Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem: Rush Limbaugh “is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airways”

At the Volokh Conspiracy, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh highlights a recent CNN op-ed by Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan calling on the FCC to stop allowing Rush Limbaugh to “[hide] behind the First Amendment” and instead punish the conservative talk radio host for his offensive comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. The problem with this, Volokh explains, is that the First Amendment does protect Limbaugh's offensive speech. Volokh writes:

they’re urging the government to suppress Limbaugh’s speech based on the ideology that it expresses. And this is precisely what the Supreme Court has rightly said is impermissible. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), the Court did uphold restrictions on vulgar words on the radio — a question that’s now being reconsidered by the Court, in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. — but in the process the plurality said:

“[I]f it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.”

Read the whole thing here. For more on the Limbaugh-Fluke controversy, go here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    So some partisan retard celebrities utterly don't understand the First Amendment, and have no problem exposing their ignorance to the world. Color me surprised.

  • Mr Whipple||

    One would hope that an "artist" would at least understand the concept. Oh wait...she makes her money off governemnt imposed copyright protection.

    Nevermind.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Do these ladies realize they're poster children for repealing the 19th Amendment right now?

  • Joe M||

    We don't need to bother repealing it. Just "stop allowing them to hide behind it".

  • Jeffersonian||

    It is a Living Document ®, right?

  • ||

    ""Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem: Rush Limbaugh “is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airways” ""

    Of not. As soon as radio stations can't make a dime from him they have the right to kick him off the air.

  • ||

    "The people's airways." That's an excuse. Precisely because no one owns the airways, no government agency should have the authority to decide what is and is not allowed on them.

    The same arguments, with the same logic, could be made about light and sound. "The people's soundwaves should not be polluted by such horrible opinions, no one has the right to do that; therefore, the government needs to keep these people from speaking, by force if need be."

  • Janet Napolitano||

    We're working on that right now, darius.

    By the way... we know where you live.

  • Hugo Longbone||

    Not to sound like a hair splitting twit, but in some parts of the universe, a person might have a prescriptive easement to light under certain circumstances. As a matter of fact in the English Common Law it is known as "Ancient Lights Doctrince." However, American common law calls the doctrine bullshit.

  • X||

    nag, nag, nag.

  • Jeff||

    Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem are not entitled to the people's air.

  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||

    Nazi cunts.

  • Himmler||

    Hey, now!

  • Tony||

    The presumption, though, is that free speech is supposed to be the most efficient means by which we arrive at the best ideas. No such luck, evidently.

    Far-right hatemongering party propagandists are never good for a society, however constitutional their activities may be.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Far-right hatemongering party propagandists are never good for a society, however constitutional their activities may be.

    Correct. However, I'm glad they can spout whatever ideas they want. And I can refute their ideas with my own words and some actions. Neat how it all works, huh? It's called Liberty. You might try it sometime.

  • Tony||

    Which is how the Tutsis prevailed against the Hutus. No wait, hatemongering talk radio helped get a million of them killed.

    Just saying. There's speech, and there's mass far-right hatemongering propaganda, and the latter is a category of its own, and never good for any society. Not sure what can be done about it, but the point of Enlightenment principles is that we are supposed to get somewhere.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Far-left hatemongering party propagandists are also never good for a society, however constitutional their activities may be.

    FIFY'd. No charge, as per usual.

  • Ice Nine||

    Not to mention the fact that they have made the Tutsis look like Eagle Scouts.

  • Tony||

    When you find a far-left person with a soapbox, let alone a near-monopoly of talk radio, you might have a point. (Obama and almost nobody else in the Democratic party is far left, just so you set your gauge right--and I betcha all MSNBC talking heads are capitalists.)

  • Shorter Tony, again||

    It's different when we do it!

  • Somewhat Shorter Tony||

    Read that Obama sentence so that you can know to ignore everything I say.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I don't trust the "capitalists" on the left, Tony. Neither should you, if you'd just take some advice once in a while.

    Of course, I'm talking to a Team member who thinks "centrist" is too right-wing, so I doubt you would bother to think for a moment.

    Bear in mind, I'm talking about social conservatives, for the most part, with almost as much disdain as you have for them, unless you really believe I'd actually *want* a Rick Santorum as Top Figurehead in the Oval Office.

