What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Should Rush Limbaugh be censored or taken off the air? (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
Rush (and to a slightly lesser extent, Sean Hannity) continue to push that the coronavirus is all a big conspiracy theory: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2020/03/coronavirus-rush-limbaugh-sean-hannity-donald-trump-1202880300/amp/

I understand the dangers of interfering with free speech, but it seems to be that what Limbaugh is doing at this point is the equivalent of shouting “Fire!” In a crowded theatre, and that it would be perfectly appropriate for the FCC to take him and anyone else who does this off the air. Thoughts? 

 
Why do you feel it's different?
Time, place, and manner. 
 

The reason yelling fire in a crowded room is so bad is b/c it creates immediate, uncontrollable chaos. As such, deterring this chaos by restricting this very narrowly defined speech is constitutionally okay b/c it’s a restriction that’s super limited in regards to time, place, and manner. 
 

Tim wants to censor an entire person from arguably providing an opinion. That’s very different. 

 
Time, place, and manner. 
 

The reason yelling fire in a crowded room is so bad is b/c it creates immediate, uncontrollable chaos. As such, deterring this chaos by restricting this very narrowly defined speech is constitutionally okay b/c it’s a restriction that’s super limited in regards to time, place, and manner. 
 

Tim wants to censor an entire person from arguably providing an opinion. That’s very different. 
I don’t really want to do it. I’m almost thinking that we have to do it. 

If we’re going to forcibly cancel large gatherings, shut down universities, etc., then it seems reasonable that we should consider shutting down a guy who is telling millions of people every day that this is all a big conspiracy theory- the implication of which is that it can be ignored. Isn’t he doing as much or more  harm as any large meeting that we are prohibiting? 

 
People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes' fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying "well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment" is a persuasive argument to the contrary. Second, people tend to cite Holmes to imply that there is some undisclosed legal authority showing that the speech they are criticizing is not protected by the First Amendment. This is dishonest at worst and unconvincing at best. If you have a pertinent case showing that particular speech falls outside the First Amendment, you don't have to rely on a 90-year-old rhetorical flourish to support your argument.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/

 
He’s got a right to say it. I’d think we should be rather observant and cautious about anyone taking extreme authority to breach normal freedoms in times like this. Opening the door to even discussing such things seems unwise.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Rush (and to a slightly lesser extent, Sean Hannity) continue to push that the coronavirus is all a big conspiracy theory: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2020/03/coronavirus-rush-limbaugh-sean-hannity-donald-trump-1202880300/amp/

I understand the dangers of interfering with free speech, but it seems to be that what Limbaugh is doing at this point is the equivalent of shouting “Fire!” In a crowded theatre, and that it would be perfectly appropriate for the FCC to take him and anyone else who does this off the air. Thoughts? 
Anyone that  buys-into the crap that Limbaugh spews out are gullable and would be easily be fooled by another con-man anyway.  

 
Anybody who uses this example should be deemed as having already lost the argument.
Look, if Limbaugh wrote a book arguing that this is all a hoax, and somebody wanted to ban the book, I would be completely against that. Same for an article on the Internet, no matter how immediate it was. 

But the public airways are something different. The effects are much more immediate and powerful, obviously. And as a society we recognize that, which is why we own them, and not private entities. It’s why we have an FCC in the first place. 

 
Look, if Limbaugh wrote a book arguing that this is all a hoax, and somebody wanted to ban the book, I would be completely against that. Same for an article on the Internet, no matter how immediate it was. 

But the public airways are something different. The effects are much more immediate and powerful, obviously. And as a society we recognize that, which is why we own them, and not private entities. It’s why we have an FCC in the first place. 
When you use the "fire in a crowded theater" thing, you are literally basing your argument on a bit of rhetoric pulled from a long-since-overturned court case that legalized the prosecution of war dissenters.  It is a classic own-goal.

