Scrolling Headlines:

UMass football readies for season-opener against Hawaii -

August 22, 2017

UMass women’s soccer falls to Central Connecticut 3-0 in home opener -

August 19, 2017

Preseason serves as opportunity for young UMass men’s soccer players -

August 13, 2017

Amherst Fire Department website adds user friendly components and live audio feed -

August 11, 2017

UMass takes the cake for best campus dining -

August 11, 2017

Two UMass students overcome obstacles to win full-ride scholarships -

August 2, 2017

The guilt of saying ‘guilty’ -

August 2, 2017

UMass tuition set to rise 3-4 percent for 2017-2018 school year -

July 18, 2017

PVTA potential cuts affect UMass and five college students -

July 10, 2017

New director of student broadcast media at UMass this fall -

July 10, 2017

Whose American Dream? -

June 24, 2017

Man who threatened to bomb Coolidge Hall taken into ICE custody -

June 24, 2017

Cale Makar drafted by Colorado Avalanche in first round of 2017 NHL Entry Draft -

June 24, 2017

Conservatives: The Trump experiment is over -

June 17, 2017

UMass basketball lands transfer Kieran Hayward from LSU -

May 18, 2017

UMass basketball’s Donte Clark transferring to Coastal Carolina -

May 17, 2017

Report: Keon Clergeot transfers to UMass basketball program -

May 15, 2017

Despite title-game loss, Meg Colleran’s brilliance in circle was an incredible feat -

May 14, 2017

UMass softball loses in heartbreaker in A-10 title game -

May 14, 2017

Navy sinks UMass women’s lacrosse 23-11 in NCAA tournament second round, ending Minutewomen’s season -

May 14, 2017

Free speech is everyone’s, even Rush Limbaugh’s

Rush Limbaugh made an incendiary and offensive remark? Stop the presses! This is the big one, you say? A comment so hurtful and misguided that he may have just shown himself to be outside of the bounds of civil discourse in this country?


Oh, wait a minute. He has been a torch-bearing demagogue for years, a rhetorical extremist since this humble writer was but a wee lad.

Nobody who wields office takes Limbaugh seriously – except as an inexhaustible gold-mine for Democratic politicians eager to draw a stark contrast. Nevertheless, he is the voice of a significant cultural segment of this country, and he could be just the spark to ignite the explosive cultural divide that grows ever deeper in these United States. It’s time to douse this guy with proverbial cold water; actual cold water, too, to cool his ardor for webcams. But this sort of thing requires great patience and historical perspective. Denying him his right to express his opinion is not the proper course.

As it always seems to go in these sorts of affairs, many are calling for Rush’s head on a platter, or as a more humane alternative, for his ouster from his radio show. This line of thinking is misguided and counterproductive. To paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall: I think Rush Limbaugh is a creepy, bitter old man, but I will defend to the death his right to say whatever he damn well pleases.

First of all, Limbaugh will have to deal with any non-legal consequences that his comments have garnered, whether they be financial or to the detriment of his reputation. Perhaps there will be no repercussions, with new advertisers filling the gaps – companies that seek the lucrative, untapped market of misanthropes. But ultimately, that’s none of our business. If we don’t agree with Rush, we can express our distaste by avoiding those companies who associate with him.

Let me now interject that about a month ago Ellen DeGeneres, that ray of sunshine in popular culture, was made the official spokesperson of JCPenney. In response, a group with the slightly exaggerated title of One Million Moms called for a boycott. They sought the dismissal of Ellen due to the supposed “anti-family” message that she represented. Well slap my Grandma, but Bill O’Reilly of all people came to her defense! His message was pretty simple: boycott the store if you want, but what right do you have to tell a private company who its spokesperson can be?

In a rare moment for O’Reilly, he arrived at the heart of the issue. Playing the morality police only distracts from the debates at hand. In the case of Rush, it is exactly what a demagogue like him wants – he can refer his listeners to his lambasting in the public sphere, citing it as evidence that he must be doing something right.

But this is all gravy compared to the real meat and potatoes at stake here. Free speech is the cornerstone of American civil life, the fountainhead, the big enchilada. Free speech, freedom of religion and the other civil liberties enshrined in our Bill of Rights are exactly what make American political culture so distinct. It is precisely this culture of liberty that makes America such an attractive and accepting country for immigrants to make their home here, as they always have.

It seems that America is often compared to “enlightened” European nations, with America always on the losing end of the comparison. But for all of our flaws, the liberty-centric orientation of our public life gives rise to a few examples that show the advantages of the American tradition. The banning of minarets that happened a few years ago in Switzerland, or the ban of public burqa-wearing in France would never happen in our country, because of the primacy of individual liberty enshrined in the U.S. Constitution that prevents any such law from taking hold.

