Editor’s note: Marc J. Randazza is a Las Vegas based First Amendment attorney. He is licensed to practice in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts and Nevada. He is the editor of the law blog, The Legal Satyricon.
(CNN) — I despise Rush Limbaugh. I despise almost everything I have ever heard him say. I wish that he were no longer on the air. That is why I write today to defend him against those who call for him to be silenced.
Far too frequently, Americans find offense in another’s art, music or other expression, and then they call for censorship. This is intolerable.
The First Amendment stands for principles like that espoused by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. Barnette: “Of there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Or that wisdom given to us by New York Times v. Sullivan, “Debate on public issues … [should be] … uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”
The First Amendment requires neither tact nor politeness. It requires that we permit all views to set up stalls in the marketplace of ideas, and we let that marketplace decide which ideas prevail.
Rush Limbaugh has a right to his views. Just as important, his fans have a right to hear him. Those of us who disagree with him have a right to fight him, but we must do so on our own. Using the government to support our view is constitutionally intolerable. Trying to bully him off the air is wrong.
Some call for the Federal Communications Commission to pull Clear Channel’s broadcast licenses if they keep Limbaugh on the air, because they believe that Rush Limbaugh does not “serve the public interest.” This is inaccurate and not permissible under the Constitution.
Chief Editor’s comments: It is the age old dilemma. Where free speech finishes and hatemongering or hate speech starts?
Categories: Americas, United States
One of the greatet Americans Thomas Jefferson once commented about free speech. One of the member of the audience asked, what about the speech we disagree with? He answered , that is the speech we want to protect. We have no reason to protect what we agree with.
Now, listen to what the greatest of all human beings , Our Holy Prophet(SAW) did. After the treaty of Hudaibiyya,Abdulla bin Ubai the famous Hypocrite,used derogatory language about him. His son who was a true Muslim,swore to kill his father. But The Holy Prophet (SAW) strictly forbade him, thus establishing the freedom of speech.