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

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...

I'm with you up to the point that either abused freedom of speech. David Hogg is pretty much wrong due to misinformation in his tirades and used his speech, I think, in a non constructive and juvenile manner, but on the face of it, he is not abusing freedom of speech to speak out.

Laura Ingraham is indeed a powerful political figure with a nationally syndicated radio show, a very successful television show, and author of a number of best selling books, but she is not abusing speech in any way by a very innocuous tweet:

The tweet:
"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"
followed by this photo:


So is The New York Post guilty of 'bullying' David Hogg with this news story?
https://nypost.com/2018/03/28/david-hogg-having-trouble-getting-into-college-after-high-school/
Where are the morally outraged demanding that the Post's advertisers pull their ads?

Given that what she said was so much milder than what other countless persons have said re David Hogg's tirades, to go after her, her advertisers and therefore her livelihood, is not based on any moral principle or moral outrage, but is purely an excuse to try to silence a successful conservative voice. We have seen this tactic and syndrome time and time again. Progressives, the most intolerant and unforgiving demographic in America today, don't intend to allow free speech for any other than their own.

Goshin said:

If I don't like something you say, is it okay for me to try to get your employer to fire you? And to try to persuade everyone else not to hire you?

Click to expand...

Kinda, yeah.

What other mechanism exists to stop someone you think is doing harm?

Should someone have tried to get Jim Jones "fired" and kept anyone else from "hiring" him?

Acadia said:

Boycotting isn't bullying, but calling for a boycott for the express purpose of getting someone off air and cost them their job sure as HELL is bullying. Further, there is coercion on Hogg's part and the part of the deep pockets who would mount negative campaigns against any company which doesn't capitulate, and the companies know this. That's why they folded so easily.

Click to expand...

They really don't like power that doesn't come from their paid-for politicians, huh?

Mason66 said:

You missed my point.

The point is, is that this 18 year old is not off limits when it comes to criticism as he has put himself out there politically, which has gone way beyond just being somebody that was present at a school shooting.

Click to expand...

I have absolutely no problem with those that disagree with Hogg's loony policy positions or his numerous misstatements of fact. Where Ingraham went wrong was to attack and mock him personally. She has since apologized - which indicates that she knew that she had screwed up in doing so.

Goshin said:

Did I mention Trump? Nope.

I know you find this hard to comprehend, but Trump isn't relevant in all discussions.

Click to expand...

I think he was talking about trump and kaepernick(?) The kneeling guy.

Trump wanted him fired for it.

trixare4kids said:

This attention monger is milking his five minute of fame for all its worth and he's too unaware to know that he's the gun grabber's poster boy. So with them, his speech is free while those who criticize him should be punished. Free speech for me but not for thee rears its ugly head once again.

Click to expand...

She should call for a boycott of Hogg, then.

Linc said:

Political Science.

In the spirit of Easter Sunday, I will not go into specific details of how Mount Rushbo’s stated goal in the early 1980s has come true, to divide the Nation into Left and Right. Mission Accomplished...

Click to expand...

I had a strong feeling he was on the manipulation business track.

I suspect he knows exactly what he's doing.

Mason66 said:

You missed my point.

The point is, is that this 18 year old is not off limits when it comes to criticism as he has put himself out there politically, which has gone way beyond just being somebody that was present at a school shooting.

Click to expand...

And ingraham isn't off limits to the consequences of her statement.

What if...? said:

Kinda, yeah.

What other mechanism exists to stop someone you think is doing harm?

Should someone have tried to get Jim Jones "fired" and kept anyone else from "hiring" him?

Click to expand...

When the shoe is on the other foot, our friends get to see what ‘others’ have been put through.

Since ‘they’ specifically stated they wanted this clear division between left and right with no overlap, let them reap the reward of the seeds they’ve sewn.

Until we learn to deal with administration overlap and transfer of power in the spirit of our Founding Fathers, we are indeed at the mercy of those who would divide and conquer us ...

Goshin said:

If I don't like something you say, is it okay for me to try to get your employer to fire you? And to try to persuade everyone else not to hire you?

Click to expand...

Yes, but when you use your power from a public office position to do so then it becomes ethically questionable even if not strictly unconstitutional. There is a distinct difference between you, as a private citizen, calling for an NFL boycott and firing NFL players that do not stand for the national anthem and the POTUS doing so.

AlbqOwl said:

I'm with you up to the point that either abused freedom of speech. David Hogg is pretty much wrong due to misinformation in his tirades and used his speech, I think, in a non constructive and juvenile manner, but on the face of it, he is not abusing freedom of speech to speak out.

