Down here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, the topic-de-jour last week was the recent diatribe of right-wing American radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. In case you hadn't heard, Limbaugh publicly unloaded on law student Sandra Fluke for her testimony at a Congressional hearing on women's health and contraception costs. This issue has become overtly political with the Republicans taking a hard right turn against birth control measures and any costs that may be attributed to contraceptives. Limbaugh has rushed madly to their defence.
Limbaugh used two offensive and unfounded allegations against Fluke - he also got her name wrong, calling her Susan, not Sandra - but in the minds of many he totally crossed the bar of appropriate commentary.
Although Limbaugh later offered a weak apology, his comments have taken on a life of their own with the media naming the issue "Slutgate", and calling into question the whole notion of what constitutes honest comment, responsible journalism and ultimately the intellect of Limbaugh's audience.
Those who feel that way include a reported 45 advertisers who have cancelled their spots on the Limbaugh show.
So how far can opinion radio or editorial comment go? And when does free speech run afoul of good taste?
Limbaugh has offended three principles of fair political criticism. First, name calling has no place in responsible commentary. One may disagree vehemently with another person, but calling someone vicious names does not in any way constitute an argument or a thoughtful response. Second, Ms. Fluke was exercising her right to speak freely and with candour to her elected representatives. Isn't that what democracy is all about? Fluke isn't living in some third-world military dictatorship.
Finally, Fluke is a private citizen. She's not a pundit or a politician; she's not holding herself out as one seeking income or political status for her statement. Rather, she was simply making a comment about the way she felt her country should be governed. She had every right to say what she did without attracting undue criticism. Limbaugh or anyone else can disagree with her opinion on the issue, but good taste says the disagreement should be limited to the extent of offering a contrary opinion. When the most-listened-to broadcaster in the United States - he has a reported 12-million listeners - bad-mouths a student speaking to a Congressional hearing it's bullying at its worst.
All of this leads to the thorny question of what constitutes free speech, or freedom of expression? There are a few tests; free speech means you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, in other words free speech cannot be damaging. Free speech cannot defame and Ms. Fluke may have a case against Limbaugh and broadcaster Clear Channel Communications.
Freedom of expression ends when your fist reaches my nose, again the old test of damage.
To her credit Ms. Fluke sloughed off Limbaugh's comments as those of a man with a limited vocabulary. Others must be wondering what shape the country is in when this type of immature school-yard commentary draws such a huge listening audience.
And I guess before attacking what appears to be acceptable in the U.S., I should look at our behaviour in Canada. Quite frankly, I can't think of anyone as rude as Limbaugh. And as we've seen locally, media types who engage in negligent reporting and dump on too many people, too any times, end up unemployed.
Liberal Member of Parliament Justin Trudeau made the headlines last year when he referred to a Conservative Minister in language not appropriate to House of Commons standards. But that was in opposition to another MP who had an equal opportunity to defend himself. Justin was no doubt following in has Dad's footsteps. Older readers will no doubt remember The Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau mumbling the phrase "Fuddle Duck" or something like that.
I'm convinced a higher standard prevails in the Canadian media and it's not too likely anyone with Rush Limbaugh's inability to present an argument, or one who could only respond with name calling, would last long on our airwaves or in our press. Here we still see reporting as reporting and not a rude form of entertainment based on poorly thought-out conspiracy theories.
Democracy works best when ordinary people, like Sandra Fluke, are allowed to speak openly to a pertinent concern without politically biased media intervention.
Free, unfettered comment on topical issues is the absolute cornerstone of a free society. The same principle that allows Limbaugh on the air is the same one ensuring Sandra Fluke - and any other citizen for that matter - has the unfettered right to express an opinion without fear of reprisal or personal attack. If Limbaugh wants to play tough he should expect equally tough censure.
Let me finish on a lighter note with what I consider the best political retort of all time, this from former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. In a heated exchange between Churchill and Lady Astor - also a Conservative Member of Parliament - Astor said to Churchill, "If you were my husband I'd put poison in your tea." To which Churchill replied, 'If I were your husband, I'd drink it."
Limbaugh should read Churchill and should be given lots of free time to do it.
