His word choices were wrong, but his other error was taking a cheap Democrat dog and pony show and giving it real national voice.

I don't listen to Rush, but I also don't listen to Bill Maher, who calls women much worse names (like the "c" word), or David Letterman who has used horrible terms to describe Palin and two of her children, or to the "ladies" of the view who used the "B" word on Sharon Angle while declaring she was going to hell. I prefer to recoil in disgust of ALL the rhetorical lack of civility and live with some consistency in my life that I'm not seeing in many of those hot mad about this.

I am a bit confused about all the hub-bub. Ed Schultz of MSNBC called Laura Ingraham a slut last year&he never apologized, nor did she get a call from POTUS. Bill Maher regularly calls womens sluts, tw**s and c***s; where's the outrage? Oh, that's right he is exercising his freedom of speech. So it only works if you are a leftist. I don't listen to Rush, but he has just as much right to say what he did as Schultz and Maher did when they called women those names. No one put a gun to her head and MADE her enroll at Georgetown. It didn't just turn into a Catholic institution overnight. Say what you will about the surveys showing 98% of all Catholic women have used birth control. It really it doesn't matter,it's Catholic Doctrine& is not up for referendum.The fact remains that using artificial birth control is against Catholic Doctrine. As for Ms. Fluke, don't try to tell me that birth control cost $3,000 for 3 years of law school.As a "reproductive rights activist" as Ms. Fluke herself has said she is, why isn't she procuring her birth control pills at her friendly neighborhood abortion clinic, oh I mean Planned Parenthood. She can get a one month's supply of b.c. pills for $9.00 a month from PP. Maybe she REALLY doesn't want to get pregnant and she takes 4 or 5 pills a day, just to be sure. Otherwise, it's just typical leftist lies.
What's next, the federals telling Muslim schools they need to serve pork at lunch to their students?I doubt it...

oh, I didn't know if I was just kidding I can say anything I want .Next time I call someone a c$@t like Mahr I'll say don't worry about it I'm a comedian.

Finally, somebody has ferreted out the truth: Schultz, Beck, Limbaugh, Stewart, Colbert and Maher are all comedians.

I think they are all a scream. My heart kind of goes out to Limbaugh. He is so ugly that he can only make it as a radio personality. And he has struggled with serial unstable relationships and drug addiction. But such is Hollywood.

The fan magazines say that Beck struggles with depression, but he is a trouper.

Keep laughing, folks.

For a good report on the double standard when it comes to insulting comments, see the story by Kirsten Powers (a liberal Democratic political analyst) at The Daily Beast.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist...he is a talk show host...his job is to give opinion. Maher does far worse when he gives his opinion. Rush is also an entertainer. I hate his choice of discourse but he has the right to say it. Rush also owns his own network empire so who is going to fire him? Why should someone need to get fired because you disagree with him? We give away our rights everyday...free speech as well. I don't listen to Rush because of how he chooses to make his points but I will fight for his right to do it and I will fight the double standard liberal media enjoys in this country.

Fluke is a liberal bait that is going to Georgetown for the purpose of harassing and fighting the health care standards related to birth control, gender reassignment, abortion, etc. She has achieved her purpose now and will slowly fade in to a memory.

Great post, Joan.

Sorry to see so many Rush defenders here. It's a sad day when so many folks equate being Conservative with cheering for Rush's right to utter nonsense. Even when that nonsense includes crude insults of a woman because he disagrees with her politics. Saying "Bill Maher did it too" reminds me of a whiney teenager who excuses his own bad behavior by saying his buddy did it too. It's a lame excuse for a teenaged brat, and it's a lame excuse for Rush. Can't we all learn to express our political disagreements with some common respect?

Keep the pressure on. He will be reduced to selling overpriced gold coins to his gullible minions like the loon Beck.

Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for his toxic waste to be broadcasted on Armed Forces Radio, sign here:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6676/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9841

Boycott Rush:
http://leftaction.com/action/boycott-rush

Here are a few other points to add-

While Rush's supporters are pointing fingers at others who have done "the same thing or worse" there are a few other things to consider:
1) Do any of these "others" do this on a daily, continued and increasingly degrading basis day after day?
2) Are any of these on paid networks such as HBO that do not have sponsors?
3) Are any of these "others" offered over the public airwaves- local/radio and TV?

That last point is probably the most critical. When a program airs over public airwaves it is governed by FCC rules and regulations. These same rules have resulted in fines for "wardrobe malfunctions" at the Super Bowl, failure to block certain words or nudity from live programs, and ensure these local stations work in a way that serves their communities. As Michael J. Copps says in his article The Price of Free Airways"- "America lets radio and TV broadcasters use public airwaves worth more than half a trillion dollars for free. In return, we require that broadcasters serve the public interest: devoting at least some airtime for worthy programs that inform voters, support local arts and culture and educate our children....... Using the public airwaves is a privilege — a lucrative one — not a right" We all have Freedom of Speech but we are not guaranteed a daily radio show on public airwaves to speak our minds.

The public is now speaking by boycotting advertisers and the marketplace will decide Rush's fate.

Spin it any way you want Joan...it's clearly a double standard being applied here. The left once again has sent out it's lock step minions to silence those with whom they disagree. What a scary world we'd have if you folks had your way...and to think how foolish to think if you silence you have some guarantee everyone will eventually buy into liberal insanity. We get it, we understand and no we won't buy into it. Nothing more ironic than those that always scream about their freedoms once again proving they are the least "free". Bottom line and at the end of the day; the taxpayers should not be forced to pay for this woman's lifestyle choices - she can afford to buy her own condoms, either that or shut her legs.

You can tell who the zombie rush supporters are that are filled with women h8. They still don't get that we PAY for health insurance. Evidently they haven't read Fluke's testimony and have no idea that birth control is used for other matters of women's health care. In this case to prevent ovarian cysts. Another reason to boycott rush for disinformation and propaganda. The minions are unable to think, read and learn for themselves. They let rush spoon feed them without looking at a single fact. Women will not be silenced. That's one FACT you can count on.

Speaking of zombies. Let's not pretend this has anything to do with ovarian cysts. We are 15 trillion dollars in debt and there are real women's health issues like breast cancer research, uterine cancers, etc., where these monies would be misappropriated via Obamacare. How many forms of "free" contraception should there be - what happened to Planned Parenthood. Didn't we just go through this whole phoney argument that they were about contraception not abortion...let's send Ms. Fluke over there or is that too hard for her?

Two main issues here - allowing the churches to continue to operate in a consistent manner to their core beliefs and the natzi-like tendencies of the left. That's it in a nutshell.

Joan...we're going in circles. You opened up a thread whereby you have a hard core belief from which you clearly will not waiver, nor did you want or expect open dialogue. Don't waste my time. We know this woman was pretty much planted...she's a long term activist. Of more concern to me is again, the natzi-like tendencies of the left. I never called to have anyone removed from the air, or threaten thier advertisers although there's a list of offensive things I've heard from a series of public figures a few of which have already been mentioned. Silencing those with whom you disagree does not change the minds of others - it only serves to solidify what we already know about the left.

Joan, if you are going to cite numbers or statistics please cite the source. Otherwise there is no validity to the numbers and thus makes your argument . My quick check of CCUSA's website looks like your number is high. And most of that gov money is through partnerships to run programs that the gov has contracted out (ex. housing).

What other drugs are mandated at the fed level to be covered at 100%? Isn’t this a really telling meme of the left’s priorities and their opinion of the true value of women? Her blood pressure, heart arrhythmia medication or chemotherapy can have a co-pay, just as long at she can get free bc pills so she is kept do’able for the fellas while still able to kick at the moon without kicking the bucket.