Laura Ingraham is indeed a powerful political figure with a nationally syndicated radio show, a very successful television show, and author of a number of best selling books, but she is not abusing speech in any way by a very innocuous tweet:

The tweet:
"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"
followed by this photo:

So is The New York Post guilty of 'bullying' David Hogg with this news story?
https://nypost.com/2018/03/28/david-hogg-having-trouble-getting-into-college-after-high-school/
Where are the morally outraged demanding that the Post's advertisers pull their ads?

Given that what she said was so much milder than what other countless persons have said re David Hogg's tirades, to go after her, her advertisers and therefore her livelihood, is not based on any moral principles or moral outrage, but is purely an excuse to try to silence a successful conservative voice. We have seen this tactic and syndrome time and time again. Progressives, the most intolerant and unforgiving demographic in America today, don't intend to allow free speech for any other than their own.

Click to expand...

I think you're ruling out the simple "Oh no she didn't..." angle.

Kids get mad. And this one is temporarily powerful. 600,000 followers.

Ingraham should have known better as a professional manipulator. Should have thought of the possible consequences.

She did not. Now she suffers those consequences.

So really its all the result of her incompetence.

She didn't "read the room" correctly.

Too bad.

AlbqOwl said:

I'm with you up to the point that either abused freedom of speech. David Hogg is pretty much wrong due to misinformation in his tirades and used his speech, I think, in a non constructive and juvenile manner, but on the face of it, he is not abusing freedom of speech to speak out.

Laura Ingraham is indeed a powerful political figure with a nationally syndicated radio show, a very successful television show, and author of a number of best selling books, but she is not abusing speech in any way by a very innocuous tweet:

The tweet:
"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"
followed by this photo:

So is The New York Post guilty of 'bullying' David Hogg with this news story?
https://nypost.com/2018/03/28/david-hogg-having-trouble-getting-into-college-after-high-school/
Where are the morally outraged demanding that the Post's advertisers pull their ads?

Given that what she said was so much milder than what other countless persons have said re David Hogg's tirades, to go after her, her advertisers and therefore her livelihood, is not based on any moral principles or moral outrage, but is purely an excuse to try to silence a successful conservative voice. We have seen this tactic and syndrome time and time again. Progressives, the most intolerant and unforgiving demographic in America today, don't intend to allow free speech for any other than their own.

Click to expand...

Agree. Here is the interview Ingraham was responding to. TMZ seemed to be trying to provoke him on the topic. Hogg handled it ok but did appear a little surprised/put out that he wasn't getting recognized for "changing the world".

The whole media circus surrounding Ingraham's comments is mostly manufactured. And thoroughly blown out of proportion.

Parkland Leader David Hogg Rejected by UC Schools | TMZ.com

What if...? said:

I think he was talking about trump and kaepernick(?) The kneeling guy.

Trump wanted him fired for it.

Click to expand...

Yes he did, and he was directly responsible for people I know and like in real life that boycotted the NFL and that are indeed boycotting the NBA because of Laura’s slurs on those African-American athletes who dared to speak truth to power.

#45 is indeed relevant in every discussion in our Nation, as the previous 44 Presidents were. He is our President, our Leader, the one who sets the table of honor and stability, the one our children look up to and count on for moral strength ...

What if...? said:

I think you're ruling out the simple "Oh no she didn't..." angle.

Kids get mad. And this one is temporarily powerful. 600,000 followers.

Ingraham should have known better as a professional manipulator. Should have thought of the possible consequences.

She did not. Now she suffers those consequences.

So really its all the result of her incompetence.

She didn't "read the room" correctly.

Too bad.

Click to expand...

It's only a slight exaggeration to say the modern rights exists almost solely to troll the left. Does it piss off liberals? Does it evoke "lib tears"? If the answer to either is yes, must be good. The GOP even gave one of its most notorious internet trolls its nomination for the presidency!

And thus there's an entire infotainment complex on the right aimed at trolling. Some of the biggest opinion-shapers on the right are simply trolls.

But what the professional troll class is finding out is that you can't out-troll a millennial teenager. They've not only met their match in this kid, it looks like they've met their better. Hence the collective meltdown the right is currently having over Hogg. Adult Dems can't do what this kid is doing--it would be like when Rubio pathetically tried to stoop to Trump's level of trolling and nearly destroyed himself. This is a job custom built for a millennial kid.

I've got no love for this gutter level of discourse but the right's been down there for a long time and the asymmetry has worked in their favor. I hope this kid destroys the entire professional troll class one by one.

What if...? said:

I had a strong feeling he was on the manipulation business track.

I suspect he knows exactly what he's doing.

Click to expand...

All Things Must Pass, as George Harrison sang to us. We will be better again, we have to be, for the future generations. One only has to look at Mount Rushmore, be inspired and use it as our Guiding Light.

It’s incumbent upon our Government Leaders to ‘Come Together, Right Now’ and deal with our most pressing ISSUES. It is NOT an American Value to deconstruct our government and expose ourselves to those who would do us harm ...

Linc said:

Yes he did, and he was directly responsible for people I know and like in real life that boycotted the NFL and that are indeed boycotting the NBA because of Laura’s slurs on those African-American athletes who dared to speak truth to power.

#45 is indeed relevant in every discussion in our Nation, as the previous 44 Presidents were. He is our President, our Leader, the one who sets the table of honor and stability, the one our children look up to and count on for moral strength ...

Click to expand...

A lot of people have become annoyed and disenchanted with the NFL with regard to players kneeling/squatting for the National Anthem.

To suggest Trump had much to do with it is a bit of a stretch.

(Saying that The Donald is "directly responsible" is just ridiculous.)

Greenbeard said:

It's only a slight exaggeration to say the modern rights exists almost solely to troll the left. Does it piss off liberals? Does it evoke "lib tears"? If the answer to either is yes, must be good. The GOP even gave one of its most notorious internet trolls its nomination for the presidency!

And thus there's an entire infotainment complex on the right aimed at trolling. Some of the biggest opinion-shapers on the right are simply trolls.

But what the professional troll class is finding out is that you can't out-troll a millennial teenager. They've not only met their match in this kid, it looks like they've met their better. Hence the collective meltdown the right is currently having over Hogg. Adult Dems can't do what this kid is doing--it would be like when Rubio pathetically tried to stoop to Trump's level of trolling and nearly destroyed himself. This is a job custom built for a millennial kid.

I've got no love for this gutter level of discourse but the right's been down there for a long time and the asymmetry has worked in their favor. I hope this kid destroys the entire professional troll class one by one.

Click to expand...

Mr. Hogg is far from alone in his generation of Millennials that are currently Leading our Nation while our Leaders try to figure out how to Lead. This is not a Democratic nor a Republican thing, it is most certainly a UNITED States of America thing.

We’ll see how our Government Leaders respond after coming back to work after Easter break. We’ll see if our government leaders have townhalls to listen to THEIR constituents.

We’ll see if they continue to give a pass to the pharmaceutical industry destroying our Nation; if we’ll ever get Infrastructure as from President Eisenhower, especially overhauling our water pipeline system; whether they’ll continue to favor those who destroy our environment ...

Fletch said:

You got that out of what he wrote? No wonder we cant have serious discussions here.

Click to expand...

What serious discussion do you expect? This is no different than the NFL boycott. I guess Trump supporters were trying to destroy the free speech if NFL players. Or protesting the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque, that got shut down, so much for the freedom of speech and religion of Muslims.

What if...? said:

I think you're ruling out the simple "Oh no she didn't..." angle.

Kids get mad. And this one is temporarily powerful. 600,000 followers.

Ingraham should have known better as a professional manipulator. Should have thought of the possible consequences.

She did not. Now she suffers those consequences.

So really its all the result of her incompetence.

She didn't "read the room" correctly.

Too bad.

Click to expand...

The consequences of speaking one's opinion should not ever be justification for trying to ruin that person because you don't like what he/she says or how he/she says it, most especially when what the person says is true. What Laura said in that tweet is 100% true. And she hasn't posted tweet after tweet after tweet or tried to stir up an angry mob to attack David Hogg.

He has said much that is not true, and has done his best to stir up an angry mob to attack the politically incorrect and Laura Ingraham, a cancer survivor and mother of three adopted children rescued from foreign countries, and a powerful voice of reason amidst what is mostly angry, nonsensical, hateful rhetoric.

Maybe in retrospect she should have skipped that single tweet, one she apologized for. Hogg refused to accept her apology but just ramped up his attacks against her. But considering the unconscionable unjustified and hateful remarks made by leftwing celebrities, including some in the media, who never generate calls for threats against advertisers, the whole thing is so hypocritical and unconscionable and maliciously politically motivated that it makes a body want to scream. (Not helplessly at the sky though.)

chuckiechan said:

When is the last time you have heard of a conservative calling for a boycott for an Opinion Crime by a liberal?

