Politics or sedition? Rush Limbaugh calls for military coup

[L. Coyote]

Politics or sedition? Rush Limbaugh calls for military coup
November 26, 10:20 AM - Portland Progressive Examiner - Michael Stone


When does a political joke become sedition? Rush Limbaugh is calling for a military coup, and the joke, if it is a joke, is not funny. Rush, speaking about President Obama's upcoming speech at West Point, expressed hope that military officials at the Academy would "detain" President Obama.

Regardless of one's politics, to suggest that military officials at the United States Military Academy detain the President of the United States is to suggest a military coup. Such a suggestion is sedition. Limbaugh is advocating military insurrection.

Limbaugh has made similar remarks before. Speaking of the Honduran coup Rush had this to say: "The coup was what many of you wish would happen here, without the military"; and, "If we had any good luck, Honduras would send some people here and help us get our government back".

.................

It is doubtful that Limbaugh will suffer any meaningful consequences. ... These kind of inflammatory remarks by Rush and other right wing nuts continue to damage the credibility of conservatives and the GOP. .........

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

1. I don't think wishing something would happen meets the level necessary for prosecution.

[EFerrari]

2. It really doesn't. But repeating it over and over normalizes the thought.

And that's destructive.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. True.

Many things are destructive though. One of the costs of freedom I'm afraid.

[EFerrari]

9. Yep. I don't know about the ethics of using public airwaves

to do this stuff but that's ethics.

[bleever]

20. There you go again,

thinking things through.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

36. Happy TG Day, bleever!

:hug:

:hi:

[bleever]

52. And to you too.

Mine's been comfy, and I hope yours has been just as good. :hug:

[tblue37]

82. Of course, Rush is force fed to the troops via

Armed Services Radio, while liberal programs are banned. Not only is su thinking bing "normalized"--it is being normalized via miliary media!

[EFerrari]

89. Maybe "valorized" is a better word. Ug -- lee.

[jasi2006]

208. Do thye force feed that fact that he is a chickenhawk?

Anal cyst draft-dodger.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

27. WHY ARE SOME DEFENDING THUGS

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Why are some "who" defending thugs?

[Lorien]

117. Because "Ignored" is one of them?

:shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

193. People, people. YOU CAN'T ALERT ON IGNORED POSTS! How do you think RW trolls get to survive so long?

Because people who could be alerting are ignoring instead, that's why!

When I use Ignore, it's only for dumb or boring posters. RW trolls get my undivided attention.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

100. ^^^exactally

The problem arises when people this speech becomes normalized and people become desensitized.

[iamtechus]

8. The term "wishing" refers to a silent mental activity --

But that is not what is happening here. Limbaugh is clearly suggesting that the military should overthrow the government. It does not stretch the meaning of his words to say that he is urging the military to do it.

It bears mentioning that this message is broadcast to our troops via Armed Forces Radio.

Rush Limbaugh should be placed in one of those now-vacant cells down in Cuba. I am WISHING that he would be arrested and put there.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. The article referred to it as expressed hope. It does stretch his words to say he is urging anyone.

If he said you member of the Armed Forces that are listening should go take up arms and overthrow the government. That would likely be enough to at least arrest him.

[paulsby]

13. two words:

brandenberg standard

[bleever]

23. "It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to

inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

[paulsby]

40. there are three triggers

to meeting the brandenberg standard, actually. that's a decent summary.

limbaugh clearly has not met the standard. nor did h rap brown, angela davis, or mike malloy.

they all have said inflammatory things that authoritarians on the right would love to squelch. fortunately , the 1st amendment protects them.

it also protects what limbaugh said.

[mix]

98. Brandenberg is not the relevant case law here.

This is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

138. So you believe a military coup is imminent specifically because of limbaugh's hope?

[mix]

146. Limbaugh is trying to incite violence, trawling for assassins--military or otherwise--

against Obama or any other "liberals." That is not speech I want protected.

By calling for violence against the President from his enormous and influential public perch, Limbaugh has violated federal law (the Smith Act).

Will there be legal repercussions for him? Probably not, but he can be shamed and isolated by being exposed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

148. Let's see the quote in which he specifically calls for violence against our President?

That shouldn't be too hard.

[mix]

161. To "detain" the President

from doing his duties, which include commanding the military, is to do violence to him and his office since it reverses the Constitutional order of things, not to mention the will of the people. It is bloodless, in the best of circumstances, but violence nonetheless.

This is what Rush has been advocating from his corporate media perch for quite awhile.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

162. Except he didn't call for it he said he hoped it would happen. Protected by Brandenburg and Yates.

[mix]

169. I would call that "advocacy." See the original law. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

171. Even if you call it advocacy, SCOTUS ruled in Yates that such advocacy was specifically permitted.

[mix]

175. show us nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

178. SCOTUS ruled that the Smith Act did not prohibit “advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0395_0444_ZS.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0298_ZS.html

[paulsby]

12. nice to see the anti-1st amendment brigade is kickin'

in here. keerist. limbaugh's a putz. that doesn't mean he should be arrested.

free speech has costs. one of those costs is rush limbaugh

[Cheap_Trick]

204. I am WISHING that one of Jabba the Rush's fans would watch "Talk Radio"

and get some ideas.

[bertman]

205. I am WISHING that god would "take him home". Maybe the sorry piece of shit will have

a myocardial infarction the next time his fat ass darkens the door of a Denny's. And maybe the ambulance will get stuck in traffic and not get to the fascist s.o.b. in time.

I'm just WISHING all of this. REALLY REALLY HARD WISHING.

[me b zola]

11. Unless it is done against bush* or another republican?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Who was charged with sedition when bush was in office?

[paulsby]

63. i agree. it's frigging amazing

by these authoritarian "incitement" and "sedition" standards, mike malloy wouldn't have lasted a month

thank god he's been able to evade all those arrests.

it's INCITEMENT1!

oh noes!