The "but the public airwaves" thing might have had some legitimacy back in the broze age before the internet existed (debatable), but it's not relevant today.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t really want to do it. I’m almost thinking that we have to do it. 

If we’re going to forcibly cancel large gatherings, shut down universities, etc., then it seems reasonable that we should consider shutting down a guy who is telling millions of people every day that this is all a big conspiracy theory- the implication of which is that it can be ignored. Isn’t he doing as much or more  harm as any large meeting that we are prohibiting? 
Are you going to try to sell me a “jump to conclusions mat” next? 

 
When you use the "fire in a crowded theater" thing, you are literally basing your argument on a bit of rhetoric pulled from a long-since-overturned court case that legalized the prosecution of war dissenters.  It is a classic own-goal.
Just because an argument was used wrongly in the past doesn’t necessarily destroy the legitimacy of the argument itself. Limbaugh is not a war dissenter. Nor is this, as @supermike80 just put it, a “difference of opinion”. We’re talking here about a direct impact on public health. 

 
Just because an argument was used wrongly in the past doesn’t necessarily destroy the legitimacy of the argument itself. Limbaugh is not a war dissenter. Nor is this, as @supermike80 just put it, a “difference of opinion”. We’re talking here about a direct impact on public health. 
Justify it however you want. It's a horrible idea.  Horrible.  And you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it.  

My thoughts.

 
Just because an argument was used wrongly in the past doesn’t necessarily destroy the legitimacy of the argument itself. Limbaugh is not a war dissenter. Nor is this, as @supermike80 just put it, a “difference of opinion”. We’re talking here about a direct impact on public health. 
Yeah, but by getting everybody all worked up about Rush Limbaugh, you're distracting people from a serious public health emergency, the dangers of which are just like shouting fire in a crowded theater.  I think the FBI should track you down and prevent you from spreading this kind of hysteria on the internet.

 
Yeah, but by getting everybody all worked up about Rush Limbaugh, you're distracting people from a serious public health emergency, the dangers of which are just like shouting fire in a crowded theater.  I think the FBI should track you down and prevent you from spreading this kind of hysteria on the internet.
to me, it is severely disturbing.  But that's me.   

 
Justify it however you want. It's a horrible idea.  Horrible.  And you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it.  

My thoughts.
It may be a bad idea. I’m certainly not sure about it which is why I raised it as a question. After reading the arguments against so far I don’t find them compelling- yet. But even if I change my mind completely on this and come to decide that it’s a bad idea, I will certainly never be ashamed for having suggested it. 

 
It may be a bad idea. I’m certainly not sure about it which is why I raised it as a question. After reading the arguments against so far I don’t find them compelling- yet. But even if I change my mind completely on this and come to decide that it’s a bad idea, I will certainly never be ashamed for having suggested it. 
Yeah that's clear Tim.  

there are people in this country who have scary ideas..and they aren't all named Trump

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, but by getting everybody all worked up about Rush Limbaugh, you're distracting people from a serious public health emergency, the dangers of which are just like shouting fire in a crowded theater.  I think the FBI should track you down and prevent you from spreading this kind of hysteria on the internet.
This isn’t a very compelling argument either IMO. Yes, I concede that if Limbaugh was taken off the air there would be some people who would be convinced that it is part of the conspiracy. But that would be significantly less people than who are potentially harmed by what he is saying right now. 

 
Seriously is "owning the libs" that important to you that are have to continue telling people that this virus is a hoax or conspiracy.   You certainly aren't doing it for safety reasons. 

 
Let the hot bag of air with his shiny medal babble on.  Its his right.  It is also your right to simply not listen but it is not right to try and force folks to not listen.

 
Let the hot bag of air with his shiny medal babble on.  Its his right.  It is also your right to simply not listen but it is not right to try and force folks to not listen.
Just to correct one point- he does not have a right to say whatever he wants on the air. The airways are owned by the public and subject to restriction. Not the same as a newspaper or book or speech. 