Click to expand...

NFL boycott. Ground Zero Mosque protest. Getting upset about the phrase black lives matter and saying it's racist against whites.

pragmatic said:

A lot of people have become annoyed and disenchanted with the NFL with regard to players kneeling/squatting for the National Anthem.

To suggest Trump had much to do with it is a bit of a stretch.

(Saying that The Donald is "directly responsible" is just ridiculous.)

Click to expand...

I could care less whether you’re annoyed or disenchanted with anything I’m saying. To suggest that #45 isn’t responsible for the boycott of the NFL is the height of saying something ridiculous.

Tell you what, being pragmatic means holding this President to the same lofty standards you expect from a Teenager. If you don’t like that, don’t waste your time with me ...

AlbqOwl said:

Maybe in retrospect she should have skipped that single tweet, one she apologized for. Hogg refused to accept her apology but just ramped up his attacks against her.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's time for her to take the advice she's dispensed to so many others: shut up and go do something else.

Fletch said:

I don't have a problem with boycotts, but I don't like the idea that people can be banned for life from the public forum because of a single comment. Nothing in what Ingraham said should cost her her job. People are just looking for scalps at this point.

Click to expand...

She isn't being banned form the public forum. The problem is that years ago, such behavior would get anybody fired. Now somebody like her plays the victim card, and sees herself as treated unfairly. The problem is that our standards if behavior and conduct has slipped backward. Network news shouldn't tolerate their personalities making such attacks on private citizens. Pundits should stick to the issues and avoid personal attacks. These teens have been called souless, crisis actors, and somebody even said Hogg deserves to be sucker punched. People should know better than this.

Acadia said:

Laura also apologized, as well as invited him on her show AGAIN. Hogg's response is to destroy her and her career. He in not even attempting to hide his agenda, or I should say, the agenda of the people who have their hands up his rear end, manipulating his mouth.

Click to expand...

So what? He is free to say her apology seemed insincere to him, and to call on her being boycotted. What she did was petty. He took the higher road and went for her where it hurts. If it takes this to get pundits to act like decent people in the public forum, then I really don't care. Media pundits are in an special position that requires them to be responsible with their speech.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yes, but when you use your power from a public office position to do so then it becomes ethically questionable even if not strictly unconstitutional. There is a distinct difference between you, as a private citizen, calling for an NFL boycott and firing NFL players that do not stand for the national anthem and the POTUS doing so.

Click to expand...

Ok.

Here's where I'm going to admit to a certain bias.

1. Disrespecting the anthem and by implication, the country whose principles made it possible for you to rise to a position of wealth and fame, is one kind of thing. A general public backlash against the NFL for this followed as a grassroots response. Trump as POTUS probably shouldn't have said what he did, but I don't answer for Trump; Trump answers for Trump.

2. Some kid, with help from political orgs, rises to fame disrespecting the Constitution and BoR by calling for infringements on same. Some pundit I don't really know or care about disparages him using some real and legit facts about him. He turns around and tries to get her fired by pressuring advertisers to pull their support from her show, smearing her for her personal but factual criticism of him. This is trying to destroy her career for simple personal vengeance, in his case, and trying to silence the political opposition in the case of Hogg's backers and handlers.

Is #2 likely to make political commentators a lot more cautious about saying anything critical of the Parkland Kids? Yes it is. Is this likely to have a chilling effect on the free speech of the opposition? Yes it is.

You could argue the same about #1 as well, I suppose, but in Case 1 a guy who was hired to play football is using THAT venue for political statements dissing his home country, to the detriment of his sport and the NFL. In Case 2 a political pundit was disparaging a political opponent, which is SOP these days, using legit facts, and is being driven out of the business for it.

I don't see those two things as the same.
In one case a ball player was making a highly public political statement AT WORK. I can get fired for that; so can you.
In the other case a political pundit was doing what political pundits on BOTH SIDES do: disparage the opposition. And someone is using their 15min of fame to run her out of business for it.

Not quite the same thing.

And here's my bias: my sympathies tend NOT to lie with people who publicly diss their own nation, or publicly diss the Constitution.

Maybe that's unfair, but we all have our biases. Most of those on this thread arguing in Hogg's favor are doing so because they agree with him... if his issue were, let's say, opposition to gay marriage, this thread would look VERY different. Very different indeed.


So yeah, some of my viewpoint on this is because I strongly disagree with the mouthy little ****. So what. Most of the people who are fine with Ingram being driven out of the pundit biz are taking that position because they disagree with HER. Cards on the table, gents...