Over the past week or so, I’ve run into a number of people very upset about Wes’ campaign to get Rush Limbaugh dumped from Armed Forces Radio. Most are Clark supporters, and most are upset enough about this to consider no longer supporting Wes because of it. I’ve probably had this debate with about 20 people so far, and there is a common, understandable, theme. Their objection to this campaign is that, however much they detest Limbaugh and what he’s doing, going to Congress to have him removed amounts to a breech of Limbaugh’s first amendment rights/freedom of the press and censorship. So, it seemed like a good idea to write a blog about this, and try to add some points unique to this particular issue because it involves members of the armed forces and Armed Forces Radio Service, that many who are upset about this may not be taking into consideration. Here goes…
Actually, firing Rush Limbaugh (no matter who does it) violates neither his first amendment, nor does it constitute censorship, because he’s isn’t protected by that when he commits libel and defamation. Calling members of the armed services “phony soldiers” because they disagree with him constitutes libel and defamation. I’m also not too sure one can be a victim of censorship for being removed from one, of many, networks, in part, for openly censoring members of his audience on the network removing him. That would be a little like saying convicting me of murder is a violation of my first amendment rights. I was engaging in my right to freedom of expression when I went on my killing spree.(ok - yeah, that’s a little extremem, but you get the idea.)
As I read, and re-read Wes’ emails asking us to send a letter to Congress to ask them to remove Limbaugh, this is how I interpret what he’s asking, what he wants, and perhaps why he wants it and why he’s the one spearheading it. This is my opinion/interpretation, of course. So, Wes? If i’m wrong on any of this - jump in and correct it please!
I can’t see where Wes is advocating Limbaugh be removed from the airwaves, unilateraly. He’s advocating he be fired (removed) - as one of the two conservative radio talk show hosts broadcast as representative of the conservative part of the American population. Sean Hannity is the other. There are also two liberal radio talk show hosts who are broadcast as counterpoints: Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes.
The idea behind airing two conservative and two liberal political talk radio shows is, obviously, to give service members and their families as balanced a ‘touch of home’ as possible, in that particular arena.
However, when talk radio moves from open debate between a show’s host and its callers, to a host doing little more than spouting his specific viewpoint, then berating, insulting and libeling anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint in any degree, then that host no longer fulfills the purpose for which he/she was chosen to be broadcast and should be replaced by someone who does.
Wes isn’t asking Congress to stifle free speech, quite the contrary - he’s asking them to remove a host who stifle’s free speech under the guise of patriotism, and insults and disrespects the very people whose morale he’s supposed to help lift.
Below are a couple of quotes from the FAQ’s of AFN, and the History:
1. Q: Why does AFN air political-talk radio programs?
A: AFN has an obligation, backed by Congressional mandate, to provide our audience access to the same variety and diversity of programming that they would enjoy if they were back in the States. Because political talk radio is among the most popular stateside radion formats, AFN currently offers four political radio talk shows on our AFN radio schedule: Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity represent the conservative viewpoint and Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes represent the liberal viewpoint. We make our choices based on popularity with the American audience. We don’t censor programs. We strive to provide our overseas audience with a choice and let them decide for themselves what they want to see and hear. There is no requirement for our audience to listen to anything they personally disagree with. To review the balance we strive to achieve via the totality of our radio and TV schedules, please visit http://www.myafn.net. 2. History: On May 26, 1942, the War Department officially established AFRS with the mission of providing programming, shortwave service and broadcast equipment for U.S. military locations overseas. AFRS was to give servicemembers a “touch of home” and combat “Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose.”
Now, granted, as stated above, the AFN makes their choices based on popularity. So, yes, it would be great if his popularity could be reduced to the point he lost his show but that’s unlikely to happen if the measurement is how popular he is throughout the US, versus throughout the military and foreign service.
Limbaugh has crossed a major line by calling soldiers, whether active or veteran, “phony” for disagreeing with him primarily. But, he crossed an even bigger line by calling anyone “phony soldier” who has served, and/or are now serving during wartime. For someone who has never served in the Armed Forces, and who weilds the political clout he does, to be allowed to consider himself the arbiter of what makes a soldier “real” or “phoney” is the height of insult to anyone who serves or has served, and their loved ones.
Allowing Limbaugh to call service members “phony” is little different than allowing him to call them cowards. And that’s exactly what he’s doing. Which brings up point 2. above - one of the primary reasons for the creation of the AFRS (Armed Forces Radio Service), which was to do all possible to counteract the demoralizing influences of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally. It was to rebuild the morale of troops far from home, not to insult them and call them phony or fake or cowardly if they dared to question or even disagree with the reasons they were fighting.
No one has a greater right to voice dissent than those charged with protecting that right with their very lives - and especially when they already must take care in how they voice that dissent. However, those on active duty are not afforded the same rights they protect and defend for the rest of us. Active duty personel can’t openly voice disagreement to their Commander in Chief, “(attack) the war aims of the United States”, etc (see Article 134 - Disloyal Statements of the UCMJ. and I might be quoting the wrong article, so if Fred or Jai are reading this hopefully they’ll post the correct article.) - to do so can be a court-martialable offense.
So - how do active duty personel get redress for Limbaugh’s statements? They can’t exactly call in to the show, announce their name and rank, tell Rush they are on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, then tell him they think we need to start leaving Iraq, and that he’s an asshole for calling them ‘”phony soldiers” for believing we should start leaving. We civilians can do that. But soldiers can’t.
How can active duty personel even petition to have him removed for what he’s saying, without possibly being labeled as openly dissenting the war aims of the U.S.? It’s a real tightrope, and falling off it costs people their careers and possibly their freedom for a while.
What about getting a lot of retired military and vets to lobby the DoD to have him removed? Ok - that might work, but there probably aren’t enough to make it happen.
What if we civilians lobby the DoD? Probably won’t work. The DoD is subject to Civilian Authority - that’s big “C”, big “A”, as in Congress and the President, not little “c” as in us. So for us to exert our will on the DoD, we must first exert it on our Congress members to do the right thing, and get them to tell the DoD to fire Rush. Probably this would be in the form of a congressional resolution, probably non-binding but with enough pressure to get the job done. It is not the same as passing a law to remove Rush from the air. It’s firing him for failing to perform the primamry function of his job, as it applies to AFRS - provide a ‘touch of home’ as a means to inform and lift morale, and for libeling and defaming members of the Armed Forces.
Wes isn’t asking Congress to remove Limbaugh’s right to free speech - he is heard on thousands of radio stations across the planet and has every right to his opinion. But he does not have the right to libel anyone for any reason, least of all because they might dare disagree with him. For that, he should be fired, and Wes is right to ask that, and we are right to help him ask that.
