Brent Bozell, President of the Media Research Center, appeared Fox News Channel Thursday morning to discuss the recent radio controversies, such as Don Imus’ firing and XM Radio’s suspension of Opie and Anthony, who had joked on air about violently raping Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Bozell argued that such vile speech plainly crosses a line, but at the same time defended the need to have unfettered political speech from both the Left and Right.
Video: Real (3.44 MB) or Windows (3.91 MB), plus MP3 (615 KB)
Referring to left-wing campaign to go after talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Bozell warned: “We also have to be very cognizant that there are some people who are playing games,” using the pretense of “decency” to suppress political speech.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"using the pretense of
May 24, 2007 - 11:19 ET by general company"using the pretense of “decency” to suppress political speech".
Among other things,
Neither Imus or Opie and Anth
May 24, 2007 - 12:34 ET by Chidi NwachukhuNeither Imus or Opie and Anthony were fired for political speech. So is L. Brent's argument (as it was a few years ago) that people like Rush should not be held accountable for what they say?
Are you really serious Chidi?
May 24, 2007 - 12:43 ET by bigtimerAre you really serious Chidi?
Really?
LMAO!
You must have some kind of a problem with listening, reading and comprehending.
What, specifically, Chidi?
May 24, 2007 - 12:44 ET by RJWhat, specifically, would you like Rush to be "held accountable for", Chidi?
I didn't say Rush should be s
May 24, 2007 - 13:36 ET by Chidi NwachukhuI didn't say Rush should be suspended, I am making a point that in general, people need to "Man Up" and defend their actions and words. Also, if you are a DJ and don't have any clue where the line is, then you are a complete moron.
Well, I already posted about
May 24, 2007 - 11:27 ET by bigtimerWell, I already posted about this issue as I caught it this morning as it happened and posted on the site regarding Rush with Ubermann...
Kudo's once again, it was excellent.
Brent Bozell reminded me a l
May 24, 2007 - 12:01 ET byBrent Bozell reminded me a lot of Robert Knight, who heads up CMI (Culture Media Research) and who I greatly admire. Brent Bozell is right on the mark with all that he said in the interview and I look forward to hearing him more in the future.
Debra...
Ms. Smith: Have you followe
May 24, 2007 - 12:42 ET by j. frank wilsonMs. Smith: Have you followed the Andrew Smith free speech case? Did you see that the ACLU filed a "friend of the court" brief on his behalf? Or do you still contend such actions are meaningless...
Enlighten us Nuke em til th
May 24, 2007 - 12:55 ET by Dan The Man 2Enlighten us
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Andrew Smith was a high schoo
May 24, 2007 - 15:08 ET by j. frank wilsonAndrew Smith was a high school student who published an opinion piece that found problems will illegal immigrants. The school administration delt with him very harshly (and unfairly) and he ended up going to court over it. After an almost six year legal battle he won the case - and the school district must pay back to his family legal fees assessed at the lower level.
It was a victory for free speech rights. Under California law, students have more rights than they do under Federal law. The Pacific States Legal Foundation (hope that is the correct name) was the attorney for Mr. Smith (and his family). The ACLU filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Mr. Smith.
On her website, Ms. Smith makes some wild claims about the ACLU and the fact that their friend of the court briefs don't amount to much. They do.
That would be the "ACL
May 24, 2007 - 13:09 ET by Jack BauerThat would be the "ACLU" which the school outrageously asked to vet the student's second article as to its suitability to be published.
They decided NO. Must be great to have such power that you can decide against the 1st Amendment rights of a high school student.
Sounds like child who's offs mom and dad, then asks the court to show mercy because he's an orphan.
That would be the ACLU that s
May 24, 2007 - 14:57 ET by j. frank wilsonThat would be the ACLU that supported the position that under California law Mr. Smith had the right to publish his opinion.
How can the ACLU be held responsible for being asked anything? The fact is they filed their friend of the court brief on Mr. Smith's behalf - that was the decision the ACLU made.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (hope I got that name right, I was driving at the time) attorney who represented Mr. Smith was interviewed on Hate Talk 560 (San Francisco) this morning. He acknowledged the ACLU's support.
It's obvious your narrow mind can not accept the fact that the ACLU supported a student's right to publish his opinion. This is the same ACLU that supported a student's right to have a bible verse quoted under her yearbook photo, the right of religious organizations to incorporate in Virginia, the right of a church to use a local park for baptism services, the right of ole BlunderRush to keep his medical records private.
Next thing you'll probably be claiming the US Supreme Court ruled that prayers in public schools are illegal.