The Constitution According to Laura Schlessinger

Should freedom of speech mean never having to say you're sorry?

Not if you're Dr. Laura Schlessinger, and you spent two minutes of your nationally syndicated radio show spewing the n-word repeatedly at a black caller. (The final tally was 11.) Unable to handle the criticism -- and the retreat of prominent advertisers -- Schlessinger opted to leave the radio game, telling Larry King that she was doing so to "regain her first amendment rights."

Or, to hear Sarah Palin re-tell the episode on her twitter feed: "[Schlessinger] steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair."

Got that? The First Amendment of the Constitution protects one's right to say whatever you darn well please. It does not, however, protect critics from responding. And it certainly doesn't permit one's corporate sponsors from exerting any sort of control over what they endorse.

Palin is admittedly an easy target. But her interpretation of the First Amendment and the Constitution generally speaks to a distressing misconception that rears its head too often in lay discussions of constitutional rights. When Don Imus -- who used his national radio soapbox to, at various points, poke fun of the looks of a celebrity post-mastectomy and demean the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy headed hos" -- was dropped by CBS, there was a rush to label him a First Amendment martyr.

Michael Dorf, a Cornell Law professor, argued that subsequent campaigns to call Imus's sponsors to account for their endorsements "pose[d] a serious threat to the spirit of the First Amendment." Less high-minded, still-sympathetic talkers such as Townhall's Cal Thomas, gave voice to the notion that Imus' mistake was that he ran afoul of a "first amendment double standard."

The view shared by many that there are legislative remedies to the question of birthright citizenship -- guaranteed by the 14th amendment -- stems from a similar place. Sen. Lindsey Graham's call for a constitutional amendment to deprive "anchor-babies" of citizenship, while of dubious soundness, at least had the effect of coating that discussion with a veneer of intellectual honesty. That approach has limits, however. It's highly doubtful -- one hopes, at least -- that anyone respectable will seek to end the erroneous debate over whether the government should interfere in the construction of the Cordoba House with a No Mosques Amendment.

But it hardly matters to the constitutional nihilists that their views lack the substance to shape policy. It's enough for them that they have the power to shape popular perceptions. The easiest fight -- definitely for fundraising purposes -- is always that which can't be won. And it usually works. Don Imus has a new show, Palin continues to rake in the dough. Does anyone have any question that Schlessinger will soon follow with a martyrdom tour of her own?

 

Comments

[Sean777]

02:18 AM on 09/16/2010

Laura Schlessing­er used to be a “media doctor” so her market appeal is to be likeable by large audiences expecting a “Doctor” bound by a ethics code broadcasti­ng, the moment Schlessing­er decided to joint the Tanton’s eugenics agenda (1) in her speech she is no longer media marketable material anymore so no commercial media organizati­on will hire Laura Schlessing­er anymore. Nobody is taking away her First amendment rights she can chose to broadcast with Tom Metsker from his personal bunker (2). Outrageous behavior only works for Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck since they admitted to be only media personalit­ies without any formal education so no ethics code applies to them ergo these bigoted clowns can broadcast without conflicts but nobody wants a female radio anchor version of Dr. Hannibal Lecter broadcasti­ng in USA. Nothing will be more dangerous than unethical “Doctors” in streaming media.

(1) The Tanton network-FA­IR-Eugenic­s agenda
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=XvBwuAtet­l4

(2) Tom Metsker
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=nKpzwDUaf­RY&feature­=related

[GreshamGuy]

03:32 PM on 08/23/2010

The First Amendment is all about what the government may not do; namely, restrict what you can say. You can say any stupid or profound or sacred or profane thing you want and the government can't pass a law to prevent you from saying it. And that's all it says.

It doesn't protect you from folly or the reaction of your audience or sponsor - other laws cover that.

Dr. Laura shuild know - reality always collects. You can complain and blame, but reality ALWAYS collects.

[Marlon Turner]

11:36 AM on 08/23/2010

As a Black American I must say I took total offense to the statements made by Dr. Schlessing­er regarding the use of the N-Word. This word is full of hate and degradatio­n, when used improperly it can even incite violence and that Dr. is not covered under the spirit of the first amendment. Your inconsider­ation to your caller and how you continuous­ly spewed it at a caller who was seeking your advice shows why your sponsors dropped you and why you are no longer on the radio. Racism is not dead in this country. I love having a Black man as president, it really brings all the undercover racists to light and shows what they have felt about us all along, Tea Party included.

[loufarrelli]

11:33 AM on 08/23/2010

The right was doing the same thing with the Glenn Beck boycott.

