• 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!

Laura Ingraham, David Hogg and the beginning of the end of free speech.

Fletch said:
If she and others don't fight, that will only empower the progs <and the organized, boycotting right> to do this to everyone they disagree with.
Click to expand...
Fixed it, IMO. Politics has become an eye for eye game. You do this to my party, I'll do the same to yours.
 
Paperview said:
Nice try. The Dixie Chicks made their comment about Bush in 2003-- that year Ingraham wrote her book.
Click to expand...

My bad. Apparently the first edition was available by Sept 12, 2003 (the first amazon review), six months after the infamous DC comment. But still after most of the damage was done.

And she most certainly - with a huge swath on the right, helped to punish the DC for years after by boycotting, buring and blacklisting them.

Even some conservatives some years after were ashamed:
Click to expand...
You mean your own source said that said most of the damage was done in the first two months, before her publication? In fact, your own source that does not even mention Laura Ingraham, other than by reference to a movie title in 2006.

But yes, I suspect and hope, that their were some "conservatives" that were regretful of the over-reaction. But I find it curious that the "conservatives" you quote are the fringe alt-right, bush and neo-con hating, isolationist nationalists... manning the opinion blog with article titles like "in defense of ethnic nationalism".

None the less, the author does provide some nuggets:

- "Too many prominent people on the right who knew better and should have said something..." Agreed.

- "the lunacy that captured so much of the country at the time. ... The normal person’s response to this sort of statement would have been, “Oh, okay, some singer took a shot at Bush. Why should I care?” It was lunacy, but normal fans do care. Fans, who bought their music or went to their concerts, felt betrayed. Rest assured, when people feel betrayed they don't watch or hear those who they feel are backstabbed them.

Nothing you have written or cited changes the facts already stated.
 
Deuce said:
You heard it here, folks. You literally have to buy things from Ingraham's advertisers or you are dooming freedom.


Right wingers talk like this all the time. My only conclusion is that conservatives think free speech is only one direction.
Click to expand...

You realize the OP was critical of both, but just "one direction" here.

He suggest a it was outside her spirit of the concept of freedom of speech for someone to use their stature and position of power (I.e. A nationally recognized television personality) to attempt I crush someone who has an opposing view in an effort to silence them.

Essentially he said Hogg was ignoring the concept of free speech by attempting to not just disagree with Ingram, but instead going after her sponsors in an effort to end her show and thus silence her relative to her current abilities if speech.

And similarly, Ingram's unrelated to the issue attack and smear on him personally, leveraging the power of her following and fame, which seemed to serve no purpose but to try and discredit and embarrass him in hopes of him eventually refraining from entering the public frey, was also counter to that concept

And he condemned both. That's hardly "one direction" even if you disagree with it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
maxparrish said:
My bad. Apparently the first edition was available by Sept 12, 2003 (the first amazon review), six months after the infamous DC comment. But still after most of the damage was done.
....
Click to expand...

:rolleyes :

Were you living in another country when this happened?

Deny it all you want -- her "Shut Up & Sing" became a rallying cry, and the RW most certainly did their damnedest to crush and put the DC out of business.
 
Acadia said:
Truth can be painful. It obviously resonates on some level.
Click to expand...

Yes, it made me laugh deeply at how desperate it was.
 
Mason66 said:
Nothing, but that was not the action I was talking about.

This isn't some poor kid.

He has jumped into the political arena, like calling out McCain for NRA donations.
Click to expand...

McCain is a big boy and doesn't need defense for m Ingraham. There are few (if any) congress critters that do not accept campaign cash from special interests.
 
Tennyson said:
Your point was a specific statement and nothing other than a direct quote from her advocating a boycott reinforces your statement.
Click to expand...

My point was that she encouraged boycotting their records/concerts. WHich she did, as I personally experienced. And if you choose not to accept my response with a quote that demonstrates that not only she but 'a number of' other conservative personalities did so...not only making my point but giving it further weight, then that is up to you. :)
 
Lursa said:
My point was that she encouraged boycotting their records/concerts. WHich she did, as I personally experienced. And if you choose not to accept my response with a quote that demonstrates that not only she but 'a number of' other conservative personalities did so...not only making my point but giving it further weight, then that is up to you. :)
Click to expand...

