Laura Schlessinger and the First Amendment

Jim Burroway

August 18th, 2010

Laura SchlessingerAfter I posted the news of Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s announcement that she was quitting her radio program at the end of the year over controversy over her usage of a racial epithet on her program last week, I thought some more about her tendency toward playing the victim. I gave a few examples from rather ancient history in that post, but I didn’t include her latest example. Last night, when she announced her retirement from radio on Larry King Live, she said:

SCHLESSINGER: You know, when I started in radio, if you said something somebody didn’t agree with and they didn’t like, they argued with you. Now, they try to silence you. They try to wipe out your ability to earn a living and to have your job. They go after affiliates. They send threats to sponsors.

KING: That’s their right, too.

SCHLESSINGER: Yes, but I don’t hatch the right to say what I need to say. My First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don’t want to debate. They want to eliminate.

So, that’s why I decided it was time to move on to other venues where I could say my piece and not have to live in fear anymore that sponsors and their families are going to be upset, radio stations are going to be upset, my peeps, as I call them, are going to be upset.

I think Schlessinger has a rather odd view of the First Amendment. It only says that the government will not infringe on anyone’s right to say whatever they want to say. As we’ve pointed out many times, that provision protects some egregiously racist speech, much much worse than anything Schlessinger has ever said or written. And their rights have been protected in the courts as hers would be.

But as anyone with a passing familiarity with the First Amendment knows, that right doesn’t extend to private platforms. Any broadcaster or editor is perfectly free to bar any opinion, and they can use any arbitrary or inconsistent whim they wish to apply. The First Amendment does not prohibit that in the least. Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Schlessinger’s program, is free drop her program anytime they want, and they can do so for any reason as long as it is in accordance with their contract with her.

But that’s not what’s happening. It’s Schlessinger who’s walking away, not Talk Radio Network. Nor is Clear Channel Communications refusing to handle her satellite distribution and advertising sales. The decision to end Schlessinger’s program, according to her own admission to Larry King last night, is entirely her own.

Schlessinger prides herself on her calling-’em-as-she-sees-em aggressive style. To her, this brand of honesty is the essence of character. But she’s clearly not exhibiting it here, and that shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s just another instance of a longstanding pattern. When her short-lived 2000 television talk show fell apart over low ratings and controversy over staff members posing as fake guests, she blamed gay activists for silencing her. Fast forward a decade, and she’s ending her radio show of her own volition and claims that someone — I don’t know who — is silencing her. But that’s not true. She’s only going away because people are criticizing her, and she seems to think the First Amendment ought to somehow make her immune from that. She’s wrong. Criticism is part of the essence of the First Amendment, not its enemy.

Ironically, one of Dr. Laura’s books is titled Stop Whining, Start Living.  That’s rich because being tough-talking and thin-skinned is a really bad combination. She might consider that as the basis for an eleventh stupid thing people do to mess up their lives.

Lindoro Almaviva

August 18th, 2010

OK, this is going to be controversial, but here it goes:

I am half agreeing with the Dr. on some of her anger. All this stems from the Dr. asking the caller why would the black community be offended by a word that they themselves use with one another. I don’t think it was nice of her to use the N-word, but she does have a point.

In our community we experience the same thing with the word “faggot”. It has been used as an insult for far too long, but within the community some have embrace it if nothing else to diminish the sting of it. I personally think is kind of hypocritical (and I will admit of being guilty of it) that I would feel free to use the word “faggot” to describe myself or anyone else but then be offended when a heterosexual uses it towards me or someone else, even if it is not meant as an insult.

What the Dr. did was reprehensible, but she does asked a question worth exploring…

Timothy Kincaid

August 18th, 2010

Well… she’s partly right.

There were efforts to silence her. Media Matters began a campaign of targeting her sponsors. And some did drop her.

Of course, efforts to get an opinion to fail financially are also protected by the First Amendment.

Mark F.

August 18th, 2010

Timothy:

Sure, but I’m very troubled at the attempt to put someone out of business or get them fired because they have an unpopular opinion or belief. For example, it is totally within your rights to boycott Jewish run businesses. Is that the right thing to do? I don’t think so. Just because you have the right to do it does not mean it is right to do it.

