Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 Limbaugh goes too far; some sponsors bailing
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2558 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2012 :  14:41:56  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Or at least they're starting to.

I don't know if this quote is too long for copyright's sake, but I really don't think that the writer of the original article will mind one damned bit.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh referred to a very bright, very brave young woman speaking out on the medical need for birth control a slut. According to Limbaugh, "What does it say about a woman who is paid to have sex?

Not only is he a disgusting woman-hater, he doesn't even know what he's talking about, likely because he didn't listen to the young law student's (Sandra Fluke's) testimony, about her friend denied access to birth control pills prescribed for a medical condition, an ovarian cyst, got very ill and eventually lost that ovary as a result.



But today, far from apologizing for his crude, hurtful, ignorant slurs, he (unbelievably) doubled down. This may be one of the most heinous things I've ever heard on this Nation's Public airways. Limbaugh said the following:

So Miss Fluke and the rest of you Feminazis, Here's the deal, and I'll tell you what it is: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex,we want you to post the videos so we can all watch.


You can read that first link to see that some advertisers are finally starting to deal with that guy.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.

Edited by - the_ignored on 03/03/2012 14:44:14

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2012 :  20:07:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Seems that sooner or later the most concentrated acid of hatred inside many of these bigots leaks out and begins to burn a smoking hole in the floor for all to see.

Until now, Limbaugh's been a horrible right wing demagogue, but has managed to keep his most vicious vitriol contained for commercial reasons. Now he's just spewing hatred without any imaginable rhyme, reason, or basis in fact. Maybe he's becoming outright psychotic.

I hope the loss of sponsors continues, and that this is the beginning of the end for Limbaugh reign of error. And I hope the woman sues his ass off for slander.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

podcat
Skeptic Friend

435 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2012 :  01:33:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send podcat a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Under Rush's definition of a prostitute, Keith Olbermann has an interesting question to ponder.


If you hadn't noticed in the clip, the music at the beginning was an excerpt from Peter Gabriel's "Sledghammer". It's all well and good to ask sponsors if they want to be associated with Rush, but I'm wondering if musicians like Gabriel want to be associated with Rush, themselves. I have sent an email to Peter Gabriel asking him to consider not allowing Rush to air Gabriel's music on the program. If you're interested in joining me, the contact form for Peter Gabriel's website is here.

“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.

-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2012 :  03:42:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by podcat
I have sent an email to Peter Gabriel asking him to consider not allowing Rush to air Gabriel's music on the program. If you're interested in joining me, the contact form for Peter Gabriel's website is here.
Can he do that? Denying Rush to play his songs, I mean...

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2012 :  04:06:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Originally posted by podcat
I have sent an email to Peter Gabriel asking him to consider not allowing Rush to air Gabriel's music on the program. If you're interested in joining me, the contact form for Peter Gabriel's website is here.
Can he do that? Denying Rush to play his songs, I mean...

I suspect he can't stop anyone from playing his music. so long as royalties are paid. But he can still publicly demand Limbaugh stop, even without any legal power behind the demand.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2012 :  10:09:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Originally posted by podcat
I have sent an email to Peter Gabriel asking him to consider not allowing Rush to air Gabriel's music on the program. If you're interested in joining me, the contact form for Peter Gabriel's website is here.
Can he do that? Denying Rush to play his songs, I mean...

I suspect he can't stop anyone from playing his music. so long as royalties are paid. But he can still publicly demand Limbaugh stop, even without any legal power behind the demand.
It's up to the artist/publisher. There is not set limit on how many bars or notes constitutes fair use. So if the artist or publisher are against its use, its litigable. In most cases, a small sampling is usually not fought over and is considered permissible.

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.

Bolding is mine.

Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2012 :  19:07:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Kil, they way license works is usually through a license agent (ASCAP, BMI, etc.). As long as EIB has paid their dues (likely) they are likely fully licensed and so not much anyone could do. There are few artists who retain full rights. I'd add that trying to prohibit access would be a way of trying to silence unpopular opinion and limit free speech. I for one an more concerned with the actions of the sponsors than I am with Rush's stupid comment. It is large monied corporations trying to stifle free expression.