    But that would require you to think.

  • shrike ||

    Christ-fag.

  • Christ-fag||

    Shrike!

  • ||

    I believe it was lawrence O'donnell who announced on-air (msnbc) that he was a socialist.
    Do you just say whatever fits the liberal narrative, facts be damned? Oh, I forgot, that is the standard liberal strategy, so.....yes.

  • Fuck Lawrence O'Donnell.||

  • Barney Frank||

    Um... no. I mean, he's cute and all, but he's too far-right for MY dick.

  • Never trust a socialist.||

  • Tony||

    There's nothing wrong with being a socialist. There is something wrong with being on the far right. Socialists have created the best countries to live on earth. The far right have slaughtered millions in barbaric ethnic squabbles. False equivalences are the refuge of a weak mind.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    "There's nothing wrong with being a socialist"

    Fuck off, slaver.

    I swore I'd never reply to Tony but I've also wanted to use that sentence. So it's a wash.

    Fuck off, slaver.

    That feels good to say.

    ... Hobbit

  • ||

    Socialists have created the best countries to live on earth.

    The USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Kampuchea... it's a long list!

  • trae||

    troll^^

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, Pol Pot was "far-right". Got it.

    I'd rather rip out my spleen and beat myself to death with it, than go back to believing in socialism.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Socialists have created the best countries to live on earth.

    Great, so fucking move there already.

  • Dolemite||

    Yes there is something wrong with being a socialist. Wanting for other people to do your bidding through the threat of force is wrong, and ends up being a net loss for others. You're joking, right? Those "socialist" nations you might talk about like the scandinavian nations rely on capital formation and trade and markets to increase their wealth. All the "socialism" part of their nations just consumes whatever wealth is created. Don't know where you're getting those figures, and I doubt you even know what far right means. But yeah let's play that game, the "socialist" nations like USSR, PRC, Kampuchea, Vietnam, N. Korea, etc. have caused the deaths of 150 million people in ONE CENTURY! yeah, so much for socialism creating abundance and wealth

  • Ed Schultz||

    Hi, Tony!

  • Rachel Maddow||

    Hi, Tony!

  • El Rushbo||

    Wait, I have a soapbox that forces people to listen to me?

    I must never reveal the secret of my awesome powers.

    mwaaahahahahahahahahaha

  • shamalam||

    "When you find a far-left person with a soapbox, let alone a near-monopoly of talk radio, you might have a point."

    Do you ever wonder why the lefties fail to draw an audience? Maybe because they are insufferable morons with absolutely no sense of humor?

  • ||

    +1

  • Rokk Krinn||

    Your gauge is off quite a bit, but this it what happens when the radical left artificially pulls the center towards them. The left would consider the classic true center as the far right.

    As for the market of ideas...who wants to listen to collectivist progressive bullshit that kills the human spirit as well as the humans it proclaims to care about. The past century shows the failures of leftist ideology, but the left never seems to get that their ideas are flawed to begin with. But the truth of the matter is that its about power for the left. Fascism and Totalitarianism are the inherit nature of the progressive left.

    But hey you are just a useful idiot hoping to get on the gravy train.

  • ||

    Since the left has a near monopoly on the mainstream media, they don't need a monopoly on talk radio. Right-wing talk radio (and FOX News) formed as a reaction against overwhelming left-leaning bias in the mainstream media.

    And actually Limbaugh isn't "far" right. Being passionate doesn't make you a radical, and he's not advocating the formation of militias or the overthrow of the government.

    Limbaugh is a Republican partisan, not a political extremist.

  • Tony||

    Limbaugh is indeed a cupcake compared to some of the radio guys, but I've seen more than a few perfectly reasonable people become radicalized by listening to too much of that trash. If speech is something worthy of being protected, then the assumption is that speech has agency; thus the assumption is that speech can do harm. Far-right propaganda always does harm, in my opinion. What to do about that is a difficult question.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I've seen more than a few perfectly reasonable people become radicalized by listening to too much of that trash.

    Well then they must have a skull full of mushy pablum. Listening to some blowhard spout his opinion on the radio "radicalized" these people and caused them to become dangerous to society?