I can disagree with the article and point out the hypocrisy without defending Rush’s crass words. It should also be noted that this is just a smoke and mirrors manufactured issue to keep the attention off the atrocious state of the union under this failed president. The real issue is this. The federal government has its nose in every aspect of our lives, and they should not! Federal mandates take away liberty and choices.

But naturally, they don't want to talk about things like the economy in this election year.

Glad that Joan does not believe that Rush Limbaugh deserves any public airtime. She gets to her natzi-like stance by weaving this idea of the FCC and that she'd like it to act as an arbiter of what deserves to be allowed on public airwaves. The very idea that'd we'd assign an arm of the government to approve what's appropriate for public discourse and that Joan and others like her think this is OK should alarm all of us. Of further alarm is the fact that they even believe that's a good idea and vote accordingly is equally as disturbing. Yikes is about all I can say.

"Who said it had to be covered 100%??????????"
.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/01/us_free_birth_control/

Joan, CB9678 and bytheC, there may have been outrage when others said inappropriate things about women, but where was YOUR outrage? Why is this different? (or is the answer really as obvious as it seems?)

Phil...count on an answer that makes no sense and in which they spin themselves into the floor trying to twist a way into illustrating how this is so very different.

Nice try at diversion Ms. Joan...care to explain how this is so very different than the long list given of examples from the link of 11:36, Daily Beast, Kirsten Powers (see Phil Dirt). Want to explain how had you been blogging at that time those would have all received a public post by you, but at that time you weren't blogging; it's a timing thing right? Sheer coincidence - you would have been equally as outraged. Take any one of those examples and make a thread out of it...it's never too late. Make it your headline "Bill Maher finally goes over the top" and then tell us why the FCC needs to remove him from the airwaves for our own protection.

Nice try at diversion again...that lady is a liberal democrat who sometimes sits on panels for Fox News. She would be being honest...then again you would not. You want to explain to me how Bill Maher gets to say crude things because he's supposed to be funny while Rush Limbaugh cannot because why? Give me an explanation as to how the two are so different and try to do it without appearing to be an imbecile.

She's a commentator at best, not a journalist! A journalist is someone who collects facts and attempts to provide a non-biased report on a subject. Someone we haven't seen the likes of since probably Cronkite.

I have told you above the difference between local stations that operate on public airway frequencies assigned by the government and cable/satellite providers who do not broadcast over the public airways. Those local stations can ALSO be on cable networks, but cable/satellite stations cannot be broadcast on public airway frequencies.

Bill Maher was already kicked off the public airways back in the early 2000's.

Joan - your none so subtle suggestion that the FCC controls the airwaves and therefore should have the right to limit discourse to what's in the public good. Give me your list of whom you think should be removed from the airwaves? Is it just Rush Limbaugh? Do a minimal amount of research and try to come up with maybe 3 or 4 and tell us why...should be interesting.

Let the record show 4:07...another attempt at diversion.

Joan you clearly know nothing about Kirsten Powers either. She's really not "just a commentator". Why don't you just wiki her bio before you dismiss her analysis. Oh that's right I know why - it's because you don't like her analysis.

From Brent Bozell

A couple of years ago, “comedian” Louis CK “joked” on the Opie and Anthony radio show about Palin coming to the Republican convention “holding a baby that just came out of her f-ing, disgusting [C-word], her f-ing retard-making [C-word]. I hate her more than anybody,” he said.

On Twitter, this “comedian” attacked Palin in 2011 as a “f—ing jackoff [C-word]-face jazzy wondergirl” who “has a family of Chinese poor people living in her [C-word] hole.”

Guess which event this same fellow is headlining in June? -- The Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner.

“We’re very excited about having Louis C.K. at the dinner,” said Jay McMichael of CNN, who chairs the Radio and Television Correspondents Association’s executive committee. “This is an evening you’ll want to experience. We’re shaking things up, showcasing the unexpected, and delivering lots of laughs.”

The Left honors their own pundits as “brilliant” for verbally assaulting women, then circulates petitions calling for advertisers to drop the Limbaugh show because his “anti-woman tirades are appalling.”

To the Left, this is simply an opportunity to put their attacks on religious liberty in a feminist frame, and an opportunity to try and shut down Limbaugh. It is all about censorship and hypocrisy.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/03/05/get-rush-campaign-isnt-about-what-he-said#ixzz1oTOgiB4d

Very concise, much appreciated and certainly the outcome for this "comedian" is of no surprise to me. This whole thing was so clearly orchestrated and designed to provide talking points because Obama's hold on female voters is slipping. The lockstep left falls right in and parrots the same tired lines and could care less about the garganutan hypocrisy in ignoring horrendous comments and personal attacks on conservative women that have been celebrated for years. Are you kidding me? Whether you like Sarah Palin or not is irrelevant to the insane things that have been published about her to smear, disparage, embarrass and couldn't have been anything but an intent to destroy her personally and include her own innocent family in the same smear campaign. Horrible...yes, it's horrible the state of our public discourse, but two play this game and the left has made it their primary tool with the willing shield supplied by the main stream media.

Real conservatives men, like the dashing gentlemen on parade here, would gladly cover the cost of coat hangers.

Real conservative women don't need contraception since spit doesn't make babies.

Real conservative children just take a hike when nobody wants them.

In real conservative relationships the act is just an act anyway--body stockings and body doubles.

lol 1ke..... The Patch regulars are in rare form again on this topic.

Let me clarify "Laugh out loud 1ke...many that post here have again added to the dialogue." Ms. Christine - so I'm to assume you believe that conservatives want women to use coat hangers applies here. Apparently you're grossed out by the idea of coat hangers, but yet Mr. Obama had signed onto extermination of infants who survive abortion. In otherwords, while a state senator last trimester abortions were supported by him to include the death of infants - the legislation in question would have allowed nurses to comfort the aborted infants into death. Are you kidding, are you freaking kidding...

Karl..you should just turn tail and run.....every sentence you peck out on your keyboard just expands your ignorance.....Let me guess....you and old white male?

LOL

Joan running circles around you bubba....time to hit the road. there lil feller.

Joan was your best friend when you were going on and on about feral cats...remember? Anyway, 1ke's comment was meant as sarcasm and yes, compared to your comments, Mr. Schuub it made me chuckle. I am your biggest fan, but I don't recall you speaking out for infants before. When was the last time a woman opened her legs to you and gave you a child? You are a lonely man, Mr. Schuub.

One thing is certain from the responses on this blog is that Rush is one of the most divisive figures in our culture and brings out the worst in some people.

And to think Rush says his "talent" is from God. Anyone else see the disconnect between Rush's words/behavior and God?

You know the blogs in this forum bring out the worst in some people, don't you Joan? Thank you for bringing up this topic anyway. I personally would not refer to God, talent and Limbaugh in the same sentence...there is a disconnect.

So, the bottom line is "You insulted one of us and we're not taking it anymore."

Too bad "us" doesn't mean "all women", but instead "women who agree with our political beliefs." That's pretty sad.

Mzzzz Fluke a slut? Maybe, maybe not. Mzzzz Fluke a political whore? Most definitely.

Otto can dive in now, talking sluts and whores. Hey, wait till you get a load of Otto, my favorite Troglodyte.

Hey, Otto send 'em the child love link you truck out from time to time. I mean, everybody here disagrees with you already. Ad homo-nem, right Otto? Stupid broads. huh? Hunh?

Selective outrage is appalling.

