• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr. Laura Claims She Lost Her First Amendment Rights, Is she correct?

Do you agree with Dr. Laura that she lost her First Amendment rights?


  • Total voters
    46
Innaccurate question that is a strawman.

Being behind, IE actually SUPPORTING, the mosque being built is not required to not want the government to infringe upon someones free practices.

A better question would be whether or not the poster agreed with people having the right to bad mouth and protest the mosque and its creator, or if they should be silenced for doing such. As that would correlate to what happened with Laura, as people were bothered by what she did and thus spoke out against it to her detriment.

Good point.
 
The first amendment is not at issue here. In fact, I can't remember any case off the top of my head where some one had their first amendment rights trampled. Perhaps you can give some examples.
When a well funded group MM, whose sole purpose for existing is to silence Conservatives and is succeeding I'd say our rights are in danger. If nothing else they will put everyone in fear of speaking out. You can see how the Dr Laura thing has turned out. A woman says the N word. MM takes it out of context. Sponsors and affiliates are contacted by MM. Dr. Laura decides to call it quits, maybe just because she is tired of it. She has been fighting MM and their affiliates for 10 yrs now over a gay thing. Now the N word. I'd don't blame her for quitting.
 
So, of course, you're completely behind the effort by muslims to build a mosque near ground zero, right? Because, of course, you wouldn't want the government to infringe on the free practice of their beliefs. Right?
They have every right to build there. I wouldn't want the government to interfere with that right.
 
When a well funded group MM, whose sole purpose for existing is to silence Conservatives and is succeeding I'd say our rights are in danger. If nothing else they will put everyone in fear of speaking out. You can see how the Dr Laura thing has turned out. A woman says the N word. MM takes it out of context. Sponsors and affiliates are contacted by MM. Dr. Laura decides to call it quits, maybe just because she is tired of it. She has been fighting MM and their affiliates for 10 yrs now over a gay thing. Now the N word. I'd don't blame her for quitting.

MM is a joke even among many liberals. Newsbusters is a similar joke on the other side(but of course they are the good guys, right?), and the two counteract each other nicely. The reason Dr Laura ran into problems is she spoke without thinking, not because of MM. If MM had not existed, she probably still would have run into trouble with her comments. There is no conspiracy or effort to stifle any one, and the first amendment is not even relevant in any of this, and you have still not shown a single example of any one being denied their first amendment rights.
 
You'd think that someone who has a show in which she discusses politics would know something about politics, wouldn't you?
I don't think she talks politics. She is a conservative advice person kind of like Ann Landers, Dear Abby, I think, only on radio. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I don't listen to her.
 
I was under the impression that Dr. Laura was a strong proponent of personal responsibility for one's actions.

Irony.

There's a big difference between being personally responsible and just laying back and taking a beating for something that has been completely misrepresented.

Your attempt to beat her over the head with an erroneous definition of personal responsibility has been noted.
 
When a well funded group MM, whose sole purpose for existing is to silence Conservatives and is succeeding I'd say our rights are in danger. If nothing else they will put everyone in fear of speaking out. You can see how the Dr Laura thing has turned out. A woman says the N word. MM takes it out of context. Sponsors and affiliates are contacted by MM. Dr. Laura decides to call it quits, maybe just because she is tired of it. She has been fighting MM and their affiliates for 10 yrs now over a gay thing. Now the N word. I'd don't blame her for quitting.
Media Matters ≠ government
 
When a well funded group MM, whose sole purpose for existing is to silence Conservatives and is succeeding I'd say our rights are in danger. If nothing else they will put everyone in fear of speaking out. You can see how the Dr Laura thing has turned out. A woman says the N word. MM takes it out of context. Sponsors and affiliates are contacted by MM. Dr. Laura decides to call it quits, maybe just because she is tired of it. She has been fighting MM and their affiliates for 10 yrs now over a gay thing. Now the N word. I'd don't blame her for quitting.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
 
When a well funded group MM, whose sole purpose for existing is to silence Conservatives and is succeeding I'd say our rights are in danger. If nothing else they will put everyone in fear of speaking out. You can see how the Dr Laura thing has turned out. A woman says the N word. MM takes it out of context. Sponsors and affiliates are contacted by MM. Dr. Laura decides to call it quits, maybe just because she is tired of it. She has been fighting MM and their affiliates for 10 yrs now over a gay thing. Now the N word. I'd don't blame her for quitting.
Please show where MM has taken Dr. Laura's words out context.

FULL AUDIO: Dr. Laura Schlessinger's N-word rant | Media Matters for America

There is a transcript there as well.
 
There's a big difference between being personally responsible and just laying back and taking a beating for something that has been completely misrepresented.

Your attempt to beat her over the head with an erroneous definition of personal responsibility has been noted.

i don't feel it was misrepresented. she was talking with a black woman who was upset about racial slurs being used in her own home.....and dr laura proceeded to use that word 11 times in 5 minutes. i heard it, it was uncalled for and just plain nasty. imo, she can certainly do whatever she wants, i'm sure fox news has a place for her.
 
For those who don't question Palin's intelligence:

"Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")," Palin tweeted on Wednesday.
 
Taking personal responsibility would probably not include a lot of public bitching and whining about how your 1st amendment rights were violated, when they weren't. ;)

That's your roundabout way of saying that someone you don't like shouldn't be publically defending herself against public defamations. You're simply trying to discredit her defense of herself with an erroneous definition of personal responsibility. :shrug:
 
For those who don't question Palin's intelligence:

I highly doubt Palin tweets her own tweets. Also, tweets, informal email, and bulletin postings aren't held to the same rigorous grammatical and syntax standards as other publishings.

Also, how the hell did Sarah Palin become relevant enough to this thread to post about her?
 
That's your roundabout way of saying that someone you don't like shouldn't be publically defending herself against public defamations. You're simply trying to discredit her defense of herself with an erroneous definition of personal responsibility. :shrug:

I think what she should have said is "I got fired for what I said, but I shouldn't have been fired for saying it" rather than saying she is losing her First Amendment rights. When she said he lost her rights it seems like she was just jumping up and down saying look at me look at me.
 
i don't feel it was misrepresented. she was talking with a black woman who was upset about racial slurs being used in her own home.....and dr laura proceeded to use that word 11 times in 5 minutes. i heard it, it was uncalled for and just plain nasty. imo, she can certainly do whatever she wants, i'm sure fox news has a place for her.

Everyone who listens to Dr Laura knows exactly what they are in for when they listen to her. Anyone who calls in knows exactly what may happen if they call in to her show. There is zero excuse for getting butthurt over anything when it comes to listening or interacting with her media persona because it's precisely why people listen and call in.

I, for the record, can't stand her. But I'm also not gonna complain that she's a bitch when she acted like a bitch. You don't play with a scorpion and then wonder why it stung you.
 
I highly doubt Palin tweets her own tweets. Also, tweets, informal email, and bulletin postings aren't held to the same rigorous grammatical and syntax standards as other publishings.

Also, how the hell did Sarah Palin become relevant enough to this thread to post about her?

I was not commenting on her syntax, but upon her claims about the first amendment. And whether Palin actually made the tweet is irrelevant, she is responsible for them.
 
That's your roundabout way of saying that someone you don't like shouldn't be publically defending herself against public defamations. You're simply trying to discredit her defense of herself with an erroneous definition of personal responsibility. :shrug:

She was fired for exercising lack of judgement on the air. Owning that would be to exercise the dogma she preaches.
 
I think what she should have said is "I got fired for what I said, but I shouldn't have been fired for saying it" rather than saying she is losing her First Amendment rights. When she said he lost her rights it seems like she was just jumping up and down saying look at me look at me.

I am in agreement with her loose analysis. The constant shift toward PC-ness in society is just as much a threat to our freedom of speech as the government could be. If she were writing a scholarly paper for a law journal, I would take exception to her use of the term First Amendment Rights. However, in common language, First Amendment Rights is a perfect catch all to relate, succinctly, how she feels a violation against her right to speak freely.

As RightinNYC said...I am pretty sure most intelligent people understood she didnt mean it literally.
 
I don't care if she defends herself, but I do care that she is errantly using the first amendment to pretend that she's somehow been violated. Do you deny the right of companies to fire people for exercising lack of judgement?

That's not what you said. You made an attack on her sense of personal responsibility.
 
That's not what you said. You made an attack on her sense of personal responsibility.

I made an attack on her failure to exercise personal responsibility after using poor judgement. I don't actually disagree with her views on personal responsibility. I don't hate Dr. Laura. However, her behavior in this regard is not sync with what she normally preaches about personal responsibility. Hope that helps to clarify my views.
 
I was not commenting on her syntax, but upon her claims about the first amendment. And whether Palin actually made the tweet is irrelevant, she is responsible for them.

Again, how the hell did Sarah Palin become relevant to this thread? Also, her claims about the first amendment are most likely in the same, informal vein as Dr Laura's.

It's a ****ing tweet, not an article for the Harvard Law Review.
 
Back
Top Bottom