I see. Libs only want freedom of speech when it benefits them. Oh the hypocrisy!

[Shockwave]

Please, do you really think Obama is going to admit to anything? Just today he shifted the blame about solylndra to the repubs after taking credit for it. He's a pathological lair.

Really? What a piece of shit Obama is. Its seems every fucking day it gets worse and worse, shift the blame, never his fault, always someone else stopping him from doing what needs to be done.
Pretty sure if Lincoln was alive today and he met Obama, he'd go commit suicide.

[Straw Man]

I see youre still trying to argue semantics.
The public has the right to bitch, but they have no more right to silence him than he does to silence them.
Them bitching is of course not violating his free speech, but again, thats you arguing semantics. Were not discussing them bitching about what he's saying, were discussing what their ultimate goal is (having him taken off the air because they dont like what he's saying.)
They dont have the right to silence him. Period. If they did, it would be a violation of his free speech.
The only person that can shut him down is the station owner.

again, I don't agree with the premise (not sure it's yours) that Rush needs a radio show in order to have free speech

he can stand outside the radio station and say whatever he wants

he can write books, podcast,  etc...

no one is denying him free speech

[Shockwave]

again, I don't agree with the premise (not sure it's yours) that Rush needs a radio show in order to have free speech

he can stand outside the radio station and say whatever he wants

he can write books, podcast,  etc...

no one is denying him free speech

No one is saying that he has to have a radio show!
He has one, and the speech he is saying on the radio is just as protected as it is on the street.
You dont have to have a radio show to have free speech, but he has one, and that speech is no different than anyone elses. If it wasnt, anyone could censor what is talked about on the radio so that only "approved propoganda" is discussed.
Free speech applies to radio, news, blogs, podcast, everything. You cannot censor someone from ANY medium simply because you dont like what he's saying.
If he has access to something to get his speech out there, its protected.
You logic is flawed. You think that since he could go somewhere else, its not a violation which is just wrong. With that logic, nothing is to stop them from banning his blog, cause he could talk on the street. Then they could ban him from talking on the street, cause he could just go talk at home. Youre logic leads to mass censorship.

[Straw Man]

No one is saying that he has to have a radio show!
He has one, and the speech he is saying on the radio is just as protected as it is on the street.
You dont have to have a radio show to have free speech, but he has one, and that speech is no different than anyone elses. If it wasnt, anyone could censor what is talked about on the radio so that only "approved propoganda" is discussed.
Free speech applies to radio, news, blogs, podcast, everything. You cannot censor someone from ANY medium simply because you dont like what he's saying.
If he has access to something to get his speech out there, its protected.
You logic is flawed. You think that since he could go somewhere else, its not a violation which is just wrong. With that logic, nothing is to stop them from banning his blog, cause he could talk on the street. Then they could ban him from talking on the street, cause he could just go talk at home. Youre logic leads to mass censorship.

and the speech of people protesting him is protected too

he has a right to say whatever he wants and anyone and everyone has the right to protest it

he is not being censored

as you've agreed, "no one is saying he has to have a radio show"

If he doesn't have a radio show he can still publicy speak, write, publish those exact same words

there is no censorship happening here

[Shockwave]

and the speech of people protesting him is protected too

he has a right to say whatever he wants and anyone and everyone has the right to protest it

he is not being censored

as you've agreed, "no one is saying he has to have a radio show"

If he doesn't have a radio show he can still publicy speak, write, publish those exact same words

there is no censorship happening here

WTF!!!
I just said in an above post that HIS right to speak on the radio show is just as protected as THEIR right to bitch.
No one is talking about them complaining, Im talking about their objective.
STOP ARGUING SEMANTICS!!!!!
They cant silence him anymore than he can silence them. As I said above. Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing, it makes you look like an ass.
Theyre not protesting him, theyre trying to have him removed from the air based on what he says. That is censorship.
If they were just protesting like you keep talking about, no one would care.