...and after 43 advertisers and counting have jumped ship-

"Meanwhile, a few companies are stepping up to support Limbaugh’s show: SeekingArrangement.com, a company that bills itself “the world’s largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website,” announced its decision to start advertising on Limbaugh’s show late Tuesday, while the CEO of Ashley Madison, an online dating service website, said on CNN Wednesday morning that he is “willing to step into the void left by other advertisers.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73675.html#ixzz1oXNPwtgp

Here's The Woman Rush Limbaugh Is Attacking Today; 'Totally Bizarre,' She Says
"Say you’re a conservative radio host who’s losing advertisers left and right for saying some deeply misinformed and misogynistic things about the lifestyle of a highly-educated single woman, and now you need to change the conversation. How do you do that? If you’re Rush Limbaugh, you do it by attacking a different woman on the basis of her singleness, youth and education.

Limbaugh spent the entire first hour of his program today discussing “The American Way of Eating,” a new book by journalist Tracie McMillan, who logged almost a year working low-paying jobs at Wal-Mart, Applebee’s and other places to learn about the food industry. Despite the backlash he’s faced for branding law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute,” Limbaugh didn’t shy away from the matter of McMillan’s sex. On the contrary, he referred to her as an “authorette” and attempted to tie her to a broader trend of “all these young single white women” who are threatening Americans’ freedoms."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/03/06/heres-the-woman-rush-limbaugh-is-attacking-today-totally-bizarre-she-says/

Look, it's another distraction from the economy!!!

..and Rush tries to spin the advertiser exodus as it's them, the local stations, not us that are losing advertisers and it's just normal business as usual. I guess he doesn't get that those 600 stations PAY for airing his program and if advertisers are not there to support it on the local level, at the individual station, it is a loss for the station to air his program. Yes, that's business as usual and if he thinks stations will continue to pay for a program they can't sell advertising in, he is even stupider than he appears to be.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/07/clearing_up_misinformation_on_our_sponsors

Did you know when Rush says he has 20 million daily listeners that it's a quote from 1993 and was made up?

Last year, Crain's New York Business reported that Rush Limbaugh's ratings were down 33 percent. The portable people meters have been expanding to different markets throughout these years (they didn't just replace all of the diaries instantly in 2007, it's taken a while). So, it's unclear how much Rush was hurt by the more accurate readings last year and how much people just stopped listening to him.
....
But Rush can easily prove me wrong. So, I'm issuing a challenge to him -- show us your ratings. He won't do it because he's embarrassed by them. He has never produced evidence of his ratings and he certainly won't do it now. In fact, I'll make a Mitt Romney like wager. I'll give him $10,000 if he can show us his 20 million listeners.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/rush-limbaugh-ratings_b_1320144.html

The leftist wet dream of driving Rush Limbaugh off the airwaves is just that - a leftist wet dream.

Hey, Karl, that's what everybody said just before Death Valley Days went off the air.

And you-know-who was the host, even. http://bit.ly/xWWejG

And Limberg doesn't even have a head of hair like that...

Joan, Mitt Romney makes that much money between going to bed and getting up in the middle of the night to pee.

This just in- 50 advertisers have walked. And there is now talk of asking the Pentagon to remove the show from AFN.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/03/all-ads-pulled-rush-limbaughs-show/49552/

Gee, Joan, you really should have a name for your column....maybe "H8 for Anyone Who Doesn't Agree with My Leftist Agenda" or "H8 for Republican/Conservatives". Additionally, I guess you haven't heard, Carbonite is taking a hit.

The "merchant of h8" already scrubbing up his website. No amount of scrubbing will every get that nasty man clean.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/03/rush-scrubs-demand-for-fluke-sex-tapes/49643/

What are you going to do when I blog about someone on the left that is just as bad as Rush? What will my hidden "agenda" be then? Mmmmmmmmm..... Actually I'm pretty amazed some people are defending someone who used their power and position to intentionally lie that "we" are paying for the medication and openly slander someone for what was definitely a "right wing agenda". It's kind of hypocritical that "conservatives" here seem to be ok with that.

On the face of it, without begging the question or other diversion, what Mr Limbaugh said was crude, ugly and wrong. I would decry it no matter whose mouth it came out of. Those who defend it or dismiss it don't do there point of view any favors.. I have respect for people who debate the issues respectfully- which is possible. But, unfortunately, in our media circus society, negative attention is actively courted by many. While the spokespersons for various ideologies mud wrestle, serious issues and rational solutions are lost in the muck.
I support insurance funded contraceptives.To me, family planning is a responsible endeavor to be encouraged. It is a money saver for the insurance companies as well as for our society. And it is a proven abortion reducer. Throw in the fact that these medications are used to prevent other health issues making it good for businesses as it keeps employees healthy and productive. While there are folks who will have thoughtful reasons to disagree with me, I don't see where we can productively discuss the issue if name calling and lewd suggestions are acceptable responses.

That's all fine Pat; don't think anybody is saying contraception shouldn't be available...it is readily available and inexpensive. The question here is forcing a catholic university to subsidize an activity that is contrary to a core belief. If this phoney woman wanted to attend another university where no such conflict could exist she had every right. Seems just a bit disingenuous to with deliberation attend a university with stated policies and once there complain about the policy. This is a private university. The more we find out about what really happened here the more rotten the fish smells...

Does the private, Catholic university receive Federal funds that they are willing to forgo? Simple question. Hold the diatribe.

And again I say, show me proof the GU offers bc to their employees! In what article is this mentioned? If it is true why didn't Fluke or Pelosi or former WH employee Anita Dunn's agency who is repping Fluke scream it from the rooftops about GU's"hipocracy" in providing bc to its employees?! Cite your source!

Susan. See the link above- Catholic Groups Fight Contraception Rule. You can also Google and find multiple articles.

Joan...your totally not getting it. Some may offer by choice, others by policy and perhaps other by current state regulation. Maybe this is exactly why the issue now needs to be resolved. I assume you believe that religious liberty is something to be ignore...why do you hate religion? Why do you believe they have no right to a consistency in belief and practice? Do you truly believe these women (students) who claim a birth control cost of less than $10/month will mean the difference between that or starvation are real? I would submit to you if you think that be the case then you are foolish...

No Karl. You are not getting it. Birth control pills are nothing more than hormone pills that are used for a number of medical conditions other than contraception. This is not about religious freedom as churches were always exempt, always. We each have the freedom to use our religious freedom to not use such a drug for contraception but that doesnt give an employer the right to make medical choices for us. It is also discriminatory to give those benefits to others and deny them to some, or to allow men to get Viagra covered but not a medication for women.

Are you actually deluding yourself into a belief that somebody out there can't get birth control? Because the church won't give it to them doesn't mean there aren't literally hundreds of other programs that would hook them up as needed. The Viagra issue is a diversion as it is not about contraception - that's the issue here.

Karl. Georgetown is not a church. They already provide the coverage fog their employees but not the student policy

Phil did you read the entire list of medications this mandate covered? It was not only birth control for women

You have both gotten so far off base of the topic which is whether or not Rush went too far calling this young woman he didn't know a slut and prostitute.

You have both been given a number of links to facts about this but are choosing to ignore them and continue to make the same incorrect assertions over and over. That reminds me of exactly what Rush does.

Oh Phil, don't give up your day job unless it's as a a fortune teller. Have a good night.

98 Major Advertisers dump Limbaugh.
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/10/442048/breaking-98-major-advertisers-dump-rush-limbaugh/?mobile=wp

Joan...you think you're a bit obsessed? Just maybe a little...

Actually I'm fascinated by those trying to spin away or excuse the words and actions of Limbaugh regarding this issue instead of condemning them. Sometimes issues are bigger than party and just plain wrong.

Joan...so then you're not denying that link and the statement that 98 company's have dumped advertising on Rush's program is indeed a fraudulent statement? You're caught face it. You know what they say in court when you can impeace a part of anyone's testimony you must impeace it in it's entirety because none of it can be trusted.

