I really don’t care for Michael Kinsley’s defense of Rush Limbaugh. Never mind that Kinsley has Parkinson’s disease (something that killed my grandmother and may be stalking me). You might remember how Rush Limbaugh accused Michael J. Fox of faking his symptoms. If Kinsley doesn’t hold a grudge, I can’t fault him for that. But don’t tell me that critics of Rush Limbaugh are violating the spirit of the First Amendment. Kinsley says we shouldn’t boycott Limbaugh’s sponsors; we should make a better argument. How do you make a better argument when a man accuses you of exaggerating your Parkinson’s symptoms or tells millions of people that you are a slut and a prostitute?
Perhaps most troubling is that Kinsley can’t even bring himself to use Sandra Fluke’s name. She’s just “a Georgetown University law student.” For Kinsley, the revulsion against Limbaugh isn’t about defamation and cruelty; it is merely an “umbrage episode.” It is just one episode in the long string of episodes where powerful men act like (fill in the blank) boors, are forced to make insincere apologies, and then life goes on uninterrupted and undisturbed.
The target resists for a few days, then steps downs or apologizes. Occasionally they survive, as Limbaugh probably will, but wounded and more careful from now on.
More careful means less interesting. Limbaugh is under no obligation to stop saying offensive things just to keep me entertained. Still, it’s a pity.
Here he seriously laments the possibility that Rush Limbaugh might tone down his act because it will make him less entertaining. Is Kinsley really such a big Dittohead? Why is he even writing this column in the New Murdoch Post?
He goes on to tell us that watching the parade of advertisers leaving Limbaugh’s show is nauseating. Didn’t they hear Limbuagh say outrageous things last month or last year or ever? Who did they think they were sponsoring? As if advertisers could seriously make that argument: (“You think that’s bad? You should hear what he said about the First Lady!”) As if saying something nasty about a public figure two years ago means that private citizens are fair game for three full days of outrageous personal attack.
Kinsley even goes so far as to suggest that we can’t simultaneously be genuinely concerned for Ms. Fluke’s well-being and reputation and giddy about Limbaugh’s loss of revenue.
And then he finishes with this piece of crap conclusion:
As we all know, Limbaugh’s First Amendment rights aren’t involved here — freedom of speech means freedom from interference by the government. But the spirit of the First Amendment, which is that suppressing speech is bad, still applies. If you don’t care for something Rush Limbaugh has said, [don’t boycott] say why and say it better. If you’re on the side of truth, you have a natural advantage.
And if you’re taking on Rush Limbaugh, you’re probably on the side of truth.
There is no “spirit of the First Amendment.” Suppressing speech is good when it is done by the citizenry. It’s has a non-legal name. It’s called ‘shame.’ It’s an enforced sense of decency. This idea that media personalities have some kind of right (or spirit of a right) to sell advertising is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. And that is what Kinsley is saying. He’s saying that we should leave Rush alone to sell as much advertising as he wants because any effort to take away his advertising is just going to reduce the high entertainment value of his radio program by violating the “spirit’ of the First Amendment. And if I don’t like what Limbaugh is saying on his massively syndicated radio program that reaches tens of millions of people every weekday, I can craft a witty retort on my shitty blog and totally WIN!!
What kind of a nitwit makes these kinds of arguments? He’s being paid to play stupid, right?
