idea of yelling FIRE in a theater with only a few people getting no punishment as opposed to doing the same in a packed theater. I'm sorry, but in my mind, they are no different. There are no pre-conditions in the first amendment or subsequent interpretations.

In the eyes of the law, Rush Limbaugh and I are equal. He just happens to have more supporters (and enemies) than I do.

Well, we all know a lot of people here dislike Rush and like to call him names and make fun of his abuse of a painkiller. So, what's new? Now you want to shut him down because he supposedly incited a riot. The problem with that is there hasn't been a riot. Y'all really need to get a grip here and go back to throwing food. I have a fresh batch of clam chowder that's good to go, (Oyster crackers are optional)


Aquilla

What I find most amusing after reading through all of the posts here is how infatuated the liberal left is with Rush. I would not be a bit surprised if there is an equal number of liberals that listen (and help pay the salary of) to Rush as there is conservatives. I have been out of town for a few days and I come back to see not one, not two, but three different threads on this one issue! You liberal members can't fall all over yourselves fast enough to try to drag someone through the mud for saying something that you disagree with. The hilarity of the situation is immeasurable! BoF, you make comments about conservatives getting into a wad over the issue, but with two other liberal members, you can't get your own thread started fast enough so you can call someone names. Nice one! It appears you are the one with the panties in a bunch over this. I sure hope you have much better things to do with your retirement than to follow the every movement of a shock jock.

It is a valid comparison and one that is worth making. You can't flip out about Jeremiah Wright and not take this one just as seriously. Yes, more than one thread gets started on the same topic. I've been guilty of creating similar threads myself, it happens.









These comments are unnecessary on your part. Discuss the issue, but leave the personal out of it. This adds nothing to the thread and is not what AD is all about.

Now to get on topic.....

I disagree with my fellow liberals on this matter. This is another "gotcha!" political moment that needs to be elevaluated within the context of which the speech was given. Rush was clearly alluding to the 1968 convention and he wasn't out and out calling for a riot in Denver. I was calling for similar "punishment" for Imus, but events like this have led me to conclude that I was wrong on that issue. I don't agree with possible FCC intervention here, nor do I believe the situations are similar. Political satire is one thing, adult content during the super bowl is quite another IMHO.

Actually CR, the analogy of hollering FIRE! does include a crowded theater. That's because the force of a panicked crowd can cause injury and death. A few people running for the exits wouldn't, so yah, size counts.

Anyway, I'm finding it more interesting how Coloradans are reacting to RL rather than RL's dreaming of a chaotic convention. So what if all the liberals get together via the Internet and agree to have one big hugging love fest instead? That'd be hilarious

Maybe there'll be a parade with cotton candy and ice cream.

Aquila, you can keep the clam chowder. Colorado is landlocked. We prefer Rocky Mountain oysters with a side of beer & bump Any food pitching that goes on here is in Manitou Springs with its fruitcake toss around Christmas. There might be a tater gun contest somewhere and few other oddball things that people deprived of oxygen dream up. We really should have our own olympics (coffin races, the thing they do in Boulder with home-built ships, pub crawls and the such, maybe cut out downhill skier tree kissing because the winners can't stand to receive medals) x(

Flip out about Reverend Wright? I flipped out about this somewhere? I may disagree with him, I may hold the relationship between him and Obama as an important issue in the election, but I fail to see where any of this relates to a discussion of the responsibility of the FCC regarding the comments of a shock jock that were referenced in the opening thread. Talk about getting off topic!!!!!


Thanks for the advice, but it is unnecessary. I know what is all about, and I don't need you thinking you can tell people how to debate. Did you become a mod somewhere along the line? You think my comments are unnecessary, but other's are necessary? Kind of a double standard, isn't it?


First, the report button is there for your use, unless of course you are now a moderator? Second, I think BoF is very capable of responding to me. After all, the comments were in direct response to his post. So with that said, what did you provide that furthers this debate?

The point is this. You and I agree that it is just another "Gotcha" issue. He did nothing illegal, or immoral. It's a slow political news period and someone decided to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Seeing the level of name calling and hate spewing over it from one side of the political spectrum clearly shows this is only an emotional debate that is only here for entertainment. With all of the responses calling for him to be charged with a crime or that the government needs to do something about it, I get a good chuckle. It's nothing more than a distraction from the "food fight" that is called the Democratic Primary. The libs here and everywhere else could not fall over each other fast enough to sling mud. It is simple as that.

Thanks for the compliment, scubatim. If you will point out something new you've brought to the debate, I'll respond. Otherwise, feel free to continue your vacation and I'll take the rest of the day off.

BTW: "Get one's knickers in a twist or wad" is a British phrase. I like it better than the American bastardization, "panties in a bunch."