What does all of this have to do with Limbaugh? It’s simple, really. You have to take the good with the bad. Consider people like Limbaugh as a testament to the continued health of free speech in America. He’s only playing on prejudices that his audience already has, he’s not inciting anything that wasn’t already there. In fact, he’s exposing the deep, dark recesses of American misogyny to the light of public debate, so those like Jon Stewart can show the deep inconsistencies in his thinking. Contest his views in the court of public opinion, but don’t undercut his right to have those views in the first place.

In this humble counterpoint, let it not be supposed that I have made Limbaugh into some kind of hero. He is more an antihero in this drama, but one whose presence renews the vigor of that benevolent deity, the goddess of liberty. Shine on, thou chaste cherub of talk radio! So long as your hateful vitriol spews forth, we can be assured that free speech in America is alive and well. Culture can and will change over time, but it requires the immovable firmament of free speech to do so.

Gavin Beeker is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at

6 Responses to “Free speech is everyone’s, even Rush Limbaugh’s”
  1. mason says:

    “Shine on, thou chaste cherub of talk radio! So long as your hateful vitriol spews forth, we can be assured that free speech in America is alive and well. Culture can and will change over time, but it requires the immovable firmament of free speech to do so.”

    I relish your tumidly verbose op-ed article.

  2. Joseph McCaffrey says:

    Sorry, Gavin, you missed the point. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights was intended to protect the private citizen who stands up at a public meeting (ala Norman Rockwell’s famous Saturday Evening Post cover) and protests a government act or policy and not have to fear retribution from that government. Rush Limbaugh’s free speech is paid for by large corporations whose goal is simply economic advantage over the rest of us. Limbaugh’s goal in criticizing Ms. Fluke was to shut her up, to deny her right to free speech by insulting and humiliating her, not once, but over three consecutive days. He was trying to make her fear to exercise an institutional right granted by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Far from standing up at a town meeting, Limbaugh is paid millions to intimidate people who disagree with his corporate sponsors. Ms. Fluke is a law student, no more, no less. To defend Rush Limbaugh’s right to insult and slander her is speech far outside what the Bill of Rights intended to protect. The current campaign to punish Rush Limbaugh is not aimed at his rights to shoot off his fat mouth, it’s aimed at the money — those millions he gets from sponsors. He can still shoot off his fat mouth all he wants, and probably will, but far from arguing for the rights of himself and his neighbors, Rush gleefully tells dirty stories about a young female law student for money. I think the American people should show their disgust with Limbaugh in a very American way, boycott his sponsors. Hit the fat obnoxious pig where he lives, in his bank account. That has nothing to do with free speech protected by the First Amendment.

  3. Hollow Argument? says:

    I disagree with your hollow argument. This is not, in my opinion, about free speech. It’s about hate speech and abuse of a public good, notably the airwaves.

    There is no regulatory effort to shut him down. It’s listeners and offended public citizens saying that they’ve had enough. So how should they exert their leverage? Free market capitalism. And that’s what’s happening.

    I feel badly for the sponsors that are now fielding (and feeling) the cost of the protest, but I don’t feel all THAT badly as they have chosen to sell their products on the back of a hate-mongerer bent on misinforming the public, while honestly believing he is helping the public. They chose this relationship, and it is exactly that relationship which now tarnishes their brands and hurts their sales. A Faustian bargain, don’t you think?

    I also believe that there are “liberal” commentators who deserve exactly the same treatment, such as Olberman and Maher. Good riddance to all of them, and if it takes public outrage and boycotts to get to the profit lever in order to get these guys OFF THE AIR, then fine.

    That’s not free speech limitation, it’s a public fed up with a system that is dominated by this type of divisive behavior. Think how much building up could be done with that airtime, instead of tearing-down.

    A pity they are so well rewarded by this goofy public.

  4. laughing says:

    The author is acting as if bigots like Limbaugh have a monopoly on free speech. Calling for boycotts is free speech too, and the targets of bigotry (as well as those offended by bigotry) have every free speech right to boycott.

  5. Ben says:

    > Contest his views in the court of public opinion, but don’t undercut his right to have those views in the first place.
    Uh, has anybody actually called for taking legal or regulatory action against Limbaugh (other than for libel, I suppose)? If not, I’m not sure how free speech rights really come into it.

  6. David Hunt '90 says:


    Actually, yes, people have called for Rush to be shut down and prosecuted.

Leave A Comment