I also see Rush's stupid remarks as storm-in-a-teacup. It was not the offense it is being made out to be, it was at best a minor slight from a talk radio jock. Shocking! I am pretty disappointed in Obama for wading in. One would think the leader of the free world would have far too many much more pressing things to deal with than to wade into a minor civil dispute between two equal citizens. It is like the Beer summit all over again. A complete waste of time dog and pony show.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2012 :  23:03:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I dunno Chef. If an artist owns the publishing, which is often the case with bigger acts like Peter Gabriel, and he doesn't like what his property is being used for, I think he has a right to object without infringing on anyones speech. That is, after all, what fair use is about. Now, I don't know if he even cares. But if I wrote something that was being used that way, I would care. And I don't think, because of my ownership of the property, that it's a first amendment issue. Rush can't use my lawnmower and he can't use my song, if you see what I mean. If he wants to, he can write his own freaking song. No impediment to his freedom of speech there. I don't see how I'm obligated to allow him to use my property to protect his freedom of speech.

Do you know why you have never ever heard a Neil Young song in a comercial? It's because he won't allow it.

As for it being a tempest in a teapot, you're probably right. But calling that girl a slut is slander and there are laws about that too. And this wasn't like the beer summit case when Obama spoke too soon and without all the facts. That was a goof on his part. Rush makes a living by attacking Obama. While I agree that the president probably shouldn't have dignified it, I see nothing wrong with people in his administration going after Rush. And calling the one female witness to speak out on a goofy law a slut is way over the line. So sponsors of Rush have pulled out. I don't think that's ever happened to him before. Maybe he'll think next time. Works for me.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2012 :  05:18:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

Kil, they way license works is usually through a license agent (ASCAP, BMI, etc.). As long as EIB has paid their dues (likely) they are likely fully licensed and so not much anyone could do. There are few artists who retain full rights.
At least one artist is trying to use trademark law to prohibit a fully-licensed presidential candidate from using a song. We'll see how that goes.
I'd add that trying to prohibit access would be a way of trying to silence unpopular opinion and limit free speech.
If lending one's voice in support of an issue is an exercise of free speech, then so is pointedly not lending one's voice in support. Someone else undermining that decision is what is limiting of free speech.
I for one an more concerned with the actions of the sponsors than I am with Rush's stupid comment. It is large monied corporations trying to stifle free expression.
It is an exercise of free speech for a corporation to give their money to whatever presidential candidate they like, but it's stifling free speech for a corporation to refuse to continue to give money to a radio personality they don't like?! By that logic, corporations should be forced to put all of their advertising dollars into a public fund which will be used to publicly disseminate every idea anyone's ever had, equally. My free expression is being stifled because large, monied corporations aren't paying to get my unpopular ideas on the radio!

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Fripp
SFN Regular

USA
727 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2012 :  07:10:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Fripp a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I saw yesterday that Rush has formally apologized. My question is whether or not she could still sue him for slander.

"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"

"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?"
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2012 :  07:30:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

Kil, they way license works is usually through a license agent (ASCAP, BMI, etc.). As long as EIB has paid their dues (likely) they are likely fully licensed and so not much anyone could do. There are few artists who retain full rights. I'd add that trying to prohibit access would be a way of trying to silence unpopular opinion and limit free speech. I for one an more concerned with the actions of the sponsors than I am with Rush's stupid comment. It is large monied corporations trying to stifle free expression.

I also see Rush's stupid remarks as storm-in-a-teacup. It was not the offense it is being made out to be, it was at best a minor slight from a talk radio jock. Shocking! I am pretty disappointed in Obama for wading in. One would think the leader of the free world would have far too many much more pressing things to deal with than to wade into a minor civil dispute between two equal citizens. It is like the Beer summit all over again. A complete waste of time dog and pony show.


OK, this just aggrivates me.