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

79. if defending the 1st amendment means i hate democratic values

in your bizarro world, then i guess i do.

here's a little hint. voltaire said it a long time ago. i may disagree with what you say, but i defend to the death, your right to say it.

true then, and true today.

fortunately we (the USA) have not succumbed to the idea that "hate speech" should be illegal.

robust, vigorous debate.

sunlight, disinfectant

[mix]

90. Sure it does.

The Smith Act remains on the books. It is a federal crime for anyone to:

“knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises, or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of, or to affiliate with, any such association."

Advocating a military coup against the executive meets the legal definition of sedition under current laws.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. Sorry you are wrong, see Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

You will notice that the advocacy of violence has been ruled to be Constitutionally protected.

[mix]

134. wrong case law nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

136. In what way does it not apply?

[mix]

137. figure that one out on your own nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

142. No need, Brandenburg V. Ohio is clearly the applicable case law. Thanks for your input though.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

149. Yates vs. United States even says Limbaugh is protected. Link included.

Yates v. United States

The Supreme Court of the United States said that for the Smith Act to be violated, people must be encouraged to do something, rather than merely to believe in something. The Court drew a distinction between a statement of an idea and the advocacy that a certain action be taken. The Court ruled that the Smith Act did not prohibit “advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine.” In Justice Black's opinion, he wrote of the original Smith Act trials:
"The testimony of witnesses is comparatively insignificant. Guilt or innocence may turn on what Marx or Engels or someone else wrote or advocated as much as a hundred years or more ago.<...> When the propriety of obnoxious or unfamiliar views about government is in reality made the crucial issue, <...> prejudice makes conviction inevitable except in the rarest circumstances."
The convictions of the indicted members were reversed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States

[mix]

153. you might want to read it more closely nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

156. SCOTUS ruled that the Smith Act did not prohibit “advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government"

[caraher]

155. I'm not a lawyer and just want the low-down

I'd like to know and just telling Fire_Medic_Dave to figure out why isn't helpful to me or anyone else who just wants to know whether there's a case for legal action because of this kind of talk.

So why does the case law he mentioned not apply?

[mix]

159. 1st Amendment Law is less relevant here than

Sedition Law...is Limbaugh advocating a military coup against Obama--a de facto overthrow of the government--as an abstract principle or concrete action?

That is the grounds from which any discussion of Limbaugh's long running remarks against Obama and Democratic government must start.

Given Limbaugh's privileged media position and ties to the far-right, not to mention his gig with Armed Forces Radio, I am concerned that Limbaugh is "trawling for assassins" inside and outside the military.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

163. Yates specifically permits such advocacy. Although hoping something happens isn't advocating much.

[caraher]

166. Thanks

I do agree that he's well-placed to actually set something off, even though he'd doubtless pass off his "hope" as an idle thought.

It's not clear what the wiser course would be even if this can be prosecuted. Just imagine what a heroic figure he'd become overnight in the eyes of the lunatics if he were jailed...

[Initech]

4. Time to get this treasonous bastard off the air and in prison.

[paulsby]

14. ah, the anti-1st amendment brigade

striking again.

[Initech]

17. Hey I'm all for exercising 1st amendment rights.

It's a whole other ball park when you're inciting a coup against the commander in chief - doesn't matter which side of the fence you fall on. :eyes:

[paulsby]

19. no you aren't at all for exercising 1st amendment rights

if you are calling for his arrest for his obviously legal speech

he wasn't inciting jacksquat.

and you clearly haven't read the case law surrounding the 1st amendment.

start with schenck, move on to brandenberg (which superseded it and is currently law of the land) and you will see that what did is no different than what any # of people on the left and right have done legally for decades.

[Cleita]

26. Legal free speech ends when you incite riots like yelling

fire in an auditorium, when there isn't one. This is the same thing and if you listened to other talk show host than Limbaugh or Hannity you would know that because it has been discussed on the air with Constitutional lawyers defining the law. Calling for the overthrow of your government is treason. Nobody ever called for it when Bush was installed as President although he was pretty illegitimate what with stealing elections and all because it's treason not a First amendment right.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

41. Oh you are too much.

Don't even try to BS me or bully me. I am not the person using the Constitution as a shield to hide behind. Limbaugh should be in prison not only for drugs but for being anti-American. He has shown his traitorous ways over and over again but always hides behind the "I'm only an entertainer" free speech position. It's an abuse of the First Amendment in every way, just like the gun nuts abuse the Second Amendment. Someday the Supreme Court is going to have to draw a line on this.

[fishwax]

44. You think someone should go to jail for being anti-American?

"Limbaugh should be in prison not only for drugs but for being anti-American."

:crazy:

[Cleita]

49. I certainly would go if I tried to get somebody to overthrow the government.

It's known as being a terrorist and that is anti-American or haven't you heard?

[paulsby]

58. no, you wouldn't go anywhere except

back to your house when you were done.

nothing limbaugh said was crimianlly actionable. and there is nothing he said that = "trying to get somebody to overthrow the government"

man, it's just amazing. read the case law. read it. educate yourself.

[Cleita]

62. Are you his lawyer or something?

If so, you aren't doing him any favors by not warning him that he's pushing the envelope too far.

[paulsby]

64. i'm just somebody that believes in civil rights

unlike you.

hth

[Cleita]

68. How about my civil rights and my free speech?

You don't seem to think I have the same rights you are defending for Rush. You keep trying to make me shut up because you disagree with me by calling me names. I think you are a hypocrite.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. What name did he call you?

[paulsby]

75. that's rubbish

i didn't say you didn't have the right to say what you are saying.

i am simply saying what you are saying is WRONG, on the law.

you, otoh, are saying limbaugh does NOT have the right to say what he is saying. that he deserves criminal sanction, etc.