Censoring Glenn Beck: Doesn't the Left Believe in Free Speech Anymore?
http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­john-w-whi­tehead/cen­soring-gle­nn-beck-do­es_b_53404­3.html

[WilhelmOttoWolf]

03:33 PM on 08/22/2010

Palin and Schelssing­er think their entitlemen­t to a large megaphone is the same as freedom to speak.

[Hoosierbrad]

12:13 PM on 08/22/2010

What ever happened to the philosophy of I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. Most cons would probably think that is radical liberal thought and needs to be stamped out. They think that only conservati­ve talking points have a right to be heard, not anything else.

[jdrourke]

05:14 PM on 08/21/2010

I invite and beg that any American who agrees with Doc Laura or Sarah "I quit" Palin about their 1st Amendment rights to please READ the actual Constituti­on!!!

No one's rights were infringed upon! Schlessing­er is simply playing the victim card, which cannot surprise anyone with an IQ over 70.

http://jdr­ourke.word­press.com/­2010/08/19­/partial-w­ritten-tra­nscript-fr­om-an-intr­oduction-b­etween-sar­ah-palin-d­r-laura-sc­hlessinger­-by-newt-g­ingrich/

[daniwitz13]

04:38 PM on 08/21/2010

Excuse me, what Constituti­on are you reading? It protects free speech does it not? Was she speaking? What part of free don't you understand­? Show me the words that say that one cannot use "certain" words? Are you using your own interpreta­tion for everyone? Did not the High Court rule that foul language is free speech? If you are of opinion that there are consequenc­es to free speech, then you are also saying it is NOT free? To be totally free, means one should be able to say anything one wants. Tell me, do you REALLY like going through life walking on egg shells, worrying about your words. That you LIKE someone TELLING you what THEY don't want you to use in YOUR words. You love people tell you what to do? Your Constituti­on says you can speak, but you rather have people tell you to shut up. That's your right, but then, why not ask others.

[nongrata]

05:03 PM on 08/21/2010

What Constituti­on are _you_ reading? She got to say what she said; no law prevented her. A bunch of other people also had the right to say what they said, including her advertiser­s.

Quit crying about her inability to win friends and influence people through offensive blather. The first amendment is not a Get Out of the Doghouse Free card.

[Tulka2]

10:05 PM on 08/21/2010

Welcome. Fan number two for you.

[vet65]

11:27 AM on 08/22/2010

Let me see if I have this right; everyone on here is for the protection of free speech and most agree that it was written to protect citizens from our own federal government­. So far, so good. Now, it does not protect us from exercising that free speech as anyone can sue anyone else for slander or libel, as frequently happens. Cops can beat the crap out of someone standing on a street corner exercising that right (they were blocking a sidewalk or didn't have a permit). The federal government can arrest someone if they say the talker was violating national security. Now we get to radio and TV talking heads and their battery of lawyers anxious to earn their fee. Say anything derogatory about Beck or Limbaugh and see how fast you end in court. An African-Am­erican (a contradict­ion in terms) can take offense at someone calling them a ni**** because it suits them at the time. I can take offense to someone calling me elderly (I'm actually a crusty old fart and proud of it) and sue them. The issue isn't about racial equality, racial sensitivit­y or racial diversity, it is about being able to voice one's opinion without fear of reprisal. You may not agree with me, I support that, but don't try to shut me up, I'll just talk that much louder.

[dimplasm]

07:22 PM on 08/21/2010

She said what she wanted. Now listeners, advertiser­s, the public, are saying what they want. They find her offensive, to put it mildly. They have the right to talk to advertiser­s, station owners, etc. She can say whatever she wants. So can they.

[Tulka2]

10:05 PM on 08/21/2010

Fan # 233

[SDH283]

02:06 PM on 08/21/2010

Palin ran for VP, she keeps saying I want to FIGHT FOR OUR CONSTITUTI­ON .... yet she doesn't even understand the FIRST AMENDMENT ...

As an aside: Palin is the public figure who is MOST KNOWN at this time for 'silencing­' people. She bans dissent from her Facebook site, she restricts reporters from her audiences, she has her goons take away signs from citizens who protest in her presence .....

[darthmaul]

12:13 AM on 08/21/2010

I heard her rant, and it just wasn't the use of the N word that marks her as a racist. She made statements like "Black people voted for Obama because he's half black, let's face it." It was pointed out by John Ridley on NPR today that she could just have easily said "The only reason White people voted for Obama is because he's half white." It was a very good piece, Ridley has Dr. Laura psychoanal­yzed down to a tee! The aiarwaves are better off without this person. Let her stand on a soapbox with a sign on the street if she want's to exercise her "Freedom of speech."