It is a misuse of the term "infringing on free expression" when dealing with two private parties. The First Amendment free speech provision only applies to government. Only the government is barred from preventing someone from speaking.

The sponsors cannot be faulted for not wanting to be associated with a drug addled blowhard. Many other people are utilizing their free speech to voice their opposition to what Rush has to say.

As for Gabriel, I am unfamiliar on what the contracts say between Rush's program, EBI, and Peter Gabriel. There may be a provision within the EBI/Peter Gabriel agreement which limits what his music may be used for and that he can designate an individual or company to be excluded.

The government is no where near this dispute. The First Amendment does not apply. I cannot go into a fine dining establishment like the one owned/operated by you, set up a soapbox, and wax psychotic on the judicial process without your permission. You could ask me to leave. If I refused, you could call the police to have me removed.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2012 :  07:46:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Fripp

I saw yesterday that Rush has formally apologized. My question is whether or not she could still sue him for slander.
It was a feeble notpology for the record, one which included his assertion that it was all just a joke. (And fuck you, slut, if you can't take a joke, is the subtext.)

Yes, I think she should sue. Rush never apologizes, to my knowledge, so one may confidently chalk this anomaly up to his loss of $ponsors.

Limbaugh was completely out of line by any standard in making such a definite defamation of someone about whose sexual activities he knew absolutely nothing except the inference that she might be having (or maybe just be considering the potential of having) at least occasional sex with males. And Rush said all this in the most disgusting manner, even demanding tapes of any sex act, as if he were about to masturbate while talking on the air.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2012 :  09:38:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Mooner:
And Rush said all this in the most disgusting manner, even demanding tapes of any sex act, as if he were about to masturbate while talking on the air.

He based that on her giving something back to the taxpayers something for their money used to buy her the contraceptives. The problem with that is it's a big fat lie. Her health insurance is not funded by tax payers. On the other hand, if she were to get pregnant, (something contraception is designed to prevent) and she is underinsured, tax payers would have to foot part of the bill for prenatal care, the birth and postnatal care. At least that's how it is here in California. By law, no government funded agency can use tax dollars to preform an abortion. Planned Parenthood uses donations to pay for that small part of their total service. Other services include mammograms and other important medical procedures for the uninsured woman. And it's a small price to pay, because cancer treatment costs a whole lot more than prevention.

By the way. I like what Colbert said about the current lunacy. "Birth control causes more pregnancies the exact same way fire extinguishers cause more fires."

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2012 :  10:34:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Val:
The First Amendment free speech provision only applies to government.

Great point. The first amendment restricts what government can do. It's not a list of rights. It's a list of restrictions on government. The first amendment reads:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
The amendment was subsequently broadened to cover state governments as well. What it doesn't do is give carte blanche legal protection for a person to say anything they want to anywhere they want to say it. We have had people accuse SFN of censuring their free speech rights by issuing warnings to them and even banning them for trolling. But this is our sandbox, and we make the rules here. They are free to start their own sites if they want to. We can't stop that. So we have in no way restricted their right of speech. Furthermore, slander and libel suits would not exist if speech was protected to the extent that anyone could say anything at all, no matter who it harms.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Fripp
SFN Regular

USA
727 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2012 :  12:51:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Fripp a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Whether or not his apology was "sincere" (I don't think it was... not even close) isn't what i'm questioning. Technically, he "apologized". Does Ms. Fluke still have a case for slander?

BTW, she completely dismissed his feeble apology and is still pushing for sponsors to jump ship, which they are. Now, nine companies have dropped him.

I doubt this will end his career, though. The 4-times-married, "family values" fat slob got caught with his hands in the Oxycontin cookie jar and his single-digit IQ audience STILL remained loyal to the draft-dodger.

"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"

"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?"
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2558 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2012 :  20:11:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Heh. You people are going to love Vox Day's take on this.


On the brighter side, it seems some in the Armed Forces don't care for Rush too much.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 03/05/2012 20:28:11
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 11.2 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000