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.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/index.html

Joan...you're a speech natzi, and not unwillingly to use false statements and false information to support whatever your cause is and that makes you a willing, unthinking, and uniformed foot soldier who would trample all our rights if given the opportunity if it meant fulfilling an agenda. What's at stake my dear is free speech.

The right to freedom of expression is a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights & recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" & may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]
.....
According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, & society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[40] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, religious belief or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[41]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a recognized legal document here in the US. We have a constitution; you might prefer this other "thing" over our constitution as written by the founders of this country but it is the law of the land. That document as has been defined and adopted protects free speech from people just like you. As I said and you have so aptly again illustrated...you indeed are a scary little speech natzi who apparently would like to be able to define what you think is acceptable because you are so self-indulgent and self-limiting that you can't fathom there are those out there that don't agree with you.

OK Karl, check out the FCC, doesn't change anything
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

I read it. I don't see anything in the policy forbidding rude and obnoxious speech. Sounds like a problem for the free market to solve, not the government.

Again Joan...you just don't get it. I think what Rush Limbaugh said was crude, but I don't consider it profane or indecent. You might however, and that's exactly why we have a constitution that limits your natzi like tendencies to want to silence others. Your hopes and prayers regarding an FCC takeover of the airwaves notwithstanding.

Karl, your continued assertions that the FCC doesn't already own the public airwaves is totally false. It's been this way for close to a century. I think you keep confusing cable and satellite with actual airwaves/frequencies/spectrum. The FCC set the standards and if they get enough complaints, or feel the verbiage is worth fines or other punishment, they will take action. The FCC will not bar Rush Limbaugh from the public airwaves, but they can take action against stations that originate the show and it could make it not worth their time and money to continue airing his program. If the stations want to ignore fines and sanctions and continue to allow such statements from Rush, those stations could in fact lose their licenses.

FCC does set standards, but let's not pretend setting standards and what you'd like to see are one and the same. I know what the Fairness Doctrine is and I also know that Gloria Allred, Gloria Steinham, Jane Fonda and a host of other like minded shrills have never been successful at limiting conservative radio and are now calling for the federal government to step in and remove a broadcasting license basically because they'd like to limit conservative radio which has been wildly successful and in which the left has never earned the same level of success. I wouldn't be so proud of being included in a like-minded group that includes Gloria Allred.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/10/fccs-new-hire-targeted-conservative-radio-stations-writings/

Inappropriate. The Nazi's have lot's of violence and abuse in their history. I would have preferred he used something a less "emotional." But that is a good word to examine. You will seldom see a conservative use this word against a liberal. But liberals frequently use it against conservatives. Look how often Geo Bush was called a Nazi or a Chimp. Pick a liberal/progressive president where similar terms ad hominem attacks were used.

This is despite that fact that most conservatives believe in smaller government and more personal freedom. Whereas liberals, progressives, communists, nazis and socialists all stress the need for more government control.

I point to your endorsement of having the Government solve your Rush Limbaugh problem. But you can easily solve it yourself by turning off your radio. But I believe you fundamentally think you know what is better for everyone else, and the Government should restrict the rights of others to enforce what you know is best.

Nope, the public and marketplace will decide Rush's fate, whether it be to complaints to the FCC or to advertisers. It was the downfall of many others including Imus, Maher, Beck, Olbermann and more. Time will tell in this area.

I would take on your comments about conservatives wanting more personal freedom with a long laundry list of recent legislation that's been introduced by republicans in the past 2 years to limit choice and personal freedom but that's not the issue here. This is about Rush Limbaugh and whether or not he has reached that same place of public disgust as the others that are no longer on the public airwaves. Regardless of your political leanings, anyone who supports calling a private citizen a slut and a prostitute and demanding they put sex videos online because they don't agree with their political views is as low as Rush IMO.

What you are saying is true about the entrenched Republicans. While the Democrats really are cornering the market on denying personal liberty, the entrenched Republicans are not that far behind.