 
Just to correct one point- he does not have a right to say whatever he wants on the air. The airways are owned by the public and subject to restriction. Not the same as a newspaper or book or speech. 
Don't know Tim.  Seems like a grey area there.  Isn't "speech" and "speaking" one in the same?

 
This isn’t a very compelling argument either IMO. Yes, I concede that if Limbaugh was taken off the air there would be some people who would be convinced that it is part of the conspiracy. But that would be significantly less people than who are potentially harmed by what he is saying right now. 
I think this is the absolute wrong approach.  Limbaugh will figure it out eventually.  And when he does, we desperately want him to be on the air.  Because lots of people trust him.

 
I think this is the absolute wrong approach.  Limbaugh will figure it out eventually.  And when he does, we desperately want him to be on the air.  Because lots of people trust him.
I can buy into this, but suppose he doesn’t? Even if you don’t agree with me at this time, is there a point that you would? 

Suppose he came on this morning, for example, and said, “folks, the deep state are telling you not to visit nursing homes. That’s stupid. Go visit your loved ones if you want; it’s perfectly safe. Don’t worry about this hoax!” 

Would that be enough to consider shutting him down? Or is there no limit to him “expressing his opinion”? 

 
Agree it’s protected speech. That doesn’t mean we can’t laugh at it being moronic.

Limbaugh has compared the coronavirus to the common cold, and he said on his show that it was based on the number of cases. He said,  “It’s also based on the kind of virus this is. Why do you think this is COVID-19? This is the 19th coronavirus! They’re not uncommon.”

Its the 7th Coronavirus, chief. That includes SARS, MERS, and four common colds. IN BEFORE YOU CALL IT THE FLU. Also, they called it COVID-19 because - here’s the tricky part - it was identified in 2019.

ETA: I gave him too much credit. Turns out he HAS been calling it the flu.

:lmao:

He should ABSOLUTELY be allowed to prove how ignorant he is about the pandemic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not on the air. That’s why we have an FCC. 
OK...but the FCC must think there isn't anything wrong with what he says since he is still on air.

I mean its obvious (to me anyways) the guy is a hack/nut job.  Pretty much Alex Jones before Alex Jones was a thing.  Just think it may set an even more dangerous precedent if there is forced censorship.  I don't know though.

I do agree he is spewing a very dangerous lie on air.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can buy into this, but suppose he doesn’t? Even if you don’t agree with me at this time, is there a point that you would? 

Suppose he came on this morning, for example, and said, “folks, the deep state are telling you not to visit nursing homes. That’s stupid. Go visit your loved ones if you want; it’s perfectly safe. Don’t worry about this hoax!” 

Would that be enough to consider shutting him down? Or is there no limit to him “expressing his opinion”? 
I agree that's a harmful thing to say.  I'm just not sure that taking him off the air would really fix the harm you're trying to avoid.  And it introduces a bunch of new harms.

Limbaugh doesn't want to look ridiculous.  As the numbers of cases and deaths mount, he'll backtrack.  It's inevitable.

 
I think this is the absolute wrong approach.  Limbaugh will figure it out eventually.  And when he does, we desperately want him to be on the air.  Because lots of people trust him.
Debatable.

Shutting him down is still a bad idea, however, if for no other reason than the precedent it sets.  Do we really want an organization (the FCC) that currently serves under the authority of Donald Trump determining who is allowed to broadcast and who is not based on the content of their opinion?  That seems like a terrible idea.

 
I’m not going to keep regurgitating the same argument- I’ve put it out there, and if everyone rejects it (and so far its overwhelming- nobody here agrees with me at all) that’s fine. 

I will add that it’s completely ironic that I even find myself in this position- I’ve been extremely anti- censorship my entire life and probably always will be. It’s just that this particular crisis that we find ourselves in represents, at least to me, a unique set of circumstances. I believe Limbaugh’s “opinion” here is going to cause people to get sick and die. 

 
I’m not going to keep regurgitating the same argument- I’ve put it out there, and if everyone rejects it (and so far its overwhelming- nobody here agrees with me at all) that’s fine. 

I will add that it’s completely ironic that I even find myself in this position- I’ve been extremely anti- censorship my entire life and probably always will be. It’s just that this particular crisis that we find ourselves in represents, at least to me, a unique set of circumstances. I believe Limbaugh’s “opinion” here is going to cause people to get sick and die. 
I'm not saying you are wrong.  Limbaugh does need to shut his big fat trap.  But I think it just may cause way more problems then it might solve.  But I don't know for sure at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Should he be censored or taken off the air? No. Should he be educated? Absolutely, especially considering he has lung cancer and his immune system is working overtime as a result. He should be more concerned than just about anybody else.

 
timschochet said:
Rush (and to a slightly lesser extent, Sean Hannity) continue to push that the coronavirus is all a big conspiracy theory: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2020/03/coronavirus-rush-limbaugh-sean-hannity-donald-trump-1202880300/amp/

I understand the dangers of interfering with free speech, but it seems to be that what Limbaugh is doing at this point is the equivalent of shouting “Fire!” In a crowded theatre, and that it would be perfectly appropriate for the FCC to take him and anyone else who does this off the air. Thoughts? 
No, there are not news anchors.  What they say is opinion.  If we censor them we have to censor CNN, Fox, MSNBC and all other stations that have any commentary.

 
It frightens me to no end when people actively want to shut down those that have opinions that don't align with their own.  wow..Just wow.  
This isn't about opinions and it's completely dishonest to attempt to frame it that way.  This is about facts and reality.  Now, one can certainly have opinions on the facts and reality, but they are NOT to be substituted for opinions and that's what he does frequently.  That said, I completely disagree with Tim that we should be censoring this sort of stuff.  If Rush wants to be "Info Wars lite", that's his decision.  It's kind of hacky and gimmicky, but that's his choice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m not going to keep regurgitating the same argument- I’ve put it out there, and if everyone rejects it (and so far its overwhelming- nobody here agrees with me at all) that’s fine. 

I will add that it’s completely ironic that I even find myself in this position- I’ve been extremely anti- censorship my entire life and probably always will be. It’s just that this particular crisis that we find ourselves in represents, at least to me, a unique set of circumstances. I believe Limbaugh’s “opinion” here is going to cause people to get sick and die. 
Hi Tim. Couple of questions.

1. Can you cite any examples of the FCC pulling opinion shows due to false or misleading info being passed over the radio?

2. What laws is he violating in order to be censured by the government?

I've never listened to him, never bought a book, don't believe he deserved the Medal. But I'd never censure ignorance or opinion. At least that I can think of. 

Thanks.

 
Should he be censored or taken off the air? No. Should he be educated? Absolutely, especially considering he has lung cancer and his immune system is working overtime as a result. He should be more concerned than just about anybody else.
He is educated on it.   I doubt he is getting his knowledge on this virus from some 4chan message board.    The problem is that it doesn't fit the narrative to help his team so he spins it another way

 
He is educated on it.   I doubt he is getting his knowledge on this virus from some 4chan message board.    The problem is that it doesn't fit the narrative to help his team so he spins it another way
Then if being "right" takes precedence over his own health, he is beyond help and pity.

 
Hi Tim. Couple of questions.

1. Can you cite any examples of the FCC pulling opinion shows due to false or misleading info being passed over the radio?

2. What laws is he violating in order to be censured by the government?

I've never listened to him, never bought a book, don't believe he deserved the Medal. But I'd never censure ignorance or opinion. At least that I can think of. 

Thanks.
Sure. 

1. No. It doesn’t mean they don’t have the power to do so. My premise is that this is an urgent and unique situation. 

2. He hasn’t violated any laws. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top