YOU are the opponent of civil rights.

hth

[metalbot]

115. You have civil rights and free speech

All he's doing is suggesting that if you want to understand better what the limits of your civil rights and free speech are that you read the Supreme Court cases that have established what those limits are.

You're entitled to an opinion, and you have the freedom to promote that opinion. But like Rush, your opinion can still be wrong.

[fishwax]

61. well, that's not exactly equivalent

It's not illegal to be anti-American. :shrug:

[paulsby]

77. it's also not illegal to say what limbaugh said

yet the anti-civil rights brigade rambles on

[paulsby]

lol, you sound like a fundamentalist trying to get prayer into school

you say " i am not the person using the constitution as a shield to HIDE behind" (emphasis mine)

a PERFECT authoritarian, anti-liberty response.

fwiw, i don't hide behind the constitution. it's my shield that i PROUDLY display for everyone to see. it means that unpopular speech gets protected, it means the nazis get to march in skokie, that angela davis gets to spew hate, iow it doesn't care what "wing" you are, just that your rights are broad and inalienable

you are like a parody of an authoritarian. and an exact analogue of the right wing authoritarian that finds the constitution a pesky impediment to violating other people's rights.

seriously. bravo. you took 2 sentences to do it, but you debased yourself better than i could ever have done

brilliant

[Cleita]

50. I would certainly be militant if Rush Limbaugh was played to children in

school. You betcha.

[paulsby]

55. that wasn't the issue

the issue was the claim that limbaugh broke the law , should be arrested, and imprisoned.

THAt's what i responded to. nobody i am aware of supports limbaugh being broadcasted in school (iow a captive audience)

nice strawman

[mix]

94. To suggest that the military should "detain" the President is

a violation of federal law since it advocates an utterly unconstitutional act. The military is under civilian command at all times.

[Initech]

69. Exactly. It's like yelling fire in a crowded auditorium.

I hate Rush as much as the next DUer but I've never called not once for him going off the air. This time however, he's crossed the fucking line. Like over the edge. This isn't free speech - not on my watch it isn't.

[onenote]

110. wrong both as to the first amendment and to the constitutional definition of treason

[cherokeeprogressive]

139. Doesn't a riot have to happen before you could possibly be indicted for inciting one?

Yelling fire in a crowded auditorium isn't automatic grounds for prosecution you know. If nothing happens, if no moviegoers get out of their seats and stampede toward the exit, I doubt the authorities would even be notified.

[skepticscott]

189. Baloney

Calling for the overthrow of the US government is NOT treason. Read the legal definition of treason (you do know where to find it, right?), then tell us how this falls under it.

[JDPriestly]

198. What is treason?

Article III, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3

Federalist Paper No. 43, James Madison (comment on power of Congress pertg\aining to treason)

3. "To declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained."

As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm

[Initech]

71. You apparently aren't aware of the danger this exhibits.

The thing is - people listen to this shit AND TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY. Oxyrush talks a lot of shit. A fucking lot. But he never has the balls to act on it. It's like the Joker from the Dark Knight - he wasn't capable of pulling off some of the shit he did but his men did. And that's what this type of crap does to our society. The thing is - we talk a lot of shit about the freepers and all that but the thing is - they're a very scary and very organized group, capable of anything. Including this.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Are you resorting to a comic book reference? Really?

[Cleita]

21. Inciting the rabble who listens to him to commit treason has nothing

to do with the First Amendment, so stop saying that it does.

[paulsby]

25. your use of the word incitement

begs the question

you are CLEARLY not clear with either the spirit or letter of the 1st amendment or the relevant case law. the current standard for incitement is the brandenberg standard. limbaugh didn't come CLOSE to violating it, and it's disgusting that all you authoritarian anti-1st amendment clones come out of the woodwork just cause limbaugh said something stupid.

[Cleita]

28. BS. I know incitement when I hear it. Limbaugh always says something

stupid. This is beyond that.

[paulsby]

34. you can call it incitement

or you can call it a ham sandwich. it doesn't matter. what matters is the LAW, not what you think you know.

the law on incitement is clear, and i already referenced it. you clearly have not read it.


are you familiar (clearly you are not. it's a rhetorical question) with the history of incendiary speech surrounding such issues? do i need to quote h rap brown, angela davis, or any # of other people who have said things that under your standard are "incitement"?

for christ's sake. spare me your authoritarian anti-constitutional suggestions

[fascisthunter]

102. I see we have a defender of a traitor here

more like an apologist for Rush Limbaugh bullshitting about rights. Yes, they love the Constitution when they "think" they can abuse it. Sorry, inciting a riot or harm to a sitting President, a coup if you will is illegal, and is not covered under Free Speech.

[onenote]

111. defending the first amendment hardly makes one an apologist

unless of course you think someone like William O Douglas was an apologist for the KKK (see Bradenburg v. Ohio, Douglas, concurring) or for anti-semites (see Terminiello v. Chicago)

Sadly, you might actually think that.

[hack89]

123. You need to read your Constitution

it defines treason - the only definition by the way. What Rush is doing is clearly no treason.

[mix]

91. Weigh the options.

Advocating the violent overthrow of a democratically elected president, which would also violate the foundational Constitutional principle that the military will remain under civilian command, is a greater crime than curbing someone's 1st Amendment rights, in this particular case.

I have no problem curbing speech that incites violence towards democratically elected officials and violates the Constitution.

To turn this into a purely 1st Amendment issue is moranic and suggests that you do not regard Obama as legitimately elected.

[onenote]

113. so when I was marching in the streets against the vietnam war talking about revolution

you would have had me arrested?

Nice.

[mix]

124. Read the law.

Marching against the Vietnam War and "talking about revolution" are constitutionally protected.

Publicly advocating a coup d'etat against a democratically elected government is not.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

150. SCOTUS has ruled in both Yates and Brandenburg that you are incorrect.

[Submariner]

5. Still snortin' that Hillbilly Heroin Rushbo?

Thought so.....It brings out your true self.

[lysosome]

43. He's not on drugs. Never met a fat junkie.

[951-Riverside]

6. I think the Fort Hood shooting pretty much nixes that idea n/t

[Cleita]

7. No military coup is a good thing, even if it had been done

against Bush for lying us into war. I think Rush should be arrested and put on trial for publicly calling for the overthrow of the government.

[paulsby]

15. another anti 1st amendment brigade post

simply amazing.

[Cleita]

18. The first amendment has nothing to do with suggesting that the military

detain a sitting President. Please explain your position if you have one.

[paulsby]

22. brandenberg standard

that's all i have to do to explain my position.

it doesn't meet the criteria for speech that is criminally actionable.

as usual, the various authoritarian anti-1st amendment people feel there is no problem with advocating discarding the 1st amendment as long as their ire is focused at some rightwing moron like limbaugh.

the 1st amendment is risky, dangerous, and it MATTERs that we defend it.

[Cleita]

31. You are using the First Amendment to justify overthrowing our government.

I know the military won't, but the suggestion is there and it's a very treasonous one. You know Hitler overthrew the Wiener Republic by stretching all the laws to the limit that gave him the appearance of legality until the Constitution had been so compromised it didn't exist anymore. So I suggest you give it a rest.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. Suggestion. You have just admitted it wasn't incitement.

[paulsby]

39. no, it's not

you are still just expressing ignorant authoritarianism. need i quote kunstler, h rap brown, angela davis, etc?

get real.

read the frigging case law.

the constitution is COMPROMISED when authoritarians like you advocate discarding it just because some rightwing moron drivel and dribbles on

[Cleita]

42. You can't even use proper punctuation and you are trying to impress

me that you ever read anything about this?

[paulsby]

51. trying to impress an authoritarian like you

with case law is like trying to impress a pig by putting a bonnet on it. it just annoys the pig and doesn't serve anybody.

like i said, you think it's perfectly ok to ignore somebody's constitutional rights as long as they are a rightwing assmuch blowhard, like limbaugh.

arguing case law with you, would be like arguing science with a creationist.

why bother.

i;ll give you the briefest primer. the case is brandenberg. there are three triggers necessary.

and limbaugh doesn't meet that standard. hth

and thank god we have rule of law and a constitution, or else authoritarians like you would erode our rights at first chance

[Cleita]

60. Why don't you and your ilk like use punctuation?

Is it because it's some kind of code you use to flag each other? I'll bet it's a signal to have all your little groupies come flying in. If you want me to take you and your insults seriously you really have to stop behaving like you belong to some club and you are just here for some fun at the DUmmies expense. Oh, you can call me all the names you like because I know you are looking in the mirror to project on to me all the fundie, creationist etc. references. And just a little something I know, just because something is legal, it doesn't make it right. That's what Hitler and his cronies did. They made every atrocity that they did legal and I hope you know what company you keep when you start behaving like them.

[paulsby]

65. my ilk is too busy opposing

authoritarian civil rights opponents like you to waste those electrons on them pesky punctuation thangs

hth

maybe one day you will respect our constitution

i can hope

Oh noes!

omg!

i said i hoped it happens! i must be INCITING you!!!!!

egad

[mix]

109. You have no understanding of the Constitution or federal law.

Below is one of the reasons why Rush's speech, which is a pattern, violates federal law.

Marine Corps Oath of Enlistment:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Rush's crime will not be pursued by the Obama Justice Department, but that does not mean that such speech does not violate federal law. It is a provocation on the part of the corporate media celebrity that is wisely left unanswered. It is nonetheless a crime to publicly call for the armed forces to defy the command of the President, particularly from Limbaugh's influential media perch. I would not be surprised if there were a handful of military people of all ranks who have told Rush about their unconstitutional coup fantasies, meaning there is probably more to this than just his provocations, which appear endless and growing in danger.

[onenote]

112. how does the marine oath make what rush said illegal?

Again, there is a clear Constitutional standard for "incitement" -- and rush's drivel doesn't meet it.

BTW, I distinctly remember DUers advocating that members of the military refuse their orders to Iraq. What I don't recall is anyone suggesting that those DUers were guilty of inciting those members of the military to violate their oaths.

[mix]

127. It doesn't.

His comments alone meet the legal definition of sedition.

The Marine Corps Oath of Enlistment is evidence of how our Constitution organizes the relationship between civilian and military authorities. It shows how seditious Rush's comments are and how assbackwards his defenders' understanding of the Constitution is.

[billh58]

158. Both Limpballs' statements

AND public calls for active military members to refuse lawful orders meet the definition of sedition, IF anyone is actually incited to carry out calls for an illegal act:

The High Court has protected the speech of racial supremacists and separatists, labor organizers, advocates of racial Integration, and opponents of the draft for the Vietnam War. However, it has refused to declare unconstitutional all sedition statutes and prosecutions. In 1940, to silence radicals and quell Nazi or communist subversion during the burgeoning Second World War, Congress enacted the Smith Act (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2385, 2387), which outlawed sedition and seditious conspiracy. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sedition

The only reason that Limpballs has not been prosecuted is that there is no way to prove that he has incited a specific case of violence against our duly-elected government, or that one has even occurred as a result of his insane rantings. The First Amendment (like the entire Constitution) is a double-edged sword with both positive and negative applications, depending upon your point-of-view.

Should an act of violence against our government occur at some point in the future, AND it can be linked directly to the urging of Limpballs (or someone like him), he could be charged with seditious conspiracy. Likewise for the anti-war crowd: if an individual is successful in convincing an active duty military member (or more to the point, a group of military members) to disobey a lawful order, and that can be proved, the individual can also be charged with seditious incitement.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

168. His "hopes" are clearly protected, see Yates and Brandenburg.

[billh58]

179. Yep, but

if his publically stated "hopes" ever become a reality which can be directly linked to his incitement, he can be prosecuted. I seriously doubt that he is that stupid -- however, other "bubbas" of his ilk are.

You can advocate revolution all you want, but you can't legally overthrow the duly-elected government of the United States of America. None of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, allow for an armed rebellion against our government no matter how some may wish to interpret them differently.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

181. If a West Point grad ever tries to overthrow the Obama admin, Limbaugh may be in trouble.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

143. He didn't publicly call for anything of the sort. That's the problem.

[Tejas]

45. Care to cite case law that supports your drivel?

Of course you can't, but might I suggest a solution....stop listening to Rush every day.

[Cleita]

66. Surely you are joking. I would put a bullet to my head if I had to listen

to that irrational lying sack of pus every day.

[dysfunctional press]

16. shouldn't he at the very least be booted off of armed forces radio...?

i'm assuming he's still carried by them.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

29. THUGS ARE A DISEASE

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Those "THUGS" have protections under the Constitution like everyone else.

[mix]

95. False.

Advocating the violation of the Constitution and the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government trumps the 1st Amendment, current federal law proves this. There is nothing "unconstitutional" about curbing speech that advocates a coup d'etat.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. As has been stated here over and over limbaughs language doesn't meet cross the line.

[mix]

126. it goes over the line nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

128. I advise you call the FBI and Secret Service and tell them your opinion.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. The Supreme Court has ruled differently in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

You will notice that the advocacy of violence has been ruled to be Constitutionally protected.

[mix]

132. wrong case law nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

151. SCOTUS has ruled in both Yates and Brandenburg that you are incorrect.

[mix]

154. prove it nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

157. SCOTUS ruled that the Smith Act did not prohibit “advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government"

You are the one calling for someone to be imprisoned. You prove it.

[billh58]

195. The First Amendment

protects all kinds of speech in a public venue, including hate speech, the advocacy of violence, and calls for revolution. Should the speaker, or someone listening to him/her, carry out a criminal act advocated by those protected statements, it can then become a criminal conspiracy:

Sedition prosecutions are extremely rare, but they do occur. Shortly after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, the federal government prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric living in New Jersey, and nine codefendants on charges of seditious conspiracy. Rahman and the other defendants were convicted of violating the seditious conspiracy statute by engaging in an extensive plot to wage a war of Terrorism against the United States. With the exception of Rahman, they all were arrested while mixing explosives in a garage in Queens, New York, on June 24, 1993.

{Snip}

The government did not have sufficient evidence that Rahman participated in the actual plotting against the government or any other activities to prepare for terrorism. He was instead prosecuted for providing religious encouragement to his co-conspirators.

Also, see this review of the 2004 novel Checkpoint about the plotting of the assassination of Dubya:

The heated pre-publication discussion concerning the book was striking because neither the book's opponents nor its defenders had read it. That didn't seem to stop very many from denouncing what they believed was the unacceptable suggestion of even just the possibility of presidential assassination (specifically in the climate of that time) -- or, in some cases, insisting that free speech should allow even for that.

http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/vol5/issue4/checkpt.htm

Bottom line: you can say almost anything you want in public providing you don't incite someone to commit a criminal act, and your only concern should be civil prosecution under various liable and slander laws.

[mix]

196. Advocating the overthrow of the government

brings federal sedition laws into play...whether or not Limbaugh's comments meet the standard of advocating "concrete action," as opposed to remaining merely an "abstract principle," is another question entirely and worth investigating...is what Rush Limbaugh says from his corporate media perch really the same as what the average anonymous citizen advocates against his or her government? Limbaugh is in a much better position to advocate concrete action against the government than the typical American citizen.

[billh58]

197. All you have said is

morally true, but it is does not rise to the level of a criminal act under existing Constitutional (or any other) law, nor is it subject to criminal prosecution -- UNLESS he provably incites someone to commit a criminal act by the exercise of his free speech rights. He would then be guilty of criminal conspiracy. "Sedition" is a criminal act, while advocating sedition is protected speech until a criminal act is committed. The law may not be "right" to many, but it IS the law-of-the-land which protects all Americans.

Rush Limpballs is a despicable, racist, bigoted, anti-American asshole, but unfortunately there is no law against that in this country. Whether he "is in a much better position to advocate concrete action," or not, advocacy is not a crime until someone acts on it.

I am NOT defending Limpballs -- I am defending the First Amendment, warts and all, and to date the SCOTUS agrees.

[Tumbulu]

54. at least!!!!! nt

[bleever]

33. He "hopes" Obama will be detained by the military.

His program is broadcast to the military via AFR.

So he's telling them he wants them to do it.

That isn't incitement?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Nope.

[bleever]

48. What's missing? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. Do you think it is likely to cause the military to try and stage a coup?

[bleever]

67. Is it likely to incite it?

That's very open to interpretation.

But, a jury informed of political struggles between the WH and the military, and the way McChrystal and others have gone public in unusual ways in order to influence the WH's options, and the Air Force's recent history of Dominionist influence, and the historical perspective Eisenhower cast on the situation with his heroic warnings about the military industrial complex, and the ascendancy of Blackwater, and the right-wing media's constant assertion that Obama is a Marxist/socialist/Nazi/Kenyan/Taxenator, might be inclined to think:

Yes. They want to take back this country, just like they say. And they say they'll do it any way.

Any way.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Do you think that a military coup is imminent?

[bikingaz]

101. SARCASM - so when do we haul him to the detention camps?

Yes let's lock up him and all of his listeners.
Can't afford to have one decide to pull it off.
SARCASM

[Cleita]

47. It is, but his apologists say he isn't meeting the Brandenburg standard.

Oh don't pay attention to that crazy moron over there just blathering under his First Amendment rights while he's holding a really BIG microphone.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. The law is the law. Your suggestion would be wise, don't pay attention to him.

[opihimoimoi]

46. Another instance of Negativity......Rush is Rash...wrong for so long means EVIL

[TreasonousBastard]

57. Fortunately, as much as he yacks, no one actually bothers to...

do much of anything he advocates.

Perhaps we are lucky his listeners are generally too lazy or stupid to pull any of it off.

[Fumesucker]

83. Limbaugh was for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004?

I'm amazed at the things I learn on DU on a regular basis.. :evilgrin:

[certainot]

106. limbaugh has been the most potent political force last 20 yrs

but the left has no clue for the most part because he gives thinking people a headache, they turn on the music, and now htey're waiting for an iPod in every car.

[billh58]

160. If you support Limpballs

so much, why are you here? He certainly didn't have enough "potent political force" to keep President Obama and a Congressional Democratic majority from taking office, did he?

[certainot]

165. talk radio's why we're in iraq, why the GOP is doomed, why we're not talking single payer

and why we had bush in the first place. the better question is why did gore and kerry lose to a corrupt failure and deserter? so finally things got so bad people finally came out to vote.

you missed my point- limbaugh and the talk radio mnopoly that the left ignores is the worst thing that ever happened to this country, maybe in our entire history considering the valuable time we've lost dealing with climate deterioration because of their ability to purge the GOP of moderates and thinking cons.

[billh58]

176. Sorry for the

misinterpretation of your post, but the only "talk radio" that I listen to is A Prairie Home Companion with Garrison Keillor...;-)

[certainot]

210. exactly

how can dems or figure in the effect of talk radio if they never hear it and can't read it.

[billh58]

213. I'm not sure what your

point is, and the fact is that I do get to "read it" more often than I would like, because people like you keep telling me about Limpballs. Believe me, I read enough to know that, like Hannity and Beck (who I neither listen to, nor watch), Limpballs is a right-wing wacko shock-jock entertainer whose following is comprised of rednecks from the shallow end of the gene pool.

There are more of us, than there are of them. Fuck them.

[certainot]

214. they have the biggest soapbox and they shout over you every day

and because big media ownership likes the tax breaks and deregulation and sensationalized war they sell the flat earthers get way too many seats at the table. the talk radio monopoly has a huge say in what is and what isn't acceptable in the MSM.

the fact no one has been reading them means that much of the politics the last 20 years has been analyzed without factoring in the huge effect of all that coordinated uncontested repetition to a crowd the size of the one that voted for obama. they may be fewer but the screamers credited with obstructing health care and getting the compromises they're getting are dittoheads, and all they need to do is enable and intimidate a few fence sitting red state dems and keep the GOP reps from even contemplating helpng obama.

he is NOT an entertainer. he gets paid for selling war, deregulation, tax breaks and global warming denial. he doesn't get 1/2BIL$ for entertaining.

[billh58]

215. Meh...

Conspiracy theorists bore me. You could at least get your facts straight, and stop pulling them out of your ass. Limpballs doesn't make anywhere close to $500M/year, but around $30M and he is far from making what Howard Stern and many other talk show hosts do:

http://blogs.payscale.com/ask_dr_salary/2007/07/talk-show-host-.html

[certainot]

217. i never said a year- get your asses straight

Limbaugh extended his contract through 2016 — $38 million per year with a nine-figure signing bonus. The total package is valued at over $400 million.

as far as conspiracy theories, why the fuck do you think the last 20 years have been so fucked up, since reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine. it's a huge insult to this country if you think the last 20 years were just some regular cyclical lurch into right wing stupidity, reducing the GOP to the flat earth club, 'electing' a failed oil brat and deserter, and then letting his administration destroy the economy and lie us into iraq. you thought it was your spineless representative that let that happen?

the print and TV mediums, even as consolidated as they are, could not have created the atmosphere in the US where this crap was acceptable.

[billh58]

218. Wow!

You are my hero. So intelligent and eloquent, and schooled in the ways of the world. I bow to your superior intellect and vast amount of inside information which the rest of us so obviously are totally unaware of. I will make it a point to faithfully listen to Limpballs daily so that I can prepare for the coming catastrophe...;-)

:tinfoilhat:

[certainot]

219. about time!

[certainot]

220. my point is

as long as the left ignores talk radio (except for a few personal hits on the talkers once in a while) it plays politics with a significant disadvantage. it does the heavy lifting for whatever the GOP does.

[Tumbulu]

59. He should be removed from public airwaves

and all of his advertisers should drop him.

If that does not happen, then the military should detain him.

[burning rain]

73. It bears mention here that armed forces radio carries Limbaugh.

I know only too well that the military is on balance a right-wing constituency, but for them to host a radio guy who "jokingly" encourages mutiny and treason, is too much.

[JVS]

80. +1

[Sherman A1]

76. If you believe it to be a problem

and I don't disagree, why not file a complaint with the FCC? I don't know how a discussion on a message board either advances or fails to advance the process.

[proteus_lives]

81. Wow, after reading a lot of these posts I realize that authoritarianism is alive and well on DU.

Amazing how many people here are willing to burn the 1st Amendment now that the Democrats are in power.

Sigh....

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

194. And by what they get annoyed about shall ye know them. -nt

[Hubert Flottz]

84. I think where Rush fucked up, is when he got off of the pain killers

and male enhancement pills and started mainlining the brown LSD and peanut doughnuts...aka GOPer Fool-Aid.

[Enthusiast]

85. Limbaugh should

suffer meaningful consequences.

[BlueCollar]

86. I'm sure AFRTN didn't put in a disclaimer...

AFRTN = Armed Forces Radio and Television News...

[DailyGrind51]

87. As long as you are willing to put your fat ass in the front line, Rush!

[StarfarerBill]

88. No, only leftists are ever prosecuted for sedition;

right-wingers just get more money and power for espousing it.

[FarLeftFist]

92. Note to Rush:

Please don't call for a military coup unless you yourself are willing to stand on the front-lines.

[Kingofalldems]

93. He should be taken off Armed Forces Radio at the very least

[L. Coyote]

97. YES

And he should be branded with an SS on his forehead :rofl: Stupid Sicko

[blm]

96. He should be kicked off Armed Services Radio at the very LEAST.

.

[Kievan Rus]

99. The Secret Service needs to have a little chat with OxyRush

[fascisthunter]

103. nazi boy wants his brand of nazism to take over the country?

I'd like to see somebody from Secret Service pay that pig a visit, but seeing as to how perverted right wing infiltrated this government, I wouldn't put it past them to protect that f*cker.

[bridgit]

104. When does a political joke become sedition? Oh, I dunno, when they put a noose around your neck...

and drop the floor? The other day Limbaugh was taking calls from military personnel - at least they said they were calling from and expressing rank, internal, generalized DoD 'concerns' just one call after another as they and Limbaugh codified the "chicka-fication" of the armed forces via both feminized misunderstandings of the male-based nature of war and co-ed combat training exercises, women not to be taken seriously in combat roles, and the represented-as countermanding of Obama's order specific to the rules of fire & release of Capt Phillips as being too tentative and therefore a dangerous, ill thought out "chicka-fied" response in a dangerous hair triggered world that only patriotic RW men are able to understand. Very dangerous talk to be having with highly excitable teabags

[berni_mccoy]

105. Not free speech protected. Calling for a Military coup is a threat on the President.

SS/CIA should arrest him.

[certainot]

107. 'obama's head needs to roll' said limbaugh sept 10, 2008 second hour

he came up with a completely absurd pretext in order to say that line but that's what he wanted to leave out there.

[newspeak]

108. yes, Mike Malloy, Amy Goodman, Rachel and KO

have criticized the actions of the * administration. What bothers me is that Rush is given more access to spread his illogical BS. If I want to listen to KO or Rachel, I must pay extra on cable, just to see them. Minimum basic cable just gives you access to blowhards like O'lliely and Beck. I've traveled across country and sometimes the only thing on my radio was Rush. He is given access by corporate neo-con shills. Why he is even on Armed Services Radio, I haven't a clue. He panders to his audiences' preconceived prejudices, and to me, instills fear and hatred.

I am a great fan of the first amendment, but I also wonder about violent actions taken by the truly fearful, over zealous ignorant. I look at the hate and fear spread through the radio medium in Rawanda. How about Hitler's PR campaign against those "evil, greedy" jews and "morally bankrupt" homosexuals? Or the attacks against socialists (liberals) and unionists?

I believe Jeff Christy is given access by corporate power to keep divisions within the American populace. And, he is very effective. He has access on public airwaves-he doesn't need additional access on military airwaves. Give his slot to Scarborough or some other right winger who at least has more credibility.

[BreweryYardRat]

116. Brandenburg standard's pretty damn vague.

"These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

It looks like the "is likely to incite or produce such action" clause is what's keeping Rush from dancing on air. (Myself, I'm in favor hanging the traitorous fuck. Did even Malloy at his most wild-eyed ever call for a military coup, assassination, or anything other than the impeachment of Bush via the legal process?)

So what would the circumstances required to meet the "likely" standard be? Rush spouting the same blather while the President is visiting a force with a high proportion of Dominionists?

[Lorien]

118. Can you imagine what would have happened to any Democrat had they

said the same about Bush? Hell, Dems were being watched by the FBI for being involved in peace vigils or wearing anti-war t-shirts! Saying something like "I wish someone would take him out" would get you prison time, but there's always been one set of laws for them and another for us.

[malletgirl02]

120. Reminds me of a Famous Henry II Quote

This quote relates to the murder of Thomas Beckett: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

129. All kinds of people said it and wrote it about Bush. How many of them were imprisoned?

[Kingofalldems]

133. Man--you seem to be a big fan of Rush

And then there is the Global Warming thing you don't seem to care for. Just like Rush. BTW, Did you defend Cindy Sheehan as vigorously as the slime you are now defending?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

135. Your reading comprehension sucks. I'll defend the Constitution regardless, you don't have to.

[Kingofalldems]

140. Rush will not be arrested and you know it

The fact you make a huge deal over DU hyperbole regarding a piece of shit is very revealing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

141. I love our nice big tent.

:toast:

[Kingofalldems]

145. He called for a coup-- publicly

Would it be okay with you to take him off Armed Forces Radio?

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

200. I'll need to see that quote. His speech is protected. I have no idea who decides what's on AFR.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

177. No. Not regardless. Only for right wingers. These are the only people you jump out on behalf of.

If I'm wrong, link me to a post of yours in which you defend a liberal's First Amendment rights as vehemently.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

180. Who was the last dem that openly hoped for the overthrow of a Repub admin?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

182. Well, since you replied with a non sequitur, it seems I'm not wrong.

Reread my post above. It has a statement and a suggestion. Are you able to understand each?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

183. The case law here is specific to sedition type cases. Do you understand that?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

186. My point is about something else entirely. But you, of course, know that. -nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

188. Democrats, even during the Bush years, aren't known for making such inflammatory statements.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

191. No. Instead, they caught worse flak for speaking up in a much less inflammatory fashion.

But for some reason it's only the plight of the poor oppressed wingnuts that seems to bother you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

184. Nice strawman though. Especially trying to limit the Constitution to the 1st Amendment.

Go to the gungeon. I routinely defend the 2nd Amendment there.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

185. OK, now I laughed. Involuntary comedy at its best! -nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

187. You weren't drinking milk were you?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

190. Of course not. I was eating roasted blond Christian baby, like all evil Rush-censoring leftists.

No choke. I specifically asked for immunity against that in my contract with Satan.

[Caretha]

212. Burning Bush Guy?

Did you forget about this one?

Connecticut Law Tribune

September 16, 2002

Forget The Biblical Allusions; Crucified For Crazy Talk

By Norm Pattis

I don't know which is more frightening: The fact that a South Dakota man was convicted of the crime of threatening the president by talking about a "burning bush," or that federal prosecutors pursued the charges.

It took a federal jury in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, little more than an hour to find Richard Humphreys guilty of threatening to kill or harm the president. What did he do to face five years of federal time and a hefty fine?

Humphreys, who calls himself Israel, views himself as a latter-day prophet cut from an Old Testament mold. It seems Israel was spreading the word one March day in Sioux Falls. "Don't be surprised if you see George Bush on TV and someone runs by and throws something on him and lights a match," Israel sneered. God had once before spoken through a burning bush, he noted. It turns out that quasi-President George W. Bush was scheduled to be in Sioux Falls the very next day. After stewing about Israel's comments for the better part of a day, a bartender called federal authorities. Call it a time-delayed hue and cry.

[billh58]

207. See this full-page ad

taken out by The World Can't Wait in 2006, and the very prominent people (including sitting members of Congress) who endorsed it:

http://www.worldcantwait.net/ads/usatoday.pdf

To the best of my knowledge, and despite calls from the Neoconservatives for legal action, no one was ever questioned, charged, or prosecuted for this call to "drive out the Bush regime." Although the ad does not expicitly call for the violent overthrow of the government, it comes very close.

This ad, and many more calls for the ouster of Dubya and his criminal band of thieves, was protected by the very same First Amendment which protects scum like Limpballs, Hannity, and Beck.

Most political web sites, including DU, have Rules against advocating any type of violence not because such speech is illegal, but because of possible liability issues should a crime be committed and blamed (fairly, or unfairly) on a particular posting.

[JonQ]

119. This is just like when he incited rabid RWers to kill that census taker in KY

. . .

[havocmom]

121. Is he still being broadcast over Armed Forces Radio, in violation of the Hatch Act?

Whoever allows that, if it is still happening, needs a visit to a military court, or civilian court?

[alp227]

122. Nothing new

Rush said something similar back in July, and Rush was "Worst Person in the World" on Olbermann because of that.[br />
Jim Robinson, founder of our rivals Free Republic, also called on a peaceful overthrow of the US government.

During coverage of the Clinton impeachment hearings, Dan Rather suggested to former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-NH) that Republicans would be seen as conducting a "coup". He said:

...is or is there not some concern of the public perception in some quarters, not all of them Democratic, that this is in fact a kind of effort at a quote ‘coup,’ that is you have a twice elected, popularly elected President of the United States and so those that you mentioned in the Republican Party who dislike him and what he stands for, having been unable to beat him at the polls have found another way to get him out of office?

It's amazing that conservatives have been calling on militant overthrows of liberals from office. Besides calls for impeaching Bush, I can't really name any instances where liberals have sunken to Robinson's or Limbaugh's levels of calling on coups or overthrows, foreign, un-American-style.

PS: I'm finding more examples.

John L. Perry of Newsmax also ]link:mediamatters.org/blog/200909300012|wrote a column] advocating a military coup against Obama. The website later discarded it.

If these scumbags ever get to court, I wonder how they can ever debunk 18 USC section 2385?

[Odin2005]

125. This is scary shit!

:scared:

[martymar64]

144. Air Force Radio should stop carrying him completely

Partisan political rhetoric should not be force fed to the troops. AFR doesn't HAVE TO carry Rush. The troops can listen on some other radio station if they actually want to hear him. That airtime can be filled with other programming.

That way he can't make a freedom of speech issue about a simple programming decision on AFR.

[Angry Dragon]

164. Instead of looking for sedition case

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

170. Limbaugh made no such threat. His speech is Constitutionally protected.

[Politicub]

206. Actually, it is not

If the one-who-has-ass-boil's comments were made on Fox News or the Food Network it would be protected, but since it was made on the public airwaves, it is not.

Or perhaps you aren't aware of a number of cases that set aside the public airwaves as a natural resource, such as air or water. See http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/caselist.html and read nearly any case if you don't believe me.

But even if you do review the case law, I find it puzzling that so many are falling all over themselves to defend one of the most foul people on the airwaves, when he has a whole host of defenders who will do that for him anyway.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

209. How does his opinion become unprotected by the fact it is being broadcast?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

211. It may (MAY) be, but his "right" to be on AFR is most assuredly NOT. -nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

216. There is no Constitutional protection in regards to AFR.

[mix]

152. self delete nt

[jwirr]

167. NOW do you think they will take him off the list of programs heard

overseas?

[roamer65]

172. Sounds like OxyRush wants civil war.

The military may be able to control DC, but they will not control the rest of the country.

[Deja Q]

173. Gee, if rush is whining, why can't he do the fuckin' work of doing to coup himself?

The amount of lard he carries with him would suffocate millions...

[JDPriestly]

174. Did the military radio station broadcast this stuff to our troops?

[pitchforksandtorches]

192. May the fat f u c k e r rest in PIECES!!!!

[agentS]

199. He should be marked as a terrorist/insurgent and put on the Terror Watch List/NO-Fly List

So he doesn't meet the test for the Smith Act. OK, sure.

If peace advocates and babies can be put on the No-Fly List, then so can HE! Especially if he's "trawling for assassins" with corrupting rhetoric.

[RedCloud]

201. That's it. Off with his head!

[Douglas Carpenter]

202. kick and recommend!!! This needs to go viral!!!!

[The Wizard]

203. Several people have said similar things

Axis Sally, Tokyo Rose and Hanoi Hannah come to mind.

[Laura902]

221. Lets start a coup

I'd like to start a takeover and remove Rush from the air on the grounds that the lies he spreads hurt innocent Americans.

[gleaner]

222. I call it treason ....

and considering the source I don't think it is a joke. Or that it ever was a joke. Limbaugh lives for things like this. I'm sure he would support it whole heartedly. Why are none of the people making remarks like this and other threats never arrested or even interrogated by the Secret Service?