BoF, I agree with CR's comparison of Rush's statement to Schneck v. U.S. "I'm dreaming of someone shouting fire at the screening of Michael Moore's latest islamofascist propaganda flick! We gotta take advantage of this, folks. You can register for the tickets on my website," is more like it.

You're on shaky ground arguing Rush's statement presents a clear danger, and I don't think you have an argument with present danger. After Schneck (1919) the court gave a per curiam opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). They used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts and strike down a law prohibiting public speech advocating illegal activities: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action".

If Florida doesn't charge him I doubt the FCC will fine him. If there are riots maybe we'll be treated to an interesting civil suit.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other....You can also look at it as what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but that is just too plain direct, I would suppose.

It seems that may be trying to cover his butt and shift the blame to Al Sharpton.


Here's a link to a conversation between and one of his Republican listeners shortly after the remarks were made and rhwe commentary quoted above.
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/04...h-inciting.html

… and another link to reaction form a caller named Lisa. You can even listen to this one.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/d...angs-up-on-her/

1) The difference is plain: In Justice Holmes' example, the nexus between yelling "fire" and the violent panic that would ensue is wafer thin; what is the nexus between what Rush said and his white, middle-class, adult demographic starting a riot of any kind, at any time, anywhere?

2) First amendment rights and speech on a commercial radio program are not one and the same, but I don't think anything happens here. Imus is back on the air, and despite her hopelessly foul mouth, Rhodes may make a comeback, too, if radio thinks she'll get ratings.

1. Has Limbaugh finally exceeded the limits of 1st Amendment protected speech?

No, I don't think so. Poor taste for sure. But "dreaming of violence" isn't a violation of free speech. Heck, I used to dream of W suddenly dropping dead, being struck by lightning, being abducted by aliens; anything to spare us from him. I may have even expressed that wish out loud. But I didn't plot or plan to do any of those things....though in this climate, I sure as hell didn't express those feelings in a public arena where I might be carted off by guys in suits and Ray-Bans. Seems bashing Democrats and wishing violence upon them is fine; but you better not do the same to Republicans!

As it gets closer to the convention, if Rush starts exhorting his listeners to incite violence, then there might be more of a case. As it is, it's just more hot air spewed by ol' Rush. Maybe he needs to adjust his dose of meds?

2. If so, should he be forced to ride off into the sunset with the likes of Don Imus and Randi Rhodes?

In a perfect world.

Now, I'd better find a place to hide...........

And here in Michigan, I was taught that the laws against shouting fire in a crowded theater were passed because of the deaths that resulted when company goons shouted fire in a croded theater at a union meeting in the Upper Peninsula...

1. Has Limbaugh finally exceeded the limits of 1st Amendment protected speech?

I can't recall that I have ever intentionally tuned my radio to listen to that windbag. I have had supervisors that kept the dept. radio tuned to the monotony of his voice; perhaps that is where I learned to simply tune out background noise. (If I need to wake up, I set my television to turn off.)

2. If so, should he be forced to ride off into the sunset with the likes of Don Imus and Randi Rhodes?

I retired in 1996, and I wasn't really aware that he was still on the air...

No. This is clearly political speech and not at all imo in the same category as yelling “fire” anywhere

Wow, plenty of vitriol to go around on this subject.

Though I think that Limbaugh is spewing more hate and hot air at this point, plenty of ...mmm, shall we say - unstable - people listen to him as if he were a prophet. If anything were to happen at the Democratic Convention in Denver in August, I would bet the farm that it will be conservatives looking to disrupt the convention, and not Democrats. Limbaugh covered his ample butt by making these comments months ahead of time. Gives him plausible deniability, y'know.

He is a far right speaker that has imo a relatively small audience (that does not include me) but I have not seen reported anything he has ever said that comes close to the raving of Mr. Wright – mmm…………..and plenty of people like Obama seem to listen………….mmmm

What part of "former" pastor don't you guys get? Give it a rest already.

At least Rev. Wright has a wicked sense of humor.

Oooooh, SNAP!

Ted, part of the reason I started thread was with almost certain knowledge that someone would bring up Jeremiah Wright. In a sort of perverse way that's what I wanted. While I conceed the point that 's words probably do not rise to the level of clear and present danger," I do think it is appropriate to scrutinize his bombastic attacks.

If Obama can be held accountable for what he did not say (Wright said it) then can be ahd should be held accountable for what the did say.

My appreciation to you and holdingtheline for falling face first into the trap. I can smell what you two have stepped in and it ain't pleasant.

Your post Ted, is part is part of the daily, sometimes twice daily "Ted Report" - 's equivalent of the Drudge Report, where you fly by once or twice a day and deposit a dozen or more meaningless, hastily conceived, ill thought out, unedited, misspelled, and useless posts.

Slow down, Ted, there's no fire here you have to "rush" to, no pun intended.

Edited to add:

It seems aevans176 has fallen into the trap.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=244294