    If they're that weak-willed and easily swayed, they probably are too dangerous to be allowed to wander around unsupervised, let alone reproduce. Hell, if they're that easily controlled, they might vote for Obama.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Far-right propaganda always does harm, in my opinion.

    Far left-wing propaganda is always salubrious and beneficial?

    Your opinions sucks and you are a fucking brainwashed idiot.

  • Dolemite||

    Again ffs, Limbaugh is not far right just because you don't like what he says. He's a neo conservative, which are not that far from the center. They still don't mind a welfare state even if they btch about it. They still favor a violent monopoly on courts, defense, and regulation, which makes it easier for businesses to collude with that violent monopoly. You don't like what he says? don't listen to it! I know I don't !

  • Jeffersonian||

    Just itchin' to get anyone to the right of the Gang of Four booted from the air, aincha?

    Behold, the Tolerant Set!

  • Tony||

    The American right is now teetering on the edge of the far-right abyss. Name one far-right movement in the history of earth that has ever done any good.

    I'm not suggesting we censor or shoot anyone. I do not know how far-right propaganda is effectively countered; I do know that countering it is necessary if a society is to remain healthy.

  • Jeffersonian||

    You're right, Tony, they've become so radicalized that they're about to nominate Mitt Romney to be their candidate.

    Projection, they name is Tony.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Thy

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I can name at least one far-left movement that turned out badly:

    http://www.britannica.com/EBch.....Revolution

  • Bernie Sanders||

    Good times... good times.

    *sigh*

  • ||

    Alternate theory;
    Tony is not a spoof or a regular member attempting to provoke.

    He is a heavy meth user.

  • Nooge||

    The spoof and snark are too spot-on. Besides, by the time anyone smoked enough tweak to actually believe that shit, his heart would explode.

  • Southerner||

    Name one far-right movement in the history of earth that has ever done any good.

    Youth for Reagan?

  • Tman||

    hatemongering talk radio helped get a million of them killed.

    There he goes! The guy with a blowtorch in a field of strawmen! Lightin' em up and knockin em down!

    Go get 'em father strawman! You continue to set the bar for how to lose an argument, impressive.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.13.12 @ 5:54PM|#
    ..."There's speech, and there's mass far-right hatemongering propaganda,"

    False dichotomy, shithead. Speech = speech whether you like it or not.
    See Constitution, A-1; "Congress shall make no law..."

  • ||

    You know, I ALWAYS thought that talk radio gave a military advantage. If it weren't for talk radio, the Hutus TOTALLY would have had more military might. That really makes radio jockeys WAR CRIMINALS, doesn't it? They should be summarily tried and executed. That'll go to show those free-talkers that we won't stand for their military actions!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    ...but the point of Enlightenment principles is that we are supposed to get somewhere.

    We are getting somewhere. You and I and the other commenters are having a (somewhat) civil discussion about the First Amendment. We are arguing in words. It is non-violent.

    Rush Limbaugh calling some lady a slut, though distasteful to many, is also non-violent. Rush's outburst also does not fall within your characterization of "right wing hate-mongering propaganda". He called someone a name. We don't suspend the First Amendment for name calling.

    If you want to counteract real right wing hate-mongering propaganda, find a local Klan rally and protest. There are all sorts of ways you can fight hatred, but you have to have personal courage. Do not expect the government to fight that battle for you.

  • The Klan||

    Yeah! We'd LOOOOVE to have you come speak! We'd even start a big ol' bonfire for ya!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Hence my personal courage remark. People are scary, and you may indeed suffer harm if you oppose them.

    Expecting the government to shut down speech you disagree with will bite you in the ass. Because one day, I guaranfuckintee they will come to shut down your speech, too.

  • Sevo||

    'When they came for...'
    Shithead thinks he's one of the Nazis.

  • Shorter Tony||

    It's ok when our side does it!

  • ||

    Far-right hatemongering party propagandists are never good for a society,

    Maybe not, but banning them is even worse for a society.

  • Tony||

    Perhaps. I'm pretty much absolutist on free speech, but I do think it's not as easy a question as it seems.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Perhaps"?

    Oh, and if you're in favor of hate-crime laws, it figures you'd answer "probably" and "pretty much".

  • Rob||

    I liken banning Dickhead Rush to throwing those two old hags in jail for being Communists. Not so fun, is it?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I doubt that an absolutist, in a discussion of the First Amendment rights of Rush Limbaugh, would have compared him to the genocide-inciting radio broadcasts of Rwanda.

    Unless you're testing the limits of *your own* free speech - "look, people should be free even to say incredibly dumb things like I'm saying!"

    Of course, I freely stipulate that calling a woman a slut is infinitely worse than comparing a broadcaster to a genocidaire responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths. I mean, the Rwandans' suffering was soon over, while Ms. Fluke must spend years in agony recovering from the horrible things someone said about her.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So if you get right down to it, Rush was *worse* than the Rwandan broadcasters. They incited murder, while Rush made someone feel bad, which is clearly a worse atrocity.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Especially when he's assaulting the self-esteem of those delicate apple blossoms known as federally-protected victims groups.

  • Loki||

    +1,000 to Eduard

  • fish||

    I think that the Limbaugh Affair should inspire one of our fine democratic legislators to draft the "Precious Snowflake" act to insure that no one ever again will have to suffer the indignity of hurt feelings ever again!

  • Sandra Fluke||

    Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never .....

    oops! I peed my panties.

  • Tony||

    That specific incident is in no way comparable to the Rwandan genocide.

    But I live in a state where a federal building was blown up. There is a far-right element in this country. A big one. Even if you dismiss OKC out of hand, it's a powder keg and it should frighten people.

    The fact that it's all in the service of the Republican party is just the disgusting cherry on top.

  • Jeffersonian||

    What about the arsons, assaults, rapes, vandalism, etc. perpetratated by the Occutards? Or the riots, property damage and mayhem that surrounds any G7, IMF, World Bank, etc. shindog, all courtesy of you pals on the left?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yeah, it's a powder keg, but you're leaving out the fact that both extremes are itching to light matches.

  • Occupy Everything||

    Just piss us off, already! We can't wait to start tearin' shit up!

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.13.12 @ 6:07PM|#
    "But I live in a state where a federal building was blown up. There is a far-right element in this country."

    Shithead argument:
    Hint, hint. Nudge, nudge.

  • Liberal Griefer||

    And abortion clinics! And... and... Ruby Ridge! And... um... BUSH'S FAULT!!!ONE!1!!ELEVENTY!!!

  • chemist||

    There is a far-right element in this country.

    It's also present in large quantities in the Sun. What's your point?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.13.12 @ 5:55PM|#
    "I'm pretty much absolutist on free speech,"

    That's a lie.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Not if you read it properly. He's absolutely against it.

  • Sevo||

    My mistake.

  • ||

    Citizens United?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Citizens United only became a SC case because of the anti-Hillary Clinton movie that was prevented from being screened during the 2008 presidential sweepstakes.

  • ||

    And any First Amendment absolutist should agree with the decision and the precendent established. Correct Tony?

  • Sevo||

    HA! And ha.

  • Loki||

    I'm pretty much absolutist on free speech

    You can't be "pretty much an absolutist". You're either for it or you're against it. "Pretty much an absolutist" is a meaningless phrase.

    Especially coming as it does from someone who just a while earlier compared Rush Limbaugh to Rwandan genocidists for calling a woman a slut and also saying "[t]here's speech, and there's mass far-right hatemongering propaganda, and the latter is a category of its own, and never good for any society."

    The obvious implication of which is that something should be done to stop the "far-right hatemongering propaganda". Which, convienently, is also a meaningless undefined term (but of course that's the whole point isn't - to shut up anyone who utters anything you and ideological fellow travellers disagree with).

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    The only way to fairly stop ONE extreme, is to stop ALL extremes.

    No way liberals would go for that.

  • Tony||

    I would.

    A non-partisan Speech Committee could have the responsibility to oversee political speech. I'd have no problem with that.

    The years of extremist hate speech, on both sides actually, has led to the murders of many people. I think it's in society's best interest to consider some options.

  • Jeffersonian||

    A non-partisan Speech Committee could have the responsibility to oversee political speech. I'd have no problem with that.

    Is this a spoof?

  • wareagle||

    Is this a spoof?
    -----------
    I want to say it is not, which makes it even more ridiculous than if it were. If it is a spoof, someone has tony down pretty well.

  • Sevo||

    "Is this a spoof?"
    Ya know, it's really hard to tell. Shithead's general dishonesty makes about *any* post believable.

  • Ministry of Speech||

    Tony, please report to the Ministry of Truth immediately.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I actually laughed out loud at this.

    Thank you

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "The years of extremist hate speech, on both sides actually"

    I call bullshit. Tony NEVER admits the shortcomings of his Team.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Far-right hatemongering party propagandists are never good for a society, however constitutional their activities may be.

    I guess the far-left hatemongering party propagandists are just peachy-keen, though, right?

  • Loki||

    the people's airwaves

    Can we stop with this "the people's ______________" shit? WTF do they think this is, the USSR? Fuck Jane Fonda, Gloria Stinem, and whoever Robin Morgan is, fuck her too. Fuck them all in their earholes. These commie bitches should DIAF.

  • ||

    Perhaps Fonda would like to go back to the people's Vietnam

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I agree. Fuck Jane Fonda!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, for a time machine...

  • ||

    One problem is that the airwaves still are treated, to some extent, as "the people's." That's a way of thinking that needs to go, beginning with the destruction of most if not all of the FCC's charter.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The ONLY thing the FCC should do, is... well, no, shitcan it.

  • ||

    Maybe there's something, but I can't think of it right now.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    They could fight each other to the death... for our amusement... on pay-per-view...

  • Fluke's Lawyer||

    calling on the FCC to ... punish the conservative talk radio host for his offensive comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke

    What am I, chopped liver?

  • Father Jack||

    Feck these broads. Drink! Arse! Girls!

  • WWNGD?||

    That silly little Bill of Rights keeps getting in the way of everything.

  • Koan||

    Who in the hell cares what three aging, cobwebby thundercunts think about anything? They are all a bunch of miserable, mirthless old hags. If anything, CNN should be lambasted for giving this ugly trio a platform for airing their completely destructive views.

  • romulus augustus||

    Anyone know the advertisers who should drop CNN forgiving a platform to these censorious Nazis?

  • Grandpa Simpson||

    "Bitch, bitch, bitch."

  • Pip||

    + 1 very old ad campaign.

  • D.D. Driver||

    Hiding behind the First Amendment? That is such an easy hiding place.

    Three Mississippi, Two Mississippi, One Mississippi...

    Ready or not, here we cooome.

  • ||

    I'm a good liberal, but also a card carrying member of the ACLU and the CL in that name means anyone can say anything stupid they want.

    Can't stand Limbaugh, enjoy his current travails, but I will fight to the death for his right to say the ignorant, bigoted, moronic stuff he says.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And we will do that AND for the right of the Bill Mahers and Mike Malloys, etc., to say whatever stoopid shit they want.

    Oh, and this "people's airwaves" is a bunch of shit. Just try setting up your own AM radio station, and see how long it takes for the FCC to send armed men your way.

  • Tony||

    Those armed men represent the people. Besides they'd probably just send you a notice first.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why should armed men be sent to shut down a pirate AM station? Sounds like overkill to me.

    Then again, I'm not a fan of martial law.

  • SWAT Team with wrong address||

    Oops, didn't mean to shoot your dog. But we represent the people, so good luck getting that drywall replaced.

  • Tony||

    You guys look so masculine and intimidating in your uniforms. Anyone want to come in for a quick "stop and frisk?

  • People's Republic of Korea||

    Those armed men represent the people.

    You can say that again!

  • The Castro Brothers||

    Shooting unarmed dissidents is good for the soul.

  • Hugo Chavez||

    You said it, hermano.

  • Janet Napolitano||

    Fuckin' Constitution won't let ME do that shit... yet...

  • Barack the Jaunty Future King||

    If, somehow, I am not re-coronated, Janet... THEN, you may let loose the dogs of war.

    Or, I might just order it anyway, as a celebration of My second term.

  • Bashar al-Assad||

    You are only as good as your last day's work.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Those armed men represent the people.

    Complete and utter, moronic booshit.

  • Sevo||

    Hell, I'll even go so far as to suggest Obama should be able to stand there and lie all day long. On 'the people's airwaves'.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I disagree, in that I think it should be a felony for a politician to lie.

    After all, they're not even real people.

  • Paul||

    I disagree, in that I think it should be a felony for a politician to lie.