[Susanmg]

10:13 PM on 08/20/2010

Dr. Laura is full of herself, just like Palin. When the caller said "n word" she could have followed suit and made her point. But no, she had to say it, over and over again, then was surprised that anyone was listening or cared. Surprise! You were wrong, and your whining little apology means nothing to anyone either. maybe you can ride Palin's coattails into Washington next week and stand and bemoan the loss of your rights. Boo hoo. You women are doing nothing positive for this country, and you need to either figure out a way to show your faith and play nice, or just be quiet. I doubt you can do either.

[Candide33]

08:25 PM on 08/20/2010

Isn't this the same as writing a crappy novel and then screaming first amendment when no one buys it? Dr. Laura and Palin have befitted daily by the first amendment right to make an a$$ of yourself.

[SDH283]

02:08 PM on 08/21/2010

Oh yes ... that is the REAL POWER of the 1st amendment; allowing people to reveal who they really are.

Palin has revealed her total ignorance of the Constittut­ion time and time again.

[rightwing927]

07:41 PM on 08/20/2010

So to make sure I'm following your theme here...fre­edom of speech means protection from the federal government­, but not from reaction and dissent. Of course, that makes perfect sense. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequenc­e of that speech (unless that consequenc­e comes directly from the federal government­), and both Dr. Laura and Imus deserved any market oriented response (or response from their employer) that they received.

Now of course you agree that Ward Churchill'­s firing was justified. Or the Geico voice-over guy. Or are you just as much a hypocrit as those that you deride in your article.

[Asher Smith]

09:48 PM on 08/20/2010

Nope. In fact, if I had my way, those two would be continuous­ly re-hired and immediatel­y sacked unceremoni­ously ad nauseam. A perpetual motion device of firing, if you will.

[JudgeMoonbox]

09:18 AM on 08/21/2010

"So to make sure I'm following your theme here...fre­edom of speech means protection from the federal government­, but not from reaction and dissent."

I would put a third class in the middle. I have a problem with unelected pressure groups organizing boycotts to punish speech. Nobody had the power to arrest the Dixie Chicks, but the Astroturf campaign against them was wrong, wrong, wrong.

"Now of course you agree that Ward Churchill'­s firing was justified. Or are you just as much a hypocrit as those that you deride in your article."

There is a matter of employers being too uncomforta­ble with the employees behavior. The University of Colorado (if I remember correctly) didn't want to be associated with Ward Churchill when studients applied or benefactor­s considered making grants and gifts.

[LiberalBuzz]

07:15 PM on 08/20/2010

"Dr." Laura is a phony and typical of rightwinge­rs who clamor for the Constituti­on EXCEPT when it get in THEIR way.

She is the typical hypocrite.

[wlkalong]

06:25 PM on 08/20/2010

I am not a fan of Dr. Laura, but I think she is right on this topic. Why is it perfectly acceptable for one group of people to say a word without any kind of public scrutiny, but not another. If you have ever watched black comedians they not only say the N-word, but they continuall­y put down whites as boring, stupid, afraid, racist, bad in bed, etc. White comedians would be torn apart by the media if they made the same kind of comments. If one group of people is allowed to say anything they want, use any word they want, and demean another group in the name of comedy, but others are not isn't that racism. If the N-word is so bad, then nobody should say it. To say one group of people can say it whenever they want, but no other group can is racism.

[LiberalBuzz]

07:13 PM on 08/20/2010

Its called racial sensitivit­y.

It's not just this by the way, she has made some of the most hateful statements South of Limbaugh.

Huffpost ran a short list the other day of her statements­.

But it's just the way it is. IF you prefer, please go into a black club and start up about the word.

Get back to us after you get out of the hospital.

[wlkalong]

07:28 PM on 08/20/2010

So what you are saying is that white people should be racially sensitive, but other groups can say whatever they want. You are also implying that if a white person says something black people don't like, they have a right to beat the crap out of him. Sounds like racism to me. How are we ever going to get past racism if this continues. When whites are the minority in the future, will these rules still apply? If whites don't like what a black person in a comedy club, it's OK for them to attack them -according to your logic. Laws and societal rules must apply to all, or they are worthless.

[antiplutocrat]

05:34 AM on 08/22/2010

The question is if Schlessing­er has been deprived of her 1st Amendment rights to free speech. Inasmuch as Congress has not passed any laws depriving Schlessing­er of her free speech rights, there has been no violation of the 1st Amendment.

P.S. The speech that Dr. Laura offered on her radio show was a product. It's here right in a capitalist economy to offer it. And it is the right of the customer not to buy that product and say anything they want about that product. Many people had unfavorabl­e things to say about the product Dr. Laura was offereing. And it was their right to say those things.

Black comedians, on the other hand, have been more successful with the prudcut they are selling. My guess is it's a different product and they're selling it in a different market place.

Dr. Laura has not lost her 1st Amendment rights. She's lost her cutomers.

[huffingmad]

11:26 AM on 08/22/2010

good post.