Earlier in the year, left-wing activists (including a friend of mine) were trying to put Whole Foods out of businesss via boycott because the CEO publically opposed Obamacare. Fortunately, this attempt bombed.

This sort of thing tends to shut down democratic debate, which I think is bad.

Timothy Kincaid

August 18th, 2010

Mark,

I don’t much jump on the boycott train. I think idiots should have the right to be stupid and unless something is really egregious I tend to avoid targeting their sponsors (though I certainly have at points).

Besides, such boycotts are seldom effective.

Tommy

August 18th, 2010

Actually Schlessinger’s use of the N-word was the least offensive thing about that call. Pretty much every moment of that call Schlessinger wallowed in racism and contempt. Her initial instinct when a black woman called in asking for advice about racism was to assume the woman was hypersensitive and whining. She went off on black people being uneducated and voting for Obama because he’s black. When the caller attempted to debate that point, Schlessinger accused her of having a chip on her shoulder. Then there was her extended claims about “black think” (her words) which is apparently, again, hypersensitivity and demonizing white people.

And, in the end, her advice for dealing with racism was to tell the caller to get a sense of humor.

Everything Schlessinger said dripped of pure racism. If anything she’s lucky that people are only focusing on her comments about HBO comedians.

Steve

August 18th, 2010

Schlessinger has been given a free pass for way too long.

She portrays herself as a health care professional and yet has no background in psychiatry, psychology, or counseling. Her doctorate is in physiology. She is never one to leave out the “Doctor” title. What a bunch of crap and false advertising.

Her views are based on anything but science. For one who portrays herself as educated by virtue of having an advanced degree, she certainly doesn’t show any tolerance that comes along with being educated and realizing that not all in nature is black and white.

Finally, she caters to insecure women who call in and allow themselves to be humiliated and berated. Her caller population is predominately young or middle aged women with depression who are insecure and lack self esteem. They sit there and listen while this pseudodoctor cuts them off in mid sentence and further reduces their self esteem in her angry tirades.

Good riddance.

AdrianT

August 18th, 2010

She abuses her ‘Dr’ title, effectively asking for her words to be judged by her reputation or status, rather than the other way about. It seems, if you have Dr or Rev in front of your name, you can get away with almost aby insult to dignity and truth. Well finally, truth won out.

She should stop whining – people want nothing to do with her, and it is their First Amendment right, if not duty, to encourage the owners of brands which they spend so much money on, not to spend their revenue on endorsing fanatics who do more damage than good to society. Her comments about LGBT people were highly inflammatory, the green light for for murderers like Calvin Glover, and numerous others. Maybe she should ask the parents of the late Barry Winchell what persecution means.

Emily K

August 18th, 2010

I agree with the above commenter who said “it’s not about the n word but the attitude of the comments.”

You can debate all day about the power of words and who uses them and why. But “Dr.” Laura could have left the n-word out and still have come off racist. What does Obama have anything to do with the caller’s question? her in-laws are making racist comments and Schlessinger’s solution is to “grow a sense of humor?” Huh, too bad Dr. King (a man worthy of the title “Dr.”) didn’t think of that one. Maybe civil rights would’ve come to Blacks a lot sooner. And “Black-think”? Seriously?? I request that she write a dictionary translating this special language/thoughtpattern.

mikeksf

August 18th, 2010

Since the poor, pitiful, put upon “DR” is being so besieged by her use of language and this attack on her 1st Amendment rights she should take the bold and principled stand and say “F*ck this sh!t” 2 or 3 times on her radio program. HBO and black and white comedians say it all the time. By golly, so should she. Then she doesn’t have to play the victim, she could be the new George Carlin

Rob

August 18th, 2010

mikeksf, don’t you dare compare trash to the late George Carlin. Show some respect.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

KKK Circulates Anti-Trans Flyer In Alabama

Donald Trump To Court Anti-Gay Extremists

I Thought We Were Done With This...

House Dems Promise More LGBT Amendments, GOP Leaders Counter With Rule Change

Charlotte Pulls "Compromise" With State Over HB2

Premier of Australia's Victoria State Apologizes for Historic Homosexuality Convictions

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today in History, 1610: Virginia Colony Enacts North America's First Sodomy Statute

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.