I am asking you for the evidence, which would be the record.
 
Fletch said:
She is losing ad revenue not because of what she said, but because the ad buyers want to avoid the bullying by the perpetually outraged left. Telling Hogg to stop whining is hardly noteworthy let alone worthy of boycott. It is the left making a mountain out of what isn't even a molehill.
Click to expand...

Your selective logic doesn't make sense.

Viewers were outraged, so they started boycotting those companies. Those companies in turn pulled their ads from Laura's show.

Sounds like this is happening exactly because of what she said and no other reason.

Money talks :shrug:
 
Tennyson said:
I am asking you for the evidence, which would be the record.
Click to expand...

Oh well. After all this time I dont see her called out...but I gave you the evidence and myself and others hear remember it

If you choose not to accept it...I agree it's an easy out for you.
 
Northern Light said:
Your selective logic doesn't make sense.

Viewers were outraged, so they started boycotting those companies. Those companies in turn pulled their ads from Laura's show.

Sounds like this is happening exactly because of what she said and no other reason.

Money talks :shrug:
Click to expand...
That's not true though. Viewers of Ingrahams show were not outraged and no boycott had even begun. These companies ran for the hills at the mere whiff of trouble. No one who watches Ingrahams show or FOX news is outraged by her comments. The outrage belongs to the perpetually outraged left.
 
Ray9 said:
Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host of the Ingraham Angle was riding high as she presided over the fourth most watched cable news show in America. She used her freedom of speech to scrawl an emotional screed critical of David Hogg, a high school student who has become the face of the anti-gun movement. Ingraham, well educated, articulate woman, went from the penthouse to the outhouse overnight because she turned to the bathroom stall wall we call Facebook and attacked Hogg with a cheap, signed smear.

Hogg promptly identified her show’s sponsors and called for boycotts which quickly materialized leading Ingraham to take a “planned vacation” which is code for she’s likely gone. Ingraham should have known better.

Whenever or wherever opinions are expressed there is bound to be disagreement because people have different life experiences. This causes most people to reserve personal opinions especially in public settings. In the United States we have the first amendment which essentially means that we can say or write anything so long as what we say or write does not slander or bring harm to others or infringe on the rights of others to express different or unpopular opinions.

The First Amendment is a golden rule of American democracy that sets it apart from most other great civilizations not just in space but in time. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the event was hailed as a decisive victory for democracies embracing freedom of speech and the table appeared to be set for a golden age of world democracy.

But freedom of speech has a built in flaw: it raises the specter that the people could use it to call for getting rid of it. Just the fact that people are endowed with freedom of speech does not guarantee that they understand its significance or will use it responsibly. When it becomes a means to an end people will find creative ways to abuse it.

Both Laura Ingraham and David Hogg are guilty of abusing freedom of speech. Ingraham went after Hogg with the power of Fox News via Facebook and Hogg went after Ingraham’s livelihood probably on the advice of his political handlers.

Does this balance out? Not really. It’s wrong to crush opposing points of view with power and it’s just as wrong to go after a person’s income because you don’t agree with them.

If we lose freedom of speech here we’ll deserve it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, this is not a freedom of speech issue. Ingraham is free to say whatever she likes. What she chooses, in her own free discretion, to say may have an affect on those who want to associate themselves with her, however. This is the competition of ideas at work, and it is socially beneficial that divisive speech and speech that offends large numbers of people is not financially/economically rewarded.
 
Fletch said:
That's not true though. Viewers of Ingrahams show were not outraged and no boycott had even begun. These companies ran for the hills at the mere whiff of trouble. No one who watches Ingrahams show or FOX news is outraged by her comments. The outrage belongs to the perpetually outraged left.
Click to expand...

Does it give you a real kick to talk out of your bum?
 
Paperview said:
Does it give you a real kick to talk out of your bum?
Click to expand...

If you had any ability to contest what I wrote you would have taken it. But since you chose instead to attack me personally, it shows you have no other coherent reply. Perhaps you should be invited to the debate.
 
Cameron said:
Sorry, this is not a freedom of speech issue. Ingraham is free to say whatever she likes. What she chooses, in her own free discretion, to say may have an affect on those who want to associate themselves with her, however. This is the competition of ideas at work, and it is socially beneficial that divisive speech and speech that offends large numbers of people is not financially/economically rewarded.
Click to expand...

