Ed Schultz: You know what we need? Laws to stop offensive speech.

The Pentagon has developed a top secret weapon, deep in the bowels of Area 52. This pudgy device was tested over the public airwaves on Friday. It’s effects: To cause all those exposed to lose control of their jaw muscles while simultaneously causing blood to shoot out of their eyes. In case you missed it, feel free to don your protective equipment and watch the video below.



Before anyone can cry “context!”, here’s the transcript, which includes all the pieces of his show not shown in the video above.

There’s so much material here, I’m not even sure where to begin. I suppose I’ll start by defending Rush, not that he really needs it. Ed begins by saying that America’s favorite talk radio host is a “flat-out racist”. The segment he uses to prove it? This one, sliced out of context more precisely than any surgeon known to man:

LIMBAUGH: Clyburn‘s worried about not having the car. Clyburn‘s worried about not having the perk of a big office, a driver, so forth.

The way this can all be worked out, Clyburn‘s new position, driving Ms. Nancy. He gets to keep the car, he gets to go everywhere she goes, parties and everything else. He‘s not in the back of the bus. He‘s in the driver‘s seat, and she‘s in the back of the car being chauffeured. Solved problem.

This is a fine example of a form of expression known only to scholars, which explains why Ed isn’t familiar with it. They refer to it as “sarcasm”. They would tell Ed that the second paragraph was meant, not to say that he believed that truly was a good solution to the problem of racism, but instead used hyperbole to deride the Democrat party’s racist tendencies as perceived by Mr. Limbaugh.

Ed continues on by railing against the racist hate speech of Glenn and Sean. I firmly believe that Mr. Schultz inadvertently played the wrong clips to evidence his claims. Being the serious, disinterested journalist that Mr. Schultz is I have no doubt that actual clips with real racism will be forthcoming. Unfortunately, since not one of the clips he played displayed anything of the sort, (Criticizing Obama and other liberal leaders and saying that they may be racist is not, in fact, racist, regardless of the race of the person being criticized.) I can't reproduce them here.

But here is where it gets really interesting. Ed, when interviewing that racist hate-mongering protester illustrious man-of-the-cloth Rev. Al Sharpton, whines that there “are never any ramifications” when people say things like this. This isn’t “acting in the public interest” when you “allow somebody to go on the air, time and time again, and make racist comments and no ramification for it, whatsoever.” [Cue jaw drop] Al, unable to hold back, says that while “people can say whatever they want, but not on the air, not on federally-regulated airwaves”.

Absolutely. I mean, that freedom of speech thing is all well and good, but clearly when it’s happening on the radio it ought to be crushed with extreme prejudice.

Then his next guest comes on, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Sidenote: Possibly the most awesome name ever, combining both Stonewall and Robert E!). She must’ve just gotten done reading 1984, because she opens with this (not shown in the video): “I am a strong supporter of the right for anyone to express their beliefs, and to do it in a way that may be controversial, or may be a belief that I don‘t agree with.”

Ed and Lee sensed there might possibly be some kind of ambiguity about their belief that people should be allowed to say whatever they want, as long as they A) Aren’t doing it on the radio, and B) They agree with it. So, they followed up with what you saw on the video.

My personal favorites exchange:

Ed: “I mean, I don‘t want to say, should there be a law against this, but where‘s the decency?”

Lee: “It might be worthy of a debate again, because without the Fairness Doctrine, of course, there is a wide latitude of the use of language that is provoking, provocative and insulting.”

Ed: “How about a decency law that says you can‘t make racist comments on the air?... But we‘re never going to move the envelope forward in this country… if we‘re going to allow people to go on the air and say inciteful [sic] things like this… “

All emphasis mine.

So, to sum up: You should be able to say anything you want, even if they don’t agree with it…As long as it’s not on the radio, racist, insulting, or provocative. In that case there should be a law against it.

Here’s the deal, Mr. Schultz. The 1st amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Note there is nothing in there about the speech needing to be nice, or fair, or palatable. Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech. That means speech you don’t agree with. Speech that is racist. Speech that is insulting, kind, rude, genteel, offensive, and everything in between. It’s everything from a pro-Nazi rally to a blog about home cooking.

The only restrictions allowable are restrictions that have to do with the public safety (for example, calling fire in a crowded theater) or that are actually harmful to another in a quantifiable way (slander/libel), because these forms of speech trample on the Constitutional rights of others.

Your rights do not include not being offended, Mr. Schultz. If you, or anyone else for that matter, don’t like what Rush, Glenn, Sean, or anybody else has to say then switch the station. Deride them as idiots. Howl that morons such as they hold such opinions. Scream to any and all who will listen to turn away from their thoughts. But do not, under any circumstance, legislate their ability to speak.

I will return to you the same courtesy. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, summing up the beliefs of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”