I'll Say It Again And Keep Saying It: Hannity and Limbaugh Should Be Prosecuted

[Solomon]

Enemies of the people.

They rant 24 hours a day. Radio and TV with their hate-fest. Helped lie us into a war in which millions have been murdered and displaced. Fomenting civil unrest in America.

Weren't there propagandists prosecuted after World War II?

[leftofcool]

1. We should shut down all speech we do not agree with?

Throw what is left of the Constitution out the window

[Solomon]

4. Nothing to do with throwing out the Constitution.

They get a fair goddamn trial.

[onenote]

9. so you don't mind restricting speech so long as there is a fair trial?

Pass laws saying people can't criticize the government and then give them a "fair trial" and you're good with that?

Not me.

[Viking12]

12. Disturbing isn't it?

Under the OP's standards, half of DU would be facing trial right now.

[damonm]

23. So sorry, but

every word from your mouth throws out the Constitution.

You REALLY wanna be like the freepers? You're off to a good start...:scared:

[Festivito]

65. Only one speech is not free speech.

Many radio listeners have only the one voice, the RW voice on the radio stations they can hear. They are Americans and they are not free to hear an opposing idea. On the internet we are free to go to another site, but with only their radio, they are not free.

It's not just and America is established on justice. When an American's right to free speech is thwarted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, we are duty bound to our first establishment to stop that.

Rush's right does not trump the right of any other American.

[Ian David]

2. Nazis in Germany were executed who never personally killed anyone by their own hand. n/t

[MarkInCA]

3. Not a chance in Hell that will happen n/t

[Alhena]

5. I think a lot of independents are tired of their hatred

[Viking12]

6. You can say it as often as you like but it's just as stupid every time you say it.

jeebus people, just because the RW trampled on the Constitution doesn't mean we should join in.

[Karenina]

10. Once you face your own Rwanda

a condition that may visit you soon, you will no longer have such a taste for speech that is clearly incitement.

[Viking12]

11. WTF?

my own Rawanda? WTF are you talking about?

[boppers]

20. In Ruwanda, the talk-shows were ongoing incitement.

While the talk show hosts there weren't doing the actual killing, they were regularly driving the message.

It's the tough constitutional question of protecting speech that in itself is borderline, or actually, criminal.

One recent example: An organization had a "Hit List" on an internet website. As people were murdered, their names were struck through. It was ruled as non-protected speech, because it crossed the boundary between political speech into actual incitement of violence.

[Karenina]

47. Thank you, boppers.

[Viking12]

49. Jeez, as bad as Hannity and Limblow are, they don't even come close to that

If you have to go to such extremes to make your case, you obviously don't have a leg to stand on.

[genna]

7. WAY OVER THE TOP!!! Limbaugh and Hannity BUG me but

executing them as war criminals?


NO.

[mtnsnake]

60. Solomon didn't say they should be executed

He said they should be prosecuted. Slight difference.

[11 Bravo]

8. Being something of a free speech advocate, I disagree with you.

[Peacetrain]

13. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences for acts

caused by that speech.. You can say anything you want to as long as it does not cause harm.. yelling fire in a crowded theater example.

What has happened with the Rushs and Hannitys of the world is that they do spew hate 24/7 with no real exposure from the press for their hate and lies.

Then you get the secessionists and racists theocrats etc who listen to the drivel with no opposing view and begin to think they have a majority opinion in the populace. That leads those few crazy people and they are nut to think they can do things like this and will be thought of as heroes.

The real culprits has been the press who embrace these people, the Hannitys' the Rushs' seeking out their opinions on TV news as if they were legitimate...and the people who sponsor them.

I know more than a few people who listen to that garbage because they just like to listen to people rant. The same as the Jerry Springer people.. well you listen to that for entertainment, then I would see them as a culprit too'

Just my opinion

[tblue37]

41. Brokaw says he listens to Rush every day. Rush is honored at the WH as a

"great American." Rush's hate speech is broadcast over Aremd Forces Radio, with no balance from the left or even from the center.

Their power over the public message is frightening.

[Rocknrule]

14. Prosecuted, no. Bankrupted by a civil lawsuit, yes.

[walldude]

15. Prosecuted? More like laughed out of town...

They have every right to spew their particular brand of bile. They are not "enemies of the people" that would require brains. Just laugh them off, or ignore them. I have found that the only thing in my life that has changed since I stopped listening and watching the water carriers is that I'm much less stressed out. The bile they spew has no effect on my life, they reach only the people who will never change their minds anyway so their entire existence is basically pointless. Why waste time worrying about them.

[Canuckistanian]

67. Prosecuting them would make things worse

Their "followers" would be whipped up into a frenzy and the RWer radio hosts would become martyrs for "the cause".

I'd much rather see them become marginalized by their own ridiculousness and abandoned by their sponsors.

[lelgt60]

16. Whatever reasoning you apply to do this will likely backfire on you...

Imagine Hannity were convicted for inciting crimes, and the inevitable constitutional challenges were held up.

Because the legal system rests on precedent, we would see all sorts of successful lawsuits and prosecutions for incitement: movies, video games, other speech.

You'd better hope that people who back you and your opinions stay in power, or the guillotine will soon fall on you and yours.

Good luck with your new system.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

18. Oh, I thought you said "Prostituted" /nt

[sufrommich]

19. Good Lord, how stupid.

Who gets to decide who qualifies as an "enemy of the people"? Freedom of speech means people who really piss you off get to do so without getting killed.
You sound like a freeper.

[IsItJustMe]

21. I understand where you are coming from. These two are among the most vile hate filled people

that exist in this country and there is no doubt in my mind that their propaganda does indeed incite hatred and division in this country. It may even promote violence.

But you are working from your emotions and not your brain. If we go after them on a legal basis, then freedom of speech becomes dead in America. We will have to find other means (i.e. boycotts,
shame. demonstrations) in order to deal with them.

I completely understand your gut reaction to them though, because that sick feeling, way down in the pit of your stomach, hits me also any time I hear them.

They are beyond despicable.

On edit: Don't let some of these radical reply's with regards to your post get you down. Some of these poster's act like god in their self righteous indignation, but they are not.

[Oak2004]

39. I think, in light of what is known about the power of propaganda

that it is time to revisit the legal limits on speech, with some very carefully tailored civil liability for using the airwaves to deliberately spread lies and distortions with intent to incite hate or violence.

It would be nice to believe in an absolute freedom of speech, or that words themselves are not dangerous. But in fact there is no unlimited right to say anything you want to at any time, anywhere -- there never has been that "right".

And we know now, from research, that the human brain is vulnerable to propaganda. Propaganda has the potential to circumvent a subject's reasoning and get them to comply with the propagandist's wishes-- as potent an involuntary behavior changer as if it were blackmail.

It's true that the effects of propaganda can be neutralized by sufficient exposure to competing ideas -- but the reality of broadcast media is that -- unlike, say, an internet discussion board -- for the duration of the broadcast there are no competing ideas. One hour's worth of undiluted propaganda is long enough to manipulate a whole lot of audience. Television in particular is a potentially dangerous media.

So I think it should be illegal to do what the Limbaughs and Hannities of this world do. It isn't, however, illegal now.

[IsItJustMe]

44. I understand your argument. We have to keep in mind though, that ever thing in life is a two edge

sword.

If you go down that path, it is slippery one. Does that mean that we should not go there? Probably not.

You are absolutely correct about the corrosive effects of propaganda in our msm. It is easilty observed.

I consider myself to be a very independent and free thinker and yet I find myself getting caught up in bogus argument and buying into bull shit.

I just don't know how you could go about this without obliterating our entire system.

[Laelth]

73. What a kind and reasonable response. I just wanted to acknowledge it.

We value the freedom of speech highly in the U.S. In fact, people from other liberal, industrialized nations that I have met often don't understand why we tolerate so much dangerous and hateful speech here in the U.S. I invite us all to see our first amendment as a uniquely American strength and weakness. I consider myself a strong supporter of the 1st Amendment, but I'd also like to see the Supreme Court reverse its decision that money equals speech.

As with our second amendment, our first amendment comes with its own heavy penalty. We have to put up with the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, and other demagogues.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[frickaline]

22. Can't they be sued for slander or defamation of character?

I'm no lawyer but it seems like they often stray into character attacks that cannot be backed up with evidence. Isn't this illegal to do? How do they squirm out of this?

[onenote]

25. unlikely

the constitutional standard for pursuing a defamation claim against someone is very high where that person is a "public figure" or public official. And almost anyone that they slam would fall into that category.

[frickaline]

27. Ah, no wonder.

I was wondering how they always weasel out of that. Thanks for the response.

[damonm]

24. And, being a 1st Amendment absolutist,

I will oppose you with every breath.

[crazy_vanilla]

26. how 'bout dropped off at a desert island .... together nt

[Juche]

28. I don't agree

I do think we need a fairness doctrine and at the end of every show Hannity and Limbaugh should be forced to correct everything they said on the previous show that was false. I listen to Hannity sometimes and within a minute I usually catch him either lying or distorting the facts numerous times. he should be forced to admit when he is lying and show how he is lying. But I don't want him off the air.

[political_Dem]

29. A couple of questions.

I agree that we should not work against First Amendment Rights. I sympathize with the anger expressed at RW Talk shows. But, if Rush or Hannity's right to speak gets suppressed, then our right to speak gets suppressed.

So, I have two questions:

1)What has Rush or Hannity been found guilty of in terms of violating the law? Can any of those things be used to force law enforcement to go after them?

2)Has there ever been a large movement to boycott Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Are there organizations calling for people to not buy what is advertised on their shows? After all, money talks--especially in this economy. Don Imus was fired because the advertisers wouldn't support him. The same could happen if people refuse to support the advertisers that will publicize Rush or Hannity's show.

[boppers]

30. Propagandists were prosucted...

..but, for the most part, were eventually released.

It's a *really* high bar in the US, for good reason (our founding fathers were basically propagandists against the King).

[Leftist Agitator]

31. If they advocate violence against Dems / liberals...

Then there is precedent for trying them for war crimes.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines

These radio propagandists were brought before an International War Crimes Tribunal for their role in perpetrating genocide against Tutsis.

As soon as Rush and Insannity cross that line, they should be subject to the same treatment.

[OneGrassRoot]

32. They need to be exposed as the entertainers they ARE, not news sources....

I was reading Neal Boortz's book -- I know, I know...I humored a RW relative and was thumbing through, when a particular passage caught my eye. This guy is a radio shock jock, just like Limbaugh and Hannity, and people need to be reminded that it is their JOB (in their eyes) to stir up shit. Period.

His book, "Somebody's Gotta Say It" says:

A couple of times a week, I tell my listeners, in almost these exact words, "Do not believe everything you hear on this radio program. In fact, do not believe ANYthing you hear on this radio program, either from the callers or me, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or you have taken the time to research that issue for yourself. Because, I'll flat-out lie to you to make the show interesting.... I lie to get a rise out of the audience. And sure, it's fun."



THAT'S WHEN I SHUT THE BOOK. I don't want to read fiction right now, especially not hate-filled fiction.


PEOPLE MISTAKENLY FOLLOW THESE PEOPLE LIKE SHEEP, THINKING THEY ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE IN SOME WAY. ALL THEY ARE DOING IS MAKING MONEY OFF OF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES...BY STIRRING SHIT.

They need to be made irrelevant. That's all. :)

[The River]

33. Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech

Just as you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater
you can't use hate speech to incite people to violence.
If he wants to go stand on a street corner and say whatever...fine.
That's free speech as the founders knew it.
But, the radio and television airwaves belong to the people. The people
should have a say when it comes to broadcasting hateful divisive speech over their airwaves.
Maybe it will take a crazed freeper or 2 committing violence and
then testifying in court that they did it because rush or hannity told them
that all liberal are evil traitors.

[lelgt60]

36. Agree, but who decides?

Yelling fire in a crowded room has immediate, clear consequences, with specific victims tied to a specific act.

Even if you got a conviction based on the fact that someone took action based on Hannity's hate speech, I can virtually guarantee you that that that precedent will be used against you in the future. You do not want to do this.

Same with the fairness doctrine - who decides?

The best thing is to reinstate laws that prevent ownership of multiple stations by single individuals or corporations

[lelgt60]

38. How to decide if your ideas represent Democratic ideals or Rethug...

If you want to use existing laws or pass new laws to EXPAND free speech or access to the airwaves, then you are espousing Democratic ideals.

If you want to use existing laws or pass new laws to LIMIT free speech or access to the airwaves, then you are espousing Republican ideals.

[The River]

46. I Agree When You Say

"The best thing is to reinstate laws that prevent ownership of multiple stations by single individuals or corporations" but there are some fairly obvious examples of hate speech out there that any sane person would agree on.
Calling for acts of violence should get you banned from the airwaves. Remember ann coulter calling for the poisoning of a SC Judge or wishing Tim McV had blown up the NY Times building instead?

The most effective thing We can do is launch a nationwide boycott of all his advertisers.
Keep it going until no sponsor wants to fund the divisive sh*t they spew.
You can't can sh*t, label it as food and sell it in stores. Why do we put up
with the same thing coming over the air-waves labeled as news? Both are poisonous to humans.
America is tired of their crap. The time is right.
If we can elect "That One", we can get rid of a few psychotic media demagogues.
Yes WE Can.

[lelgt60]

50. yes...some good ideas..also, as far as Ann Coulter...

I tend to be one of those absolutist free speech/free press types.

However, perhaps you and others have some point when it comes to specific statements made by specific individuals being criminal. I'm being swayed a little.

My gut anti reaction was to the general "go after Hannity" type of stuff. But identify specific hate/incitement things...maybe.

Boycotts: As American as apple pie.

[The River]

59. I Lost A Sister

to the dark side. She has a rural postal route
with nothing but AM radio for company. Years of
listening to Rush turned her into a bitter hate
filled person.
Limpbaugh is like cigarette smoke. Seems enjoyable,
harmless is small doses. Long term cumulative effect = cancer
of the brain.

[casus belli]

34. Education is the best counter to their persistent message...

anything that attempts to restrict them in exercising their free speech is unacceptable.

I hate the message as much as you do. But, we have to be careful about deciding what is acceptable speech and what is not. once we go down that path, we could just as easily find our own sources subject to similar attacks.

If no one is listening to the message, they won't have an audience.

That said, there are more efficient ways to affect their message. Boycotting advertisers, organizing against their message is all an acceptable form of countering their message, and would probably be more effective than an assault on the constitution. If advertisers see that they are being associated with messages that offend, there is a good chance that they will pull those advertising dollars or request that their ads not appear on the time slots in question.

[blueclown]

35. Not a good idea.

However, the Fairness Doctrine is a very good idea.

It should be one of the first priorities of the Democratic Congress in 2009.

[TexasObserver]

37. Fox News should be required to file like any other 527.

[styersc]

40. You are so very wrong. They are powerless and will be our best

allies. the polls indicate that the country has turned its back on the propagandists on the right. Laura Ingrahm, Michael Svage, Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, hannity, Rush etc. The country sees through their stupidity and shallow drivel.

As Obama starts a serious administration, these geeks will be left on the ashe heap of history. Let them blather and enjoy their demise.

[Zavulon]

42. I'll say it and say it again: Hannity and Limbaugh should keep on ranting.

First of all, it lets us know what they're all about, and it doesn't hurt us to have these gasbags turning off undecided voters. Second, I would never agree with muzzling free speech. Unless you can prove they've broken laws, posts like yours are not helpful and make it look like we want to simply silence all who don't agree with us.

I rarely listen to either, but when I do I mostly I hear misguided bullshit from them. I have never heard "hate" from either. Can you give me examples? Please keep in mind that I personally don't think being against illegal immigration is "hate," because I'm against it myself.

[OneGrassRoot]

51. I suppose the word "hate" is subjective, but when they repeatedly...

equate the words "liberals" and "democrats" with being unpatriotic, troop-hating, insert epithet-of-the-day here, that isn't spreading love and light, nor truth and wisdom.

They are definitely there to stir the pot. That is their role, but they get pretty inflammatory with it.

I don't think they should be censored, but I do hope they become irrelevant.

[Zavulon]

56. That's no different than

us calling them "haters" when they don't agree with us. Calling us unpatriotic is stupid, but those who are so close-minded to take their word for it won't bother examining the issues anyway.

To be fair to them, as tough as it is, Michael Moore is inflammatory, too. Since I'm not much of a fan of Moore and think he is capable of turning off undecideds as well, I often wonder what those conservatives who don't go for inflammatory bullshit think of their side's radio "heroes."

I once heard Limbaugh say something like how he hopes there are always liberals around, so that we can always remember what they represent. I hope the same thing for the Limbaughs of the world. I certainly hope his audience declines, but I never want those assholes to completely go away. We'll always need examples of the alternative.

[OneGrassRoot]

62. "I certainly hope his audience declines..."

but I never want those assholes to completely go away. We'll always need examples of the alternative."


Well said. :)

[rasputin1952]

43. Just an aside here for just a second, as this happened in NYC

in 1967.

My friend Danny, who is Jewish, and I, (I am not Jewish), were enjoying a parade on 5th Ave at Central Park, about 65th street. There were a bunch of neo-nazi's armbands, flags, brown shirts, black pants, the whole regalia. Anyway, the "leader" had a bullhorn and was going on about "Jews and blacks were demons"...the usual stuff.

There was a little old lady next to me, on her arm I could see the tattoo that identified her as a Holocaust Survivor. This woman had seen the hatred, the murder, the horror...somehow, she survived it and emigrated with many other survivors to NYC. She was calm, she was just standing there watching and listening.

I could not help myself and I asked her, "Ma'am, how can you listen to this garbage?" She looked up at me and said, "It is always best to know your enemies". After a bit, she slowly walked North, probably either to her home or to a market.

just a few minutes later, maybe 2-3, there were some Scot's, kilts, bagpipes and all, in the parade. The "leader" made his first tactical error. Pointing his bullhorn at the Scot's, he howled out..."And then we'll get you skirt wearing faggots!"

The next scene is one where you wish you had a camera, as the Scot's broke ranks, ran over to the nazi's and the fight was on. Bagpipes and people rolling around in the street, Scot's and nazi's in a brawl to remember. The nazi's were vanquished almost immediately, but it seemed to go on for quite some time, it was incredible.

The police did nothing, sort of like they all took off for coffee about 10 seconds before the brawl began, until they suddenly showed up, as if by magic, and pulled the nazi's from the street and the park. Scot's 1/nazi's zero.

Free Speech is an inherent Right in this country, but it never pays to cross the line. One may not have legal recourse, but there can be ramifications if you step over the line. These guys stepped over the line.

I still wonder if that little old lady was smiling as she walked up the Avenue, somehow knowing that others were vigilant as well.

[stillcool]

45. I don't know why people think that hate speech..

should be protected, while 'we the people' are shuffled into 'free speech zones'. Free speech isn't free..it costs a ton of money

Julius Streicher
It may be that Streicher is less directly involved in the physical commission of the crimes against Jews than some of his coconspirators. The submission of the Prosecution is that his crime is no less worse for that reason. No government in the world, before the Nazis came to power, could have embarked upon and it; into effect a policy of mass Jewish extermination in the way in which they did, without having a people who would back them and support them, and without having a large number of people who were prepared to carry out the murder themselves. (See Chapter XII on Persecution of the Jews.)

It was to the task of educating and poisoning the people with hate, and of producing murderers, that Streicher set himself. For 25 years he continued unrelentingly the perversion of the people and youth of Germany. He went on and on, as he saw the results of his work bearing fruit.

In the early days he was preaching persecution. As persecution took place he preached extermination and annihilation and, as millions of Jews were exterminated and annihilated, in the Ghettos of the East, he cried out for more and more.

The crime of Streicher is that he made these crimes possible, which they would never have been had it not been for him and for those like him. Without Streicher and his propaganda, the Kaltenbrunners, the Himmlers, the General Stroops would have had nobody to do their

In its extent Streicher's crime is probably greater and more far-reaching than that of any of the other defendants. The misery which they caused ceased with their capture. The effects of this man's crime, of the poison that he has put into the minds of millions of young boys and girls goes on, for he concentrated upon the youth and childhood of Germany. He leaves behind him a legacy of almost a whole people poisoned with hate, sadism, and murder, and perverted by him. That people remain a problem and perhaps a menace to the rest of civilization for generations to come.

[walldude]

48. It's not that it needs to be "protected" what it needs is to be defined.

Have you noticed the Republicans have been talking about liberal "hate speech"? What you and I define as hate speech may not be the same as what others define it as. Then we get to the problem of who is the one who decides what "hate speech" is. It sucks but it is a slippery slope.

[stillcool]

57. I think the real problem is..

the lack of a 'free' press, and the lack of information. If there were more competition there would be more voices and the megaphone would not belong to so few.

[Forkboy]

55. One being wrong doesn't make the other right.

[MrMickeysMom]

52. You know, I was reading in Thom Hartmann's "Screwed" just yesterday...

how this shit began...

" Regan put forward the point of view of the wealth elite, who felt that they were paying large sums of the vast wealth to help "the little people" have good schools and communities that worked. He changed laws like the Fairness Doctrine, in 1986, so that sycophants like Rush Limbaugh could appear on the public airwaves (with heavy corporate funding) to help convince the "average person" that taxes were bad and government was bad."

Before you know it, you've got little wanta be's like Hannity and it gets more twisted as the hate oozes out from their "information". What we need is a change of the Fairness Doctrine.

[Forkboy]

53. I seriously hope you step back and consider the highly slippery slope you're advocating here.

This is FAR from any kind of liberal and democratic position you're adopting. It's quite the opposite.

[trekbiker]

54. I'm for free speech. But when it comes to the public airwaves

BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Murdoch and his ilk have far too much power. break em up!!!!!!!

[FUCK_BUSH]

58. I have been saying it for years. Basically They are NAZI FASCIST.Nothing More.

and god forbid if any thing happen to Obama , they are responsible for it and they should be prosecuted.

I hope they burn in HELL .

[Mutley]

61. Mmm, bad idea.

That's a road none of us wants to take. Prosecuting people for speaking their minds? I don't know about you, but that's not what I'm fighting for.

[Faryn Balyncd]

63. You sound like MICHAEL SAVAGE...Immitating fascists is not the way to beat them.....

[tritsofme]

64. I'll leave laws like that to Hugo Chavezes of the world.

But I'll thank you kindly to leave our Constitution alone.

[HamdenRice]

66. There may be grounds for prosecuting these people

It seems to me that many of the people who responded to you on free speech grounds seem not to realize that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment -- the screaming of fire in a crowded theater being only the most cliche example.

I think that what we will find after Obama takes office and we have real investigations is that the right wing media violated laws that forbid the expenditure of federal money on propoganda within the US. This is a barely concealed scandal which should land some of these pundits as well as Karl Rove in prison.

We've already seen disclosure of some of the small fish being on the federal payroll -- like Armstrong Williams.

But the bigger scandal was systemic and systematic -- the fact that talking points were developed in the Rove White House on the federal dime, then faxed or emailed to Fox News and Rush, and disseminated as partisan propaganda.

These bloviators have a right to their opinions, but they do not have a right to criminally disseminate partisan propaganda.

[mmonk]

68. There are millions that believe the hate and lies they spew.

While I'm for free speech, free speech in the Constitution was intended for people to air their grievances to and about the government. Since these sources pretend to connected to real news, I think public service disclaimers should be attached to their words for the millions too stupid to realize it's partisan political rhetoric rather than news or truthful reporting.

[AZSlacker]

69. Slippery, slippery, slippery slope. One mans Limbaugh or Hannity

Is anothers Olberman, Stewart, or Colbert.

I detest what they have to say and disagree with them in the strongest terms, but I don't think criminal prosecution is the answer. When politicians start getting assassinated or harmed and cite their shows as motivation, I'll revisit my position. But as a general rule, I'm against preemptive actions.

[Beacool]

70. Ever heard of freedom of speech?

They are not forcing anyone to tune in to their programs, it's a choice.

Ever lived in a country where there is no freedom of the press? Try it, you won't like it.

[Richardo]

71. Ranting is not against the law

Thankfully.

[matchstick]

72. they are cult leaders, and a dangerous one! look at the palin rallies!