[Skip8282]

and the speech of people protesting him is protected too

he has a right to say whatever he wants and anyone and everyone has the right to protest it

he is not being censored

as you've agreed, "no one is saying he has to have a radio show"

If he doesn't have a radio show he can still publicy speak, write, publish those exact same words

there is no censorship happening here

Of course it's censorship. 

Do you even know the definition of such a simple term.

[Shockwave]

Of course it's censorship. 

Do you even know the definition of such a simple term.

He's arguing semantics.
At 1st he tried the "its not a cencorship if its on the radio, cause everyone would have to have a radio show for their rights to be taken. (makes absolutley no sense).
Then he tried the protesters rights supercede Rush's rights - "they people have every right to protest because they have freedom of speech too" (even though they arent protesting, theyre trying to get him silenced).
Wonder which way hell go next just to argue with people?
He's literally arguing points no one is talking or cares about, lol.

[Straw Man]

Of course it's censorship. 

Do you even know the definition of such a simple term.

then I'll go to Clear Channel and demand a radio show and if I don't get one then I'm obviosly being censored

[Skip8282]

He's arguing semantics.
At 1st he tried the "its not a cencorship if its on the radio, cause everyone would have to have a radio show for their rights to be taken. (makes absolutley no sense).
Then he tried the protesters rights supercede Rush's rights - "they people have every right to protest because they have freedom of speech too" (even though they arent protesting, theyre trying to get him silenced).
Wonder which way hell go next just to argue with people?
He's literally arguing points no one is talking or cares about, lol.

No, he's confused a person's rights with what constitutes censorship.

I'm sure by now you've realized he's not too bright.

[Shockwave]

then I'll go to Clear Channel and demand a radio show and if I don't get one then I'm obviosly being censored

That makes absolutley no sense.
You dont have a right to a radio show.
You DO have the right to say whatever you want on a radio show, IF you have access to one/can afford one.
Just cause you cannot get yourself on/afford a radio show to get your protected speech out there does not mean that someone is violating your rights.  

Youre whole premise and logic is flawed, and makes no sense, and its really making you look like an idiot.

BTW, youre above statement is the most idiotic argument ive ever had the misfortune of reading.

[Straw Man]

He's arguing semantics.
At 1st he tried the "its not a cencorship if its on the radio, cause everyone would have to have a radio show for their rights to be taken. (makes absolutley no sense).
Then he tried the protesters rights supercede Rush's rights - "they people have every right to protest because they have freedom of speech too" (even though they arent protesting, theyre trying to get him silenced).
Wonder which way hell go next just to argue with people?
He's literally arguing points no one is talking or cares about, lol.

you've already agreed he has no right to a radio show so what's the problem if it's taken away

being taken off the air because people object to your content is not censorship

BTW - who is conducting this censorship on Rush

Is it the goverment?

Are you tuning into Rush and hearing long spaces of dead air because parts of his show have been redacted

Does an owner of a radio show have a right to tell his employee what they can and cannot say on the air

is that censorship ?

Does he have the right to fire him if he violates the rules established by his employer?

is that censorship

Can I walk around my office saying whatever I want to anyone and then cry censorship when I'm reprimanded and/or fired ?

[Straw Man]

That makes absolutley no sense.
You dont have a right to a radio show.

You DO have the right to say whatever you want on a radio show, IF you have access to one/can afford one.
Just cause you cannot get yourself on/afford a radio show to get your protected speech out there does not mean that someone is violating your rights.  

Youre whole premise and logic is flawed, and makes no sense, and its really making you look like an idiot.

BTW, youre above statement is the most idiotic argument ive ever had the misfortune of reading.

and neither does Rush

[Shockwave]

you've already agreed he has no right to a radio show so what's the problem if it's taken away

being taken off the air because people object to your content is not censorship

BTW - who is conducting this censorship on Rush

Is it the goverment?

Are you tuning into Rush and hearing long spaces of dead air because parts of his show have been redacted

Does an owner of a radio show have a right to tell his employee what they can and cannot say on the air

is that censorship ?

Does he have the right to fire him if he violates the rules established by his employer?

is that censorship

Can I walk around my office saying whatever I want to anyone and then cry censorship when I'm reprimanded and/or fired ?

Your a fucking idiot and Im not going to keep arguing semantics with you.
If the owner of the radio station doesnt like what he has to say, he can take away his access to the radio station. Rush's right to speech is protected, the radio station agree's with his message, so he's allowed to speak on it by the radio station owner, AND NO ONE ELSE CAN STOP HIM. Besides the station owner. Otherwise is a violation of his freedom of speech. As the Radio station agrees with Rush's message, it becomes the stations speech, and a 3rd party trying to silence that station IS a violation of freedom of speech.
HOWEVER, a 3rd party cannot decide that they dont like what he has to say and shut him down. Thats not how it works here.
The speech is protected either way. But if the station owner decides he doesnt like it, he has to go somewhere else to get his message out. But no random fucking person can decide to take Rush off the air if they dont like what he has to say.

I cant figure out how youre so fucking stupid as to separate these points, its not all one way or none.

[Shockwave]

and neither does Rush

NO ONE SAID HE DOES!
However, the station owner doesnt mind, so guess what? NO 3rd party can tell Rush he cant say whatever the fuck he wants on SOMEONE ELSES STATION. That is censorship.
If the station owner doesnt like what Rush has to say and no longer lets him have airtime, thats NOT a violation of freedom of speech, because its the PRIVATE PARTIES medium, its up to him to decide what he wants playing on his station.

Once more - A 3RD PARTY CANNOT COME AND TELL A STATION THAT THEY DONT LIKE WHAT RUSH IS BROADCASTING AND TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE AIR, THAT IS A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH AND CENSORSHIP.
You cant even figure out what youre arguing can you?
Freedom of speech on radio is still freedom of speech.
Rush's freedom of speech is the stations freedom of speech. No other party can silence their speech because they dont like what the station is saying.
And YOU dont have a right to a radio station. You can afford one? Great, you can say whatever the fuck you want and no one can stop you because of the freedom of speech. But just because you cant afford one does not mean that the speech of others is not protected on it.

[Skip8282]

then I'll go to Clear Channel and demand a radio show and if I don't get one then I'm obviosly being censored

In the broadest sense, yes you are being censored.

That doesn't mean it's illegal.  Not all censorship is illegal.  Whether it's right or wrong, fair or unfair is always arguable.

[Straw Man]

Your a fucking idiot and Im not going to keep arguing semantics with you.
If the owner of the radio station doesnt like what he has to say, he can take away his access to the radio station. Rush's right to speech is protected, the radio station agree's with his message, so he's allowed to speak on it by the radio station owner, AND NO ONE ELSE CAN STOP HIM. Besides the station owner. Otherwise is a violation of his freedom of speech.
HOWEVER, a 3rd party cannot decide that they dont like what he has to say and shut him down. Thats not how it works here.
The speech is protected either way. But if the station owner decides he doesnt like it, he has to go somewhere else to get his message out. But no random fucking person can decide to take Rush off the air if they dont like what he has to say.

I cant figure out how youre so fucking stupid as to separate these points, its not all one way or none.

so the owner has the right to tell Rush what he can and cannot say and that, in your opinion is not censorship

I'm glad we agree on that

A 3rd party has NO ABILITY to directly shut Rush down

A 3rd part has every right to object to him and try to pressure the emloyer to take him off the public airwaves and if the owner caves in then it's the owner taking him off the air and you've already agreed that it's OK and not censorship for the owner to do that

again, I say none of this is censorship because Rush has every right to have his words heard, read, etc.. in multiple different formats

The public airwaves are not the same thing as the town square or the sidewalk

[Soul Crusher]

Why can't liberals just support a liberal radio host and compete in the arena of ideas ?  

[Shockwave]

In the broadest sense, yes you are being censored.

That doesn't mean it's illegal.  Not all censorship is illegal.  Whether it's right or wrong, fair or unfair is always arguable.

I dont really agree with that.
No one is stopping him from going and getting a radio station to broadcast whatever he wants.
Just cause he cant/wont doesnt mean that others that do arent protected.

[Shockwave]

so the owner has the right to tell Rush what he can and cannot say and that, in your opinion is not censorship

I'm glad we agree on that

A 3rd party has NO ABILITY to directly shut Rush down

A 3rd part has every right to object to him and try to pressure the emloyer to take him off the public airwaves and if the owner caves in then it's the owner taking him off the air and you've already agreed that it's OK and not censorship for the owner to do that

again, I say none of this is censorship because Rush has every right to have his words heard, read, etc.. in multiple different formats

The public airwaves are not the same thing as the town square or the sidewalk

Jesus christ. Again, multiple pages for you to say "I want to argue cause your definition is different than mine".
If a 3rd party tries to shut down a show on a station because they dont like what is said, that is censorship. Period.
You dont get to decide what format/medium is acceptable and whats not. Any format that he can get his speech out legally is protected. The owner of the station has the right to decide because its his station, when they make and agreement and Rush starts talking, his speech BECOMES the stations speech.

Definition -
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body

Guess what - youre wrong.

[Skip8282]

I dont really agree with that.
No one is stopping him from going and getting a radio station to broadcast whatever he wants.
Just cause he cant/wont doesnt mean that others that do arent protected.

Ok, just to clear up something - freedom of speech protections apply to the government.

Nobody is "protected" from employers, private businesses open to the public, etc.  You can't go into Macy's and start yelling curse words and claim free speech protection.

The government is not trying to shut Rush down.

Private groups are trying to censor Rush.

The issue is whether it's fair/unfair or right/wrong.  Not protected/unprotected, etc.

[Soul Crusher]

Liberals NEVER want to debate ideas and issues.   They want to shut down debate and shut people off.

[Skip8282]

Liberals NEVER want to debate ideas and issues.   They want to shut down debate and shut people off.

Agreed.

[Shockwave]

Ok, just to clear up something - freedom of speech protections apply to the government.

Nobody is "protected" from employers, private businesses open to the public, etc.  You can't go into Macy's and start yelling curse words and claim free speech protection.

The government is not trying to shut Rush down.

Private groups are trying to censor Rush.

The issue is whether it's fair/unfair or right/wrong.  Not protected/unprotected, etc.

So again, boils down to semantics. Instead of the word "protection", its simply a matter of the fact that a 3rd party does not have the right to censor someone based on the fact that they dont like what is being said, as that is up to the discretion of the employer. Which, in this case, since the employer sides with Rush, would take an act of governmental intereance to shut rush down, which is what Ive been talking about the whole time, the end goal of this is to get Rush taken off the air, which would have to be done by the government.

[Straw Man]

Jesus christ. Again, multiple pages for you to say "I want to argue cause your definition is different than mine".
If a 3rd party tries to shut down a show on a station because they dont like what is said, that is censorship. Period.
You dont get to decide what format/medium is acceptable and whats not. Any format that he can get his speech out legally is protected. The owner of the station has the right to decide because its his station, when they make and agreement and Rush starts talking, his speech BECOMES the stations speech.

Definition -
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body

Guess what - youre wrong.

and if Rush can walk out the front door of the radio station an say the exact same speech then how is he being censored

again, free speech does not mean you have a right to a radio show (and if you disagree that's certainly your perogative)

If Rush loses his radio show he is not losing his free speech and just because I don't have a radio show does not mean I'm being denied free speech

that's about as simple as I can make it for you

[Straw Man]

Ok, just to clear up something - freedom of speech protections apply to the government.

Nobody is "protected" from employers, private businesses open to the public, etc.  You can't go into Macy's and start yelling curse words and claim free speech protection.

The government is not trying to shut Rush down.

Private groups are trying to censor Rush.

The issue is whether it's fair/unfair or right/wrong.  Not protected/unprotected, etc.

exactly

and it's fair for Rush to say whatever he wants just like it's fair for people to object and try to get him fired