That is well put. It is not a freedom of speech issue.

People need to properly parse what they are seeing and why the are seeing it. Ingraham is a performer. We can choose to view her artistic performance which is built loosely around the idea of journalism...but only loosely. We choose to watch or not and accept the platform of advertising supported media in doing so. We are the audience for her artistic performances but its the advertisers that are footing the bill.

As I stated earlier Ingraham could have gone after Hogg's position on the issues and she would have been perfectly safe IMO. But she must have decided that though she had already mined whatever gold there was in her addressing Hogg on the issues, she still thought there was some gold there to mine in completely pulling his words out of context and twisting them into a meaning that a reasonable person could not even consider implied by what he actually said and she got nailed for it.

There are mainly "artistic" performances scattered all over the 24/7 cable news networks...some totally awash in it, others not so much. Fox News is totally awash in it IMO. There simply is not enough news to actually make 24/7 news networks practical. As such they are just choking on what is entertainment in the form of artistic performances.
 
Fletch said:
If you had any ability to contest what I wrote you would have taken it. But since you chose instead to attack me personally, it shows you have no other coherent reply. Perhaps you should be invited to the debate.
Click to expand...

Anyone with half a brain can see it instantly. You can't possibly speak for millions of people.

That you even for one second thought you could tells us a lot about you.
 
Fletch said:
That's not true though. Viewers of Ingrahams show were not outraged and no boycott had even begun. These companies ran for the hills at the mere whiff of trouble. No one who watches Ingrahams show or FOX news is outraged by her comments. The outrage belongs to the perpetually outraged left.
Click to expand...

It's an academic distinction at this point.

People who saw the program got offended and wrote to the companies. The companies did the right thing. Your artificial division into left vs. right viewers is irrelevant.

You're trying to twist this into partisan games but it doesn't matter because Laura still got held accountable for the garbage she spouted.

I'm not a member of the left and I found her comments out of line -- not that I even watch her garbage TV program.
 
Paperview said:
Anyone with half a brain can see it instantly. You can't possibly speak for millions of people.

That you even for one second thought you could tells us a lot about you.
Click to expand...

That you cant engage in an intelligent debate says more about you. When you cobble together a coherent, adult reply to my post, let me know.
 
I doubt that Ingraham or Hogg will shut up.

"The only valid censorhip is peoples right not to listen."~ Tommy Smothers
 
Northern Light said:
It's an academic distinction at this point.

People who saw the program got offended and wrote to the companies. The companies did the right thing. Your artificial division into left vs. right viewers is irrelevant.

You're trying to twist this into partisan games but it doesn't matter because Laura still got held accountable for the garbage she spouted.

I'm not a member of the left and I found her comments out of line -- not that I even watch her garbage TV program.
Click to expand...

You have your facts wrong. She didn't say it on her program. It was you who claimed 'viewers' were outraged at what she said and that simply isn't true. These companies began to bail BEFORE there was any organized boycott and before most people had even heard of the controversy. These companies are acting out of fear, not principle. And boycotting sponsors because someone called someone else a 'whiner' only shows how small and petulant liberals have become.
 
Fletch said:
That you cant engage in an intelligent debate says more about you. When you cobble together a coherent, adult reply to my post, let me know.
Click to expand...

I did give you a coherent adult reply -- you seem unable to grasp it.

You actually think you can speak for millions of people -- it must be some kind of magical thinking...or....something else.

"No one who watches Ingrahams show or FOX news is outraged by her comments." <-- look everyone: Fletch is inside everyone's heads. He's like a superhuman...or something.
 
Fletch said:
You have your facts wrong. She didn't say it on her program. It was you who claimed 'viewers' were outraged at what she said and that simply isn't true. These companies began to bail BEFORE there was any organized boycott and before most people had even heard of the controversy. These companies are acting out of fear, not principle. And boycotting sponsors because someone called someone else a 'whiner' only shows how small and petulant liberals have become.
Click to expand...

Your recounting of events doesn't even make logical sense, according to the timeline of what factually happened. Your neurotic bent on liberals also makes it pointless to discuss this with you.

We're done here. :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom