Jane Fonda’s Charitable Foundation Has Sat On Its Money, Not Donating A Penny To Any Charity In Last 7 YearsDecember 14, 2013
(For Zion)Next time Habima Theater will be overcrowded by Israelis running for an underground bomb shelter, our horrible celebrities will remain silent, enjoying the prime time Jewish bloodbath. In Israel, no Hollywood happy ending is allowed. There are only images of hatred and the soundtrack of anti-Semitism.(Details)
( Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem Call for Government Suppression of Rush Limbaugh’s Radio Broadcasts) This isn’t political. While we disagree with Limbaugh’s politics, what’s at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he’s really “doing humor” or “entertainment.” He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airways.
(Eugene Volokh) Of course it is “political” — they’re urging the government to suppress Limbaugh’s speech based on the ideology that it expresses. And this is precisely what the Supreme Court has rightly said is impermissible. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), the Court did uphold restrictions on vulgar words on the radio — a question that’s now being reconsidered by the Court, in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. — but in the process the plurality said:
[I]f it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.
Justice Brennan’s dissent, joined by Justice Marshall, would have been even more speech-protective; and none of the other concurring or dissenting justices cast any doubt on the plurality’s judgment, which indeed represents a basic First Amendment principle — the government may not suppress speech based on its viewpoint, even if the speech is seen as using “government resource[s]” (see, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector (1995)). That is something that applies to all viewpoints, whether feminist or sexist, pro-American or anti-American, or whatever else.
Likewise, FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984) held that even broadcast regulation must be closely scrutinized to prevent, at least, viewpoint discrimination and often even viewpoint-neutral content discrimination:
Since, as we [have] observed …, “[t]he First Amendment’s hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic,” we must be particularly wary in assessing § 399 to determine whether it reflects an impermissible attempt “to allow a government [to] control … the search for political truth.”
And that’s exactly the control that Fonda, Steinem, and Morgan want the government to exercise.
(Red State) Gloria Steinem pens with three other feminists wrote an opinion piece at CNN calling for the FCC to take Rush Limbaugh off the airways. Her ‘writing’ partners, were Jane Fonda and Robin Morgan an editor at Ms. magazine. The trio open with quotes they didn’t bother to source.
(Daily Caller) The co-founders of The Women’s Media Center put pen to paper over the weekend to request that the public complain and urge the Federal Communications Commission to revoke the licenses of stations that carry “The .”. Especially offensive, they wrote, has been the fact that his go-to term for feminists, “femi-nazis,” is no longer enough to “raise eyebrows anymore.”
but apparently it is ok for the feminists to call Rush a Nazi?
(Red State) This is followed by the pièce de résistance of the op-ed — they equate Rush with Josef Goebbels. No, for reals. While fascistically demanding that The State’s FCC shut down Rush Limbaugh. While seeking to silence those with whom they disagree – using hysterical lies and propagandist rhetoric – they Godwin themselves with Goebbels. Irony is lost on these geniuses.
The three then exhibit a staggering lack of self-awareness by claiming that Rush Limbaugh seeks to “dehumanize” people. Um. Did Gloria Steinem forget that she called housewives “dependent creatures who are still children” and “parasites”? That is the Left’s standard operating procedure. That is what they do, always, and especially with regard to women. This has been proven over and over again and only the willfully ignorant can’t see it. Gloria Steinem also said that one cannot be a feminist and be conservative and pro-life. A group called Liberal Ladies Who Lunch has launched a campaign to withhold sex. The founder of the group said the following:
“American men enjoy the benefits of women making their own choices about when to get pregnant. Men get the advantage of free, easy access sex with young women of child-bearing age. It wasn’t like that sixty years ago. If women can’t get reliable birth control, they will just have to keep their legs crossed to prevent pregnancy–even married women. I don’t think anyone wants that.”
Rush can afford the lawyers, but what about the rest of the men out there that try to oppose feminism and find themselves extradited to Washington State for what they write online? It happened to me.