|
Kirata -> RE: Tell Angie's List: drop your support of Rush Limbaugh (4/24/2012 2:41:01 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure
He has no right of succuss as a broadcaster and broadcasters who offend ennough get hounded that isnt new.
Well, you have a good point there. In a context of looking at it that way, my reaction against the move feels overstated. I don't like the idea of trying to silence someone. I find it offensive on its face. But I suppose that Rush's fans, of which he has not a few, can play the same game by threatening to boycott any business that drops him. Then it will just come down to the math.
Okay, you have me convinced. But only on a technicality. I'm still not comfortable. Here's why:
Take the same scenario, except that this time it's a large block like the Religious Right going after some minor radio host with a small but loyal following of listeners who don't want to see him taken off the air and their right to hear him shut down. But when it comes to the math, they don't have the numbers to win. Is that okay? Or just tough shit?
Is freedom of speech subject to the tyranny of a majority? Yes I know, the guy doesn't have a "right" to have a radio show. He can still express his views on the Internet, as long as he or his listeners bear the costs. But there's something vaguely discomforting about the idea of an outraged mob being able to silence somebody by threatening the revenue of his advertisers.
Presumably, then, anything can be censored by bringing enough financial pressure to bear. Taken to its logical conclusion, media and other venues that depend heavily on advertising dollars will feel self-protectively inclined to limit their content to whatever is acceptable to a large enough majority that no minority view will have the numbers to swing the math.
I suppose some people might call that democracy in action. Those would be the ones in the majority, of course. The rest would call it three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
K.
|
|
|
|
