Feminist icons Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda are demanding that the FCC ban Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves.
In an op-ed for CCN, Steinem and Fonda wrote the following:
“Limbaugh doesn’t just call people names,” they write. “He promotes language that deliberately dehumanizes his targets. Like the sophisticated propagandist Josef Goebbels, he creates rhetorical frames — and the bigger the lie the more effective — inciting listeners to view people they disagree with as sub-humans. His longtime favorite term for women, “femi-nazi,” doesn’t even raise eyebrows anymore, an example of how rhetoric spreads when unchallenged by coarsened cultural norms.”
They also reportedly wrote:
“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.”
I don’t like everything Rush Limbaugh says. I don’t think anybody does. However, I’ve never heard Limbaugh advocate concentration camps.
Goebbels and other supporters of Adolf Hitler did. Isn’t it denigrating those who died at the hands of the Nazis to equate someone who doesn’t approve of ObamaCare, tax increases and subsidies to auto companies with Adolf Hitler?
Actually, the Nazis were national socialists. That’s what “Nazi” stands for: National Socialism. Hitler’s socialists might disagree with Fonda and Steinem on racism and sexism, but they sure did have a lot in common when it came to government control and ownership of the economy.
But even if Limbaugh were advocating Hitler’s sick and twisted ideas, what does that have to do with freedom of speech? You either live in a free society, or you don’t. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights do not promise a free society, so long as you don’t insult feminists or other left-wing icons and call them names.
Steinem and Fonda want Limbaugh’s show taken off the air by the FCC because, they say, he promotes hate speech. This should leave little doubt about the actual purpose of laws designed to restrict hate speech.
“If I hate what you say, it should be against the law to say it.” To regulate speech is to regulate thought. Fonda and Steinem are speaking for a lot of liberals, and probably Barack Obama himself, when they say it’s time to “do something” about the ideas and opinions of those with whom they disagree. In America? Really?
The last time I checked, liberals like Steinem and Fonda hate a lot of things. They hate tax cuts. They hate capitalism. They hate economic freedom. They hate any politician or spokesman who even claims to speak for these things. They express this hate in all of their public words and opinions. I disagree with nearly everything they have to say on these subjects. I’m sure Rush Limbaugh does too. I certainly don’t want them to lose their right to express their views, on their own nickel and on their own property. I doubt that Rush Limbaugh does, either. But liberals like Steinem and Fonda sure want the FCC to stop Limbaugh from speaking.
It’s taken as self-evident that hate speech is not only immoral, but properly illegal. “Hate speech” consists of hatred of whatever liberals like Steinem and Fonda cherish. Therefore, attacks on what they hold dear should be illegal, they claim. Gee, this sounds a lot like totalitarian dictatorship to me.
This isn’t about Rush Limbaugh, and these feminist advocates of censorship know it. I do know one thing. I support freedom of speech. I don’t want the FCC to be restricting anyone’s free speech, and I don’t even think there should be a “complaint” department at the FCC where they can consider the sentiments of people who don’t speak for the so-called public interest. The public interest applied to speech? What the hell is that!? If you don’t like what Limbaugh is saying — turn him off! Don’t listen to him. That’s what I do to people like Steinem and Fonda, whenever they speak. The only reason I’m listening to them now is that they’re actually proposing restricting free speech. And, to my horror, nobody seems outraged. Isn’t this how we got Nazi Germany?
Imagine if a conservative, a libertarian or an Objectivist — i.e., anyone who’s not a liberal — issued a public call to complain to the FCC about the statements of Michael Moore, or George Soros, or Oprah Winfrey. If someone as prominent as Jane Fonda did this from the right, the resulting media storm would be enough to provide Iran with the nuclear power it desires to blow up Western civilization. In fact, such a proposal on the part of a non-liberal in opposition to a liberal would itself be considered a form of hate speech. At a minimum, lawsuits would ensue. There’s an absurd double standard in our society as it is, in favor of liberals, but even this double standard is no longer enough for liberals. They now feel compelled to outlaw dissension completely.
The thing that Fonda and Steinem seem to resent the most is Limbaugh’s use of the term “femi-nazi” to describe career and classic feminists such as themselves. But aren’t they proving his point by advocating government censorship of his views? Are they so thin-skinned, and so lacking confidence in the truth and integrity of their opinions, that they must use the force of Big Government to shut up those who dare to question them? I thought feminism was supposed to teach that women can be just as rational as men. It’s not reason that these feminists are advocating. It’s the use of force, intimidation and suffocation of those with whom they disagree. They seek to follow in the footsteps of the dictatorial men, like Hitler and Stalin, they otherwise so claim to oppose.
And it’s our own American government, the FCC itself, that they seek to use as their weapon.
If Rush Limbaugh gets censored by the FCC, then shouldn’t liberals get censored as well? Hate is hate. And dissent is dissent. The Constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech for some points of view, and restrictions for others.