I think that is why you are seeing little support for Romney from real conservatives, and the fanatic support for Ron Paul.

AG, the government can't stop Limbaugh. They can't even cancel his show. They can fine the station that originates his show, and others that carry it, at which point the stations can appeal the ruling, or decide the cost of keeping Limbaugh on the air is bad for business. 191 advertisers across all the stations that air his show have expressed that they do not want their ads in his show. Without advertising revenue to support the financial cost of his show, the free market will take over and put something else in it's place. That's a major financial hit to any station.

It's the station that holds the responsibility for what they are sending across public airwaves, not Limbaugh. The station could cease to exist and Limbaugh can still find outlets on cable/satellite for his "free speech" that are not regulated by the FCC. History shows us that even being on those outlets is no guarantee a show won't be dumped as a liability of doing business. Unless it's a pay channel like HBO, there are still advertisers to pay the bills.. Rush's free speech is no more protected than yours or mine but none of us is entitled to a 3 hour window of broadcast airtime to voice our opinions.

AND YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Government, Government, Government, Government, Government, Government, Government, Government, Government, Government, Government.

I think there is a place for rules and regulations for extremes in behavior/language on public airwaves, and the current ones are minimal. Should the FCC deem Rush's comments fall outside those rules and regulations they will cite the station and issue fines. It's no different than other times they have fined stations for other violations. Using the public airwaves is a privilege, not a right. There are only so many broadcast frequencies to go around and a lot of other companies would love to have that frequency to broadcast their "free speech" and make a lot of $$$ like the ones that have them do now. They are a valuable commodity.

These stations also make up the EBS system for use in the event of a threat on the country. When Internet, cable and phones went down on 9/11, those public airwaves stations continued to broadcast, and are the only government link to inform the public of emergency instructions.

I am much more concerned with the Patriot Act which allows the feds to come into my home at any time and monitor anything I personally do on the net in the name of "security". Likewise the TSA's invasive security checks take away the right to being innocent until proven guilty. Add to that the new legislation that we can be detained at any time for any length of time without trial as a possible "terrorists" and you have a huge invasion on our rights and privacy. There are much bigger issues than whether or not Rush Limbaugh gets cited by the FCC.

No way to have a government entity act as the speech police and have it not end up being political. If you don't see that you're an idiot.

Wasn't George Bush president when FCC had to step in because of a wardrobe malfunction? Nipples don't speak, but apparently they are more offensive than calling a person a slut and a prostitute. I do not like Ms. Joan, but I'll have to side with her on this one. Luckily we have the Bel Air Patch where people like Karl Schuub can call someone they disagree with a 'natzi' and an 'idiot' without being censored.

Being a "speech natzi" isn't exactly the same as being a natzi...most people understand that meaning in it's context and to your other claim I never called anyone an idiot in particular; that statement wasn't a tag onto anybody else's statement. Let's not make it up as we go along because that would be hyperbole not grounded in actual intent or actual statement. My goodness, I didn't claim I didn't like someone, only that I don't like someone's beliefs. You tell me which is worse?

Interesting commentary about Rush, how his show is positioned, advertiser exodus and 2 week National ad suspension. Something for everyone.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/03/13/video-the-last-word-lawrence-odonnell-on-national-advertisers-suspending-ads-on-rush/

This whole thing is about political mudslinging

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/10/o%E2%80%99reilly-sandra-flukes-boyfriend-son-of-democratic-stalwart-william-mutterperl/

So, how can she afford all of her travels around the country blaring her story if she can't afford contraception? And why isn't this 'law student' actually attending classes at her law school?

Nah, this whole stunt of hers couldn't possibly have been orchestrated by the Democrats. Nothing to see here, move along.

Are you in favor of denying birth control to women, Mr. Dirt?

jj, that was days ago. Where have you been? I got Phil's Seinfeld reference and appreciated it (-:

btw - This thread is over. Move on to the next topic.