海角大神

Should the Federal Communications Commission kick Rush Limbaugh off the airwaves because of his harsh speech? That鈥檚 what Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, and Robin Morgan are calling for in published today by CNN.

Ms. Steinem, Ms. Fonda, and Ms. Morgan are a trio of famous feminist activists, of course. Steinem is cofounder of 鈥�Ms. Magazine,鈥� among other things. Fonda was, well, Jane Fonda 鈥� do we really need to say more? Morgan was a 鈥淢s.鈥� editor. Together the three are partners in the nonprofit Women鈥檚 Media Center.

Their argument is that Mr. Limbaugh鈥檚 use of the words 鈥渟lut鈥� and 鈥減rostitute鈥� to describe Georgetown University Law student Sandra Fluke is par for Rush鈥檚 rhetorical course. He uses words like that all the time, they say.

鈥淗e promotes language that deliberately dehumanizes his targets,鈥� they say.

If pressure on sponsors does not cause Clean Channel Communications to drop Limbaugh鈥檚 show, then the FCC should step in, Steinem, Morgan, and Fonda argue. Radio stations are supposed to use their licenses 鈥渋n the public interest.鈥� If enough listeners complain about Limbaugh, then the stations that carry him could be denied license renewal, according to the three women.

鈥淚t鈥檚 time for the public to take back our broadcast resources,鈥� they write.

Well, we have this to say about that: You can think that Limbaugh鈥檚 words were vile, yet realize that this FCC strategy is unlikely to work, and could be dangerous.

First, it鈥檚 logistically difficult, since it would require an activist dump-Rush movement to remain focused on this strategy for years. The nation鈥檚 radio stations indeed have entered a cycle of , according to the FCC. But the last won鈥檛 come up for a re-do until 2014.

Will Limbaugh still seem like such a big target in two years? OK, given his tendency to utter anything that pops into his mouth maybe he will, but given the speed of the modern news cycle, we鈥檙e not sure.

Second, do we really want the US government to use its power to enforce speech codes? Yes, the First Amendment is not absolute, but if liberals go after Limbaugh in this manner, conservatives won鈥檛 just sit there, inactive. Plenty of folks on the right will are mad about Bill Maher鈥檚 words about Sarah Palin, and talk show host Ed Schultz鈥檚 language, and so forth. First they come for Rush Limbaugh, and then they come for Rachel Maddow.

鈥淭he US has been well served by legal and social norms that stop the government from targeting, punishing, or censoring political speech based on the perceived offensiveness of its content. Weakening that norm would result in attempts by the left and right to use speech codes as a cudgel against opponents,鈥� writes Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic today in that does a good job of summarizing objections to such an attempt.

Third, rightly or wrongly, Steinem, Morgan, and Fonda are jointly a red flag to many on the right. If they continue to attack Limbaugh, even conservatives who don鈥檛 like his methods will defend him. The Women鈥檚 Media Center might be better served to let less high-profile activists take the lead in this fight if they really want it to succeed.

鈥淣o longer is it good enough to disagree with conservatives. They must be fired from their jobs, separated from their advertisers, booted from the airwaves, buried under a prehistoric rock,鈥� writes W. James Antle III, associate editor of the conservative American Spectator, today in a piece titled 鈥�.鈥