Libs are really howling these days. First, they are howling mad at Mr. Rush Limbaugh and his comments about Ms. Sandra Fluke. They have mobilized their massive hate machine to misrepresent and mischaracterize Mr. Limbaugh.
Second, they are howling glad that they elicited an apology of sorts from him. His radio program will not be hurt. If the sponsors lost during this episode do not return, others will replace them. Both he and his sponsors have weathered numerous storms over the years.
What I hope that Mr. Limbaugh does, and I am certain he will, is to turn this event into what he calls "a teachable moment." I do not know how he will approach it, but I know the tact I would take.
I would toss the libs' cups of vile bile right back into their faces. I still get frosted whenever I hark back to the obscene caricature of the Rev. Dr. Jerry Falwell by Larry Flynt in Hustler, his magazine of debauchery. In a nutshell, a satire of the Rev. Falwell's "first time" was concocted as an interview in which he admitted to having an incestuous affair with his mother in an outhouse while being drunk on Campari. Surprise, surprise; Rev. Falwell was a bit upset with that profane and vulgar caricature. He sued Hustler and won an award for damages in a jury verdict trial. The case was appealed and proceeded to the Supreme Court where, in 1988, the previous verdict was overturned. I include the description of the court decision from the Wikipedia article:
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty - and thus a good unto itself - but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions." The First Amendment envisions that the sort of robust political debate that takes place in a democracy will occasionally yield speech critical of public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large". In New York Times, the Court held that the First Amendment gives speakers immunity from sanction with respect to their speech concerning public figures unless their speech is both false and made with "actual malice", i.e., with knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement. Although false statements lack inherent value, the "breathing space" that freedom of expression requires in order to flourish must tolerate occasional false statements, lest there be an intolerable chilling effect on speech that does have constitutional value.
To be sure, in other areas of the law, the specific intent to inflict emotional harm enjoys no protection. But with respect to speech concerning public figures, penalizing the intent to inflict emotional harm, without also requiring that the speech that inflicts that harm to be false, would subject political cartoonists and other satirists to large damage awards. "The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events - an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal". This was certainly true of the cartoons of Thomas Nast, who skewered Boss Tweed in the pages of Harper's Weekly. From a historical perspective, political discourse would have been considerably poorer without such cartoons.
Even if Nast's cartoons were not particularly offensive, Falwell argued that the Hustler parody advertisement in this case was so "outrageous" as to take it outside the scope of First Amendment protection. But "outrageous" is an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it concerns public figures.
Clearly, Falwell was a public figure for purposes of First Amendment law. Because the district court found in favor of Flynt on the libel charge, there was no dispute as to whether the parody could be understood as describing facts about Falwell or events in which he participated. Accordingly, because the parody did not make false statements that were implied to be true, it could not be the subject of damages under the New York Times actual-malice standard. The Court thus reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.
Liberals still celebrate this case. Upon the occasion of the death of Rev. Falwell, I read numerous posts and articles from many "peace-loving" liberals out there figuratively stomping on his grave. It strikes me that liberals subscribe to a code of conduct that requires that their commentary be laced with hate, obscenity, vulgarity, and profanity. I have yet to receive a letter from a liberal that does not include at least a portion of the above.
Regardless if one considers the Supreme Court decision correct or not, one must still stop and ponder the all-too-apparent reality of what the left celebrates. There is no speech or depiction of a decent American who uses his talents and resources and life in service to Christ and fellow human beings that is out of bounds. Even an interview in a filthy porn rag, parody though it was, of a decent man "confessing" to an incestuous relationship while drunk is cheered by the morally bankrupt left.
If you consider yourself a liberal and find yourself thinking this is really detestable, then perhaps you need to reevaluate and reconsider your allegiances.
Here is who and what the left lifts up to hero-worship status:
A porn magazine that, in the ?70s anyway, featured cartoon portrayals of black babies sucking on a baby bottle nipple attached to a watermelon. This is your hero, libs.
A porn magazine that, in the ?70s anyway, featured a regular feature cartoon titled "Chester the Molester." This is your hero, libs.
Those offended by Mr. Limbaugh's recent statements accuse him of, among other things, misogyny. Yet, the left idolizes a porn magazine that, in the ?70s anyway, portrayed women in all types of demeaning positions and treatments by male "masters." Talk about a misogynistic attitude toward women. This is your hero, libs.
Was Mr. Limbaugh excessive in his descriptions of Ms. Fluke? More than likely, yes, because, as Mr. Limbaugh himself frequently puts it, he utilizes the absurd to illustrate the absurd. Was he inaccurate of his descriptions? Apparently not, when one actually considers the context and technical meaning of the words used.
But whether Mr. Limbaugh was right or not is practically immaterial. What is material is once again the absolute hypocrisy of the liberal community that impugns and offends their self-defined opponents every day, then turns around and cries foul when someone makes defensible observations about another's self-described immoral lifestyle. After all, if Ms. Fluke is so all-fired concerned with women's health, then perhaps she should consider promoting a lifestyle that is far less self-destructive. Her failure to do so is indicative of selfishness and hypocrisy. Well, either that or gross ignorance. Such is life in the land of left-believe.
Also apparent in the land of left-believe is the hard, cold reality that their heroes are the likes of Mr. Flynt and their enemies are decent Americans like the Rev. Dr. Jerry Falwell and Mr. Rush Limbaugh. Amazing.
Yes, this would be my approach to turning this episode with howling libs into a teachable moment.