It was only a matter of time, really
Once you let the left control the language, they will turn it into a tool of tyranny, because — as I’ve show repeatedly over the years — the very foundations of their ideology inevitably and inexorably move that way, and identity politics is one of the driving forces of just such a move, subsuming the individual into a politicized collective that they either must join, or else risk losing any political power.
Which is why you now have people like Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem of the Woman’s Media Center ostensibly crying out for a First Amendment protections not to have to hear certain kinds of speech on the public airwaves. That is, a call for silencing controversial or unpopular speech — precisely what the First Amendment was intended to protect — under the auspices of enforcing “tolerance” and beating back “dehumanizing speech” by a group ostensibly acting as media defenders:
That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel’s Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh’s program, has defended his recent comments.
If Clear Channel won’t clean up its airways, then surely it’s time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh’s show in fact using their licenses “in the public interest?”
Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.
The FCC takes such complaints into consideration when stations file for license renewal. For local listeners near a station that carries Limbaugh’s show, there is plenty of evidence to bring to the FCC that their station isn’t carrying out its public interest obligation. Complaints can be registered under the broadcast category of the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
This isn’t political. While we disagree with Limbaugh’s politics, what’s at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he’s really “doing humor” or “entertainment.” He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airways.
It’s time for the public to take back our broadcast resources. Limbaugh has had decades to fix his show. Now it’s up to us.
Yes, it is.
If we work to vote ourselves the recall of our own fundamental rights, we’ll have gotten precisely what we deserve.
The leftists are all in: they’ve decided to use this “woman’s issue” to elevate the chilling of speech into a litmus test on whether or not one wishes to “dehumanize women.” This, coming from a Party that embraced the vile and vicious takedown of Sarah Palin, and defended until the end the behavior of Bill Clinton and the Kennedy clan. Not only is this political — but everything the left does is political. That’s the natural offshoot of embracing an ideology in which “the personal is the political”: you don’t get to then pretend that an identity politics campaign ostensibly on behalf of women (but never on behalf of those women who would disagree entirely with your attempts to speak for them) isn’t political.
This is no more than a re-igniting of the PC wars that brought these women power in the first place. A cold war that we’ve kept alive solely for our cowardice in fighting it.
Of course, should I point out that this kind of attack on speech is a natural escalation, on the part of the political left, for their having been allowed to set the parameters for what comes to count as acceptable speech in the first place — and again, our own self-righteous “pragmatic” right has routinely enabled progressives with its willingness to accept the left’s premises and call for conservatives to work within the narrow confines we’re granted (lest we say something provocative and scare off the “moderates” and “independents”) by the left itself — I’ll be called “fundamentally unserious.” And I certainly don’t want that to happen again.
Because really, freedom and liberty is protected not by the kernel assumptions of the ideology we permit to permeate our institutions and thereby rule us, but rather by having the most number or Rs elected at any given time.
I know this, because I read blogs.
(h/t Mike at Cold Fury)