    Wouldn't it just be easier to make it a felony to be a politician?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Can't remember who said it, but someone had an idea to put newly-elected politicians straight into prison, where we can keep an eye on them... and let them out, pretty much, right after their sentence/term is over.

  • Paul||

    It was me.

    Or, more specifically, I suggested that if I ran a country, my last act before stepping down and dissolving the government would be to hold an election, and then throw anyone who showed up into jail.

    Whether I'm the first and only to suggest such a shining star of reform, I know not.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I like the cut of your gib.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    What's a gib?

  • ^_^||

    Jib

    Basically, "I like the direction you're sailing".

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Terry Pratchett made a similar suggestion.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I hate it when I misspell stuf.

  • ||

    I don't think politicians can help lying...it's a genetic thing.

  • Tman||

    How awesome is it that Hanoi Jane is suddenly worried about the armed forces radio.

  • Paul||

    Her people are in control of the armed forces.

  • ||

    How many feminists does it take to screw up an op ed?

  • Whahappan?||

    THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!!

  • Brandon||

    No, no, no, they called on Rush's employers to take him off the air. They only want the FCC to step in if Rush's employers don't do what they want! See? It's totally different!

  • Paul||

    “[hide] behind the First Amendment” and instead punish the conservative talk radio host for his offensive comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke

    Do you guys remember in the flag burning days of the 80s, how conservatives complained that liberals were "hiding behind the constitution" and burning our nation's flag?

    Yeah... I remember that.

  • I remember||

    the "Try burning this one asshole." t-shirts.

  • BigT||

    Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

    It sure is NOW.

  • Team Blue||

    But only when *we* dissent, and only when it's against anyone not Team Blue.

  • buddyglass||

    Ironically, the quote in the title of this article is fairly accurate. Limbaugh is not "constitutionally entitled" to any portion of the radio spectrum. Nor am I; nor is anyone else.

    Of course, that doesn't imply what they want it to.

  • Paul||

    Ironically, the quote in the title of this article is fairly accurate. Limbaugh is not "constitutionally entitled" to any portion of the radio spectrum.

    They're leftards... so you have to first understand where they're coming from. In their world, the constitution isn't a document which describes limits to government power, it's a thing that entitles people to stuff. Once that premise is accepted, everything else that comes out of their mouth begins to make sense.

  • buddyglass||

    Eh. Semantics. A limit on govt. power creates an entitlement...to not be limited by the govt. in some capacity.

  • Paul||

    It entitles you to free birth control because Roe v Wade!

  • buddyglass||

    For instance, Limbaugh is entitled to not be regulated off the air by the FCC.

  • Eldridge Cleaver||

    “The only place for women in this movement is on their backs.”

  • Huey Newton||

    "Yeah, I got positions for 'em (women). All of 'em horizontal."

  • Richard Nixon||

    I'd love to fuck Jane Fonda circa Klute 1980ish - and you right-wing toe-tapping homos can kiss my ass!

  • Underzog||

    Sandra Fluke, in calling for taxpayers to subsidize her rampant fornication, is an example of the evolution of Marxism: From each according to this ability to each according to her nymphomania.

    Sluts of the world unite! You have nothing to lose buy your vibrators!

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here."

  • A Serious Man||

    Pretty sure making propaganda broadcasts for a totalitarian communist regime is worse than calling a law student a slut.

    But what do I know? I'm just a serious man representing a serious male patriarchal society.

  • don't believe the overlords||

    I think the CNN op-ed was terrific. The more leftists try to make an issue out of the Fluke incident, the more the leftists reveal what they really stand for.

  • Paul||

    Oh, nice try by Fonda and Steinem. Let's keep doing a forensic breakdown of the word, "Slut" and not talk about how birth control isn't a "right".

    I'm hoping that at some point, the left's your-shoe's-untied distraction will stop working.

  • ||

    Good job Gloria... you're next bonus has already been wired to your account.

  • imhotep||

    Jane Fonda is a slut. The other is promiscuous.

  • wef||

    Is it permissible to call these two desiccated vagina monologues a pair of fascists?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I would be interested to see how far this goes, including, in the course of suing Rush Limbaugh for defamation, Ms. Fluke's entire sexual and medical history is made a matter of public record (the truth is an absolute defense). Especially in light of the claim that not only does orthtricyclen keep you from breeding little crumb-snathers, but it decreases the prevalence of ovarian cysts (which it does, but so do diet and exercise).

  • don't believe the overlords||

    * don't forget Fluke's political history. The more the kerfuffle is kept alive, the more it hurts Fluke and friends.

  • Joe Durnavich||

    Airways? Are they talking about Rush's Gulfstream jet?

    And if they meant "airwaves," there are no such things. Limbaugh doesn't latch onto some publicly-owned wave in the air to broadcast.

  • Nooge||

    Fonda is really that stupid.

    Steinem is really that mean*.

    *I use "mean" in the sense of petty, worthless, small, etc.

    Both of them are wrong. But notice I don't call for forceful suppression of their drivel. I just call them stupid and laugh. Which, I suppose, qualifies as hate speech from TEH PATRIARCHY.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Camille Paglia called Steinem "the Stalin of feminism." She wasn't far off the mark.

  • hmm||

    Some feminists are more equal than others.

  • Capitalisms||

    That op ed is fantastic. They simultaneously criticise Rush for referring to 'women' as femi-Nazis and compare him to Josef Goebbels. CNN's closed the comments section. I wonder if that's connected to all the people pointing out that Hanoi Jane is a massive hypocrite.

  • feminist||

    It's wrong for men to try to silence us by calling us mean names! The government should shut them up!

  • ||

    yea, and also THOSE DUKE BOYS STILL DID SOMETHING WRONG. BIG DEAL. SOME PRIVILEGED RICH WHITE BOYS GOT A TASTE OF WHAT PEOPLE W/O PRIVILEGE FACE EVERY DAY

    plus, they are meany oppressors for hiring a stripper!

    - feminist

  • ||

    Namecalling is actually a form of collectivism, which these comments excel in.

    Did it ever occur to you that libertarianism would attract more women if it gained some maturity?

  • cynical||

    Namecalling is actually a form of catharsis, since actually finding these commie bitches and kicking their freedom-hating asses would be illegal, and arguably wrong.

    Besides, libertarians tell people they have to take care of themselves (and each other, as their conscience dictates), not expect a class of self-anointed Adults to act as their legal guardians after their age of majority. Most people aren't interested in maturity once they realize that freedom comes at the cost of responsibility.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Many have tried to link libertarianism and one of its natural enemies, communism, so don't feel bad for failing, gersan.

  • ||

    i think libertarianism AS PRACTICED by reasonoids actually has a lot in common with liberalism AS PRACTICED in the name calling, the race card playin (see illegal immigration debates), but especially the elitist attitude

    the "the public is dumb we are much smarter" attitude we see in nearly every thread.

    many of the atheist/theist threads are exaactly like many DU/progressive threads in terms of that elitist attitude and the equation of "if you don't agree with me, you are not rational" attitude

    also, there's a lot of hate and derision towards people in trailer parks, people w/o formal education, etc. that reminds me a lot of liberals.

    iow, a general hatred of people, especially average salt of the earth people.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You're not helping here, dunphy. We get enough of that shit from Tony and shrike.

  • ||

    Wait, what the fuck decade are we in? Robin Morgan is still alive?

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    A non-partisan Speech Committee could have the responsibility to oversee political speech. I'd have no problem with that.

    1. Careful what you wish for.

    2. You place far too much faith in those in power.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    Left out a reference to Orwell, but that should be self-evident.

    In short, Tony... you're asking for fire-playing, and it's not enough to be confident that your hypothetical "non-partisan Speech Committee" wouldn't be bastardized into something far more heinous than any political speech.

  • JB||

    Stupid cunts

  • ||

    the worst recent example of the govt. not remaining neutral in regards to speech was OWS protests

    in city after city (especially oakland) liberal city politicians bent over backwards to allow and even facilitate lawless OWS actions because they agreed with OWS' MESSAGE

    something they would never do for protesters they disagreed with

    and never did, for that matter

    that's what was so despicable about govt. response to OWS.

  • ||

    lol, wow talking about a pompous windbag lol.

    www.World-Anon.tk

  • ||

    This makes my head explode. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is now "I disapprove of what you say, so I WILL HAVE THE GOVERNMENT MAKE IT STOP." I despair.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement