HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Remove Hate Radio from ou...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:35 AM

Remove Hate Radio from our Armed Forces Radio

Remove Hate Radio from our Armed Forces Radio

By matt okeefe (Contact)

To be delivered to: The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama
Remove Hate Radio shows, such as Rush Limbaugh, from our public airwaves. Neither broadcast it, nor advertise it on our Armed Forces Radio.

Radio shows spew hate, bigotry, misogyny, and are truly anti-American. They should not be advertised on, or broadcast on Armed Forces radio. Our young soldiers should not be exposed to that vileness. By broadcasting shows like Rush Limbaugh on our Armed Forces Radio, there is an implied "stamp of approval" for the content, which is the wrong message to send to impressionable young minds. Ban this poison from our public airwaves.

NEW goal - We need 50,000 signatures
There are currently 42,165 signatures

http://signon.org/sign/remove-hate-radio-from.fb23?source=s.fb&r_by=2038504

67 replies, 5329 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 67 replies Author Time Post
Reply Remove Hate Radio from our Armed Forces Radio (Original post)
babylonsister Oct 2012 OP
jehop61 Oct 2012 #1
eomer Oct 2012 #11
eShirl Oct 2012 #18
Lightbulb_on Oct 2012 #27
lpbk2713 Oct 2012 #2
jehop61 Oct 2012 #3
eomer Oct 2012 #17
crazyjoe Oct 2012 #23
hack89 Oct 2012 #4
babylonsister Oct 2012 #6
hack89 Oct 2012 #8
eomer Oct 2012 #26
hack89 Oct 2012 #30
eomer Oct 2012 #39
hack89 Oct 2012 #43
eomer Oct 2012 #47
former-republican Oct 2012 #10
babylonsister Oct 2012 #33
former-republican Oct 2012 #49
jsr Oct 2012 #5
former-republican Oct 2012 #12
jsr Oct 2012 #13
former-republican Oct 2012 #16
Lightbulb_on Oct 2012 #29
PotatoChip Oct 2012 #7
former-republican Oct 2012 #9
eomer Oct 2012 #14
former-republican Oct 2012 #19
eomer Oct 2012 #24
crazyjoe Oct 2012 #25
eomer Oct 2012 #37
Mariana Oct 2012 #15
hack89 Oct 2012 #34
Bigmack Oct 2012 #20
Lightbulb_on Oct 2012 #32
Bigmack Oct 2012 #51
Lightbulb_on Oct 2012 #52
Bigmack Oct 2012 #53
Lightbulb_on Oct 2012 #54
Bigmack Oct 2012 #55
Lightbulb_on Oct 2012 #56
Bigmack Oct 2012 #61
Lightbulb_on Oct 2012 #62
HopeHoops Oct 2012 #21
jehop61 Oct 2012 #22
MizzM Oct 2012 #28
treestar Oct 2012 #31
hack89 Oct 2012 #35
treestar Oct 2012 #36
hack89 Oct 2012 #42
treestar Oct 2012 #45
hack89 Oct 2012 #46
pinboy3niner Oct 2012 #38
treestar Oct 2012 #41
former-republican Oct 2012 #48
Jessy169 Oct 2012 #40
Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #58
Jessy169 Oct 2012 #63
Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #65
Jessy169 Oct 2012 #66
Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #67
jemsan Oct 2012 #44
Snarkoleptic Oct 2012 #50
Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #57
NYC Liberal Oct 2012 #59
babylonsister Oct 2012 #60
hack89 Oct 2012 #64

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:46 AM

1. As much as I dislike

The Rushbo, etc, freedom of speech trumps my personal feelings. My only wish is they also offer progressive talk radio, as well. Our troops can figure it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:02 AM

11. There isn't a freedom of speech issue; it's a service of DoD, they already control the programming.

The Department of Defense controls the programming that will be delivered. They already choose to omit an extremely wide range of speech. For example, you're not going to hear on Armed Forces Radio any programs produced by the Communist Party. Nor any programs that are of or for the LGBTQ community. Their offerings obviously already apply a filter that reflects just the content that they (the DoD) want to deliver.

So now we, the people, want to change to some extent the filter that our government is already applying. We want a filter that rejects hate speech coming from a particular minority.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:31 AM

18. So our freedom of speech includes the right to be broadcast on Armed Forces Radio?

Great, I'll go prepare my first show right now. If they don't broadcast it, then my freedom of speech is being denied, according to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:06 AM

27. Ed Schultz is on AFN radio...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:46 AM

2. They forfeit their right to free speech with their hate and lies.





They cross the line with no fear of recrimination. They know they are doing wrong
and they just dare us to do something about it. The time has come to act.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lpbk2713 (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:54 AM

3. That's how a repub might think.

They want to take away rights because they don't like some of them. Freedom of speech means the right to speak no matter how stupid that speech might be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:23 AM

17. If freedom of speech applies to Armed Forces Radio then what time is the Communist Party program on?

Obviously freedom of speech does not require Armed Forces Radio to carry every viewpoint. They already apply a filter, this is just a discussion about a fine-grained detail of that filter.

It's amazing how rules that don't even exist come out of the woodwork when something is proposed that's not in line with the far right wing. For many decades a right wing filter has been applied on Armed Forces Radio, a filter that is significantly to the right of the position of the people of the country. Now when the people push back and want the filter to better reflect their values, a bogus rule that doesn't even make sense is marched out to illogically tell us we can't exercise control when control has always been exercised in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lpbk2713 (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:51 AM

23. wow, how 1984 of you. Why don't you throw the bastards in jail while you at it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 08:56 AM

4. Why not remove all politically themed programs?

since it is clear those simple child like soldiers don't the ability to think for themselves and know right from wrong - of.course we must protect them from themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:08 AM

6. That's not the point. This all apparently started when

Limbaugh called that Georgetown student a slut. From VoteVets...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0308/Does-Rush-Limbaugh-belong-on-armed-forces-radio-Criticism-mounts

snip//

An organization of some 100,000 US military veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, VoteVets.org, is also circulating a petition calling for the removal of Limbaugh’s show from the US military’s network, and signatures on it are growing everyday, says Maj. Jon Soltz, the chairman of VoteVets.org.

There are currently more than 11,000 military veterans and family members who have signed the petition.

In denigrating the student, who testified on Capitol Hill in favor of health-care coverage of birth control, Limbaugh “is commenting not on an individual, but on all women,” says Major Soltz, who returned from his second tour of duty in Iraq in December. “The government shouldn’t be promoting the type of content that essentially disrespects all women in the military who use contraception.”

Veterans say they do not have any objection to the Armed Forces Network, known as AFN, carrying conservative radio commentators – the network carries Bill O’Reilly for example.

“I totally believe in people’s freedom of speech,” explains veteran tech Sgt. Jennifer Norris, who served in the Maine Air National Guard from 1996 to 2008. “But when it comes to calling someone you don’t even know a slut, it feeds into the misogynistic attitude towards women – and it hurts our cause.”

more...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #6)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:47 AM

8. It will fail as it should.

if the general public can listen to Rush then so should the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:02 AM

26. The general public can listen to Democracy Now!, so should the military. How about Al Jazeera?

In fact, all the programs that are on Pacifica Radio (which the general public can listen to) would be great programming for the military to listen to, much better than Rush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #26)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:08 AM

30. They do get to listen to Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz

and no ones is stopping them from listening to Democracy Now! and Pacifica Radio - they have access to all that programing via the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #30)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:26 AM

39. So take Rush off Armed Forces Radio - they can listen to it via the Internet. (eom)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #39)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:51 AM

43. Why not - igniting a partisan firestorm makes plenty of sense before the elections

There is no legal justification for taking Rush off AFN - this petition is merely tilting at windmills.

The fact they have so few signatures says it all - how many signatures do you think a pro-Rush petition would get?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #43)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 12:47 PM

47. Igniting a partisan firestorm? That's pretty funny when we're discussing Rush.

And you're probably right that it's tilting at windmills. But that same thing can be said with regard to attempting to bring democracy to our country, of which this is just one small part. I'm still going to tilt away, however quixotic it may be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #6)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:01 AM

10. The journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step

 


"I totally believe in people’s freedom of speech,” explains veteran tech Sgt. Jennifer Norris"


I don't thinkshe does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:10 AM

33. And the balance of her quote?

I can see how Limbaugh could be considered dangerous if his attitude and talk encourage action among some of the soldiers.

“But when it comes to calling someone you don’t even know a slut, it feeds into the misogynistic attitude towards women – and it hurts our cause.”

******************************


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/14/culture-coverup-rape-ranks-us-military

A culture of coverup: rape in the ranks of the US military

For men, combat experience is the leading cause of PTSD. For women, it's sexual assault. This is the real 'war on women'


Naomi Wolf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #33)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 07:29 PM

49. I think as a human being Rush is despicable

 

but The Obama administration got this right.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:04 AM

5. Letting Rush Limbaugh indoctrinate young soldiers with his anti-government trash

is just plain stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:03 AM

12. why not indoctrinate them with Only Pro government radio

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #12)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:09 AM

13. Soldiers work for the government

McDonald's would never let their TVs broadcast anti-McDonald's drivel on a daily basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:15 AM

16. Since we all belong to the government

 

We should never allow anti government broadcasts.

It should be imprisonment for the offender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:08 AM

29. Question...

 

I was overseas during the Bush years.

Olbermann was still on at the time. Should he have been removed as he had a negative view of the CinC at the time?

Do we have to change every 4 or 8 years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:38 AM

7. Signed (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to former-republican (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:13 AM

14. We already are if Armed Forces Radio is the measure.

Armed Forces Radio already carries a very narrow range of programming that is selected by the DoD with a particular purpose in mind. You will not, for example, hear programming that promotes socialism, atheism, or caters to the LGBTQ community. This is not by accident, the DoD obviously filters the content to be only what they choose to deliver.

The same will be true of other government broadcast services like Radio Free Europe, Radio Martí, and Televisión Martí. The content is selected by the government and obviously omits viewpoints that they don't want to promote. There will not be any programs produced by the Communist Party on Radio Martí.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #14)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:37 AM

19. I already know that but they don't filter things between Right and Left main stream programing

 

If we are to begin letting the DOD choose which programing they decide to allow based on the party in power.
That is something we don't want.

I said main stream not crazy fringe elements of any party.


This is a bad petition and not well thought out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #19)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:52 AM

24. The petition is about crazy fringe elements (specifically Rush Limbaugh), not mainstream.

Remove Hate Radio from our Armed Forces Radio
By matt okeefe (Contact)

To be delivered to: The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama

Remove Hate Radio shows, such as Rush Limbaugh, from our public airwaves. Neither broadcast it, nor advertise it on our Armed Forces Radio.

Radio shows spew hate, bigotry, misogyny, and are truly anti-American. They should not be advertised on, or broadcast on Armed Forces radio. Our young soldiers should not be exposed to that vileness. By broadcasting shows like Rush Limbaugh on our Armed Forces Radio, there is an implied "stamp of approval" for the content, which is the wrong message to send to impressionable young minds. Ban this poison from our public airwaves.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #14)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:01 AM

25. Wrong. All the members of the military get to vote on AFR content.

 

They vote to have Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, ect.
If they wanted LGBTQ content, they would vote for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazyjoe (Reply #25)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:21 AM

37. Members of the military can respond to questionnaires, programming is not decided by direct vote.

The questionnaire results can be used by the DoD to inform its decision but DoD is free to ignore input that it doesn't like.

DoD is also free to filter content that is objectionable for some reason, like being hate speech, even if that content is popular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:14 AM

15. I don't understand how people think the right of free speech

includes the right to have a show on Armed Forces Radio. If they're taken off AFR, they can still say exactly what they want at any time, just the same as anyone else. It does NOT restrict their right of free speech in the least.

I don't think the goverment should be paying for any political or religious programming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:10 AM

34. So you would also remove Rachel Maddow from AFN? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:41 AM

20. One more thing to think about....

The military is very "chain of command" oriented.

The President is Commander in Chief.... Head Dude... Top General... HMFIC..

If Rush.. or anybody... verbally attacks the CinC, he should be removed from AFR.

You DU'ers posting about "Free Speech" must not have been in the military. "Free Speech" does not exist in the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #20)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:10 AM

32. Should Olbermann have been removed during the Bush years?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #32)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 11:44 AM

51. Chain of command was the same then...different CinC is all....

If Olbermann said the things about Bush that Limbaugh says now... of course he should have been removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #51)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 03:44 PM

52. Well, at least you are consistent...

 

In any case, you are just going to have to deal with the idea of treating troops like grown adults who are exposed to the same information that you are.

It is important that they get a "touch of home" while overseas and while everything can't be shown from every conceivable angle, AFN goes to some trouble to get mainstream and popular left and right oriented shows.

Let them decide and I imagine it will be just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #52)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 06:08 PM

53. Never been in the military, huh?...

..."treating troops like grown adults...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Sorry... but your idea of the military service is naive. The brass needs to be very careful who and what has access to the troops. You do remember those guys have guns.. right? The guys in the rear with the gear are no problem, but the troops with their asses on the line are a little testy.

In the Corps we referred to ourselves as Mushrooms.... kept in the dark and fed horseshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #53)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 06:22 PM

54. Active duty and getting ready to deploy... again...

 

Operationally, if you were kept in the dark on the day to day goings on then that is on you and your crap leadership. Not my problem and not how I run my unit (of any size.)

It sounds as if you prefer it that way and acknowledge that you were too stupid to make decisions better left to the adults. Is this more of that "old school" "I was treated like shit when I was in so the new guy should get treated like shit too" stuff?

Now, I prefer to treat everyone that serves under me as an adult until they prove otherwise. In any case, they are grown men and should have the same access to the same information and mainstream programming that you do as a civilian (whether you like it or not.)

Any dumbass who goes off on a shooting rampage and blames Limbaugh or something else he heard on AFN radio was already a disturbed individual and would have found another reason to do something dumbass-like. Maybe we should block their personal internet? Censor incoming letters so they don't hear any naughty ideas? Maybe make a MOS 17As and 17Bs ( Political Officers/NCOs ) to ensure they only hear the "right" thing?

Ridiculous...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 06:10 PM

55. Different military, I guess. The guys I know who are still in the Corps agree with me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #55)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 07:03 PM

56. Agree with what?

 

That they are treated like children or that they should be treated like children?

If the first, then they should want to be treated like adults. If the second...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #56)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:44 PM

61. The Marines I knew then... and the Marines I know now...

... all say that the Corps is NOT a debating society. Nor a democracy.

As our Gunny said: "If we want your opinion, we'll tell you what it is..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #61)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:13 PM

62. So it seems like the latter...

 

Operationally, I get it, there are some things that Joe doesn't need to/should/want to know about.

Their political leanings, short of violent extremism against the US govt, should be allowed to develop on their own in the same way of any other adult without a filter from their "betters."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:42 AM

21. I've owned RushOffAFN.com for a while now but haven't done anything with it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:43 AM

22. Just thought of another thing

Given the age of most of the troops who have their laptops, tablets, smart phones, etc, just how many really listen to Armed Forces Radio? Lots more sources for info. than in previous wars. Bet the audience is miniscule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:07 AM

28. Speaking of Hate Radio

I live in Phoenix now, hotbed of Republicanism (but changing slowly). Anyway, several months ago I was driving back late one night from babysitting the grandkids, and I flicked on the radio for some company during the half-hour drive home. I settled on a station and listened to some man talking about what I wasn't sure. As he neared the end, his voice rose in a mighty crescendo - KENYAN SOCIALIST MARXIST COMMUNIST OBAAAAAMAAAAA! I sat there in shock. You had to have been there. I couldn't believe what I was listening to. I had never heard anything so hateful on the radio before. If Republicans are listening to this night after night, it's no wonder they are as rabid as they have become. So anyway, a few seconds of silence after this ugly rant, and a gentle voice comes on the air, and a man says, "You are listening to Fox radio - News, fair and balanced." Huh? I'm all for free speech, but this was actually frightening to me in its hatred. So where are the liberal radio stations, hiding I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:09 AM

31. Yeah I'm not sure they Obama Admin would leave that idiot on

With Bush it made sense.

This is a particular radio station that obviously can't carry everything, so it's not a freedom of speech issue. Who chooses what goes on it and based on what? I would think young kids would prefer rock music.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #31)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:13 AM

35. They try to balance their offerings

so for example, they broadcast Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz to balance Rush and other RW views.

They choose their specific programs based on their commercial ratings - if a program has a large audience in America they will choose it over an obscure program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #35)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:21 AM

36. They broadcast all that too?

Still I'd think young men and women would prefer music.

Rachal and Ed don't balance anything out. They are practically as anti-Obama as Rush just in a different way. I guess they are trusting soldiers to still recognize the CIC is the one at the top of their organization.

Though there were a few who refused to recognize it - that birther nut, for one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #36)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:47 AM

42. They have multiple channels and stations

they offer a broad range of shows from entertainment, sports, news and opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #42)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 12:05 PM

45. Makes me wonder if the Rush flap is then any big deal

If they have access to as much as we might have here. Rush's ratings are going down in the US and might be going down there too.

If the Admin. cancelled Rush it would be a media storm about how he's trying to brainwash them. DU may need to take another look at this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #45)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 12:15 PM

46. It would ignite a political firestorm - it is a stupid idea. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #31)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:24 AM

38. The Obama Administration rejected a petition to drop Limbaugh from AFN


Official Department of Defense Response to

Sec. Panetta, Get Rush Limbaugh Off Armed Forces Radio NOW! No tax money for abusive, divisive, insulting language.

Rush Limbaugh and Armed Forces Radio

By Bryan G. Whitman


Thank you for your interest in American Forces Network (AFN) programming for our service members overseas. We appreciate your participation in the "We the People" platform on www.whitehouse.gov and your concerns about the programming available to our troops.

AFN is charged with providing current information and entertainment programming to our Department of Defense audiences overseas, similar to what they could see and hear via the media in the United States. AFN acquires top-rated radio programs, as measured by audience ratings in the United States, and delivers them via satellite to our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen stationed worldwide in 177 countries. AFN does not advertise on, provide any funding for, offer products for sale, or sponsor any of the programs (including the Rush Limbaugh Show) it relays to its audiences.

AFN does not censor content, and we believe it is important that service members have access to a variety of viewpoints.

See the complete list of political talk shows offered on AFN.

Review all of our radio and television services/schedules.

Again, thank you for your interest in our service members and the programming services AFN extends to them.

Bryan G. Whitman is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/rush-limbaugh-and-armed-forces-radio



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #38)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:44 AM

41. A variety of viewpoints, interesting

But then given the audience they have, one would think political talk is not the top thing the troops would be interested in listening to. I remember being 18-30 and we listened to music on the radio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #38)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 07:26 PM

48. The Obama administration is again right ........as usual

 





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:43 AM

40. As a nation, we should draw a line at for-profit hate speech

There have been plenty of debates on DU about first amendment rights, free speech and hate speech. A few of those debates have been started by me. We ALL support the current level of free speech enjoyed by Americans. But at the same time, we have to consider the undeniable fact that well-financed and organized "hate speech" is not only extremely damaging and dangerous to us all, it is also one of the ultimately "useful" tools of those who seek to manipulate and control large segments of our population, and not for altruistic reasons. We can ALL enjoy our current level of free speech -- including the right to spew out our own little vindictive and often-times justified hate speech -- but draw a line at organized and for-profit hate speech. Our nation and our world -- and our armed services -- would be significantly better off if we could just shut down all the dedicated for-profit haters who hide behind the first amendment to spread their brands of hate -- and we could do it without inhibiting any individual's right of free speech, except the "right" to make money doing it. I hope that day will soon come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #40)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:11 PM

58. Surprising you're still pushing this after the comprehensive spankings you received

in all the threads you started on the subject.

And why say "draw a line" when you mean "ban"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #58)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:24 AM

63. I don't recall getting a "comprehensive spanking"

I do recall a few first amendment "absolutists" who defend the right of commercialized unrestricted hate speech despite the undeniable damage it does in our society and around the world. I and many others believe those people are on the absolute wrong side of the issue. Commercialized, for-profit hate speech is NOT what the framers of our consitution had in mind. It is the abusers, the haters and the manipulators who are the strongest defenders of commercialized for-profit hate speech, because they are the only ones who gain from it, the only ones who have ever gained from it, and the only ones who will ever gain from it. If you don't see that, then you'll maybe understand why I don't consider your and other's posts as any more than mini-gnat bites, definitely not "comprehensive spankings".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #63)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 11:20 AM

65. This thread is one of the many spankings you received.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021396979

"Limiting Hate Speech In America Is A Valid Debate".

Out of 75 replies, it looks like only one DUer (xchrom) agreed with your position. And the same thing happened in the spate of similar threads that you started.

Try to accept that the vast majority of DUers are what you refer to as "First Amendment Absolutists", and that you are in a tiny minority on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #65)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:11 PM

66. Your point is irrelevant

If you go to Bad Astronomer forum and post that you believe strongly in UFOs, you'll get the exact same couple dozen dedicated UFO deniers who ALWAYS jump on anybody who posts anything having to do with the possibility that UFOs might be for real. And on DU, any post that questions the supreme authority of unqualified "first amendment free speech" rights always attracts the exact same crowd. Just because there were 75 posts from the exact same crowd on my "Limiting Hate Speech In America Is A Valid Debate" doesn't mean anything -- nothing -- except that those exact same people are still set in their hardcore opinion on the subject -- AND that for whatever reason, those exact same people have some strong motivation to hold the line on totally unrestricted right to free speech -- except of course the restrictions that we already have. On the other hand, there were a couple of thousand reads on that article, and what you may not realize is that just because people are not posting agreement doesn't mean that they don't agree or at least consider the ideas valid to some extent -- it could mean that they don't post agreement because people like you and the "regular group" will flame those posts and look to pick arguments. And who want's to debate any valid topic with an absolutist like yourself who totally denies other valid points of view? I might be a rare exception to that rule, because honestly your opinion doesn't affect me at all. Your opinion on the commercialization of hate speech -- for profit, organized, well-funded hate speech -- is very wrong IMO, and there are armies of academics, attorneys and regular "thinking, intellectual" people both in America and around the world who agree 100% with my point of view. You thinking that you and your group of absolutists are somehow "spanking" me is just so amusing I can't describe it. Stay tuned -- the world is growing much smaller. Not many of us would tolerate hate speech in our homes for very long, and with the world shrinking down to size, we're going to put a stop to the hate speech -- at least the commercialized for-profit hate speech -- whether you like it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #66)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:28 PM

67. I am strongly in favor of both (1) the First Amendment and (2) paragraph breaks (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 12:04 PM

44. Done!!

Thanks for pointing this petition out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:03 PM

50. Goalposts have been moved...

NEW goal - We need 75,000 signatures
There are currently 54,630 signatures

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:08 PM

57. Our soldiers are risking their lives for us.

I'm not about to repay them by micromanaging which radio stations they are allowed to listen to. This reminds me of a few years ago when there was a push to ban Playboy from being sold on military bases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:15 PM

59. I think soldiers are adults who can make up their own minds, not babies needing to be coddled

and "protected".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #59)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:26 PM

60. Perhaps. Just find a link in 2004 and see how many

soldiers voted for dimson. That is what has always bothered me. These are young people who I think need access to other opinions, and I don't know if they were getting that.
I used to post stuff from the army site; it was dismaying to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #60)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 11:14 AM

64. They have access to Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz

there is a diversity of views on Armed Forces radio and TV. They try to mirror US commercial TV and radio as much as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread