Letterman's offensive remarks about Sarah and Willow Palin

[Rightwing Nutjob]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I thought you guys were the ones that fought for First Amendment freedom of speech. That's right, you guys are terrified of the scary Fairness Doctrine because it it will infringe upon free speech in the media.

Actually the proposal in this thread is nothing like the Fairness Doctrine. No one is calling for a government ban on Letterman or CBS. The Fairness Doctrine is government deciding what folks may say. Writing a letter to to CBS is, well, a customer complaining about a bad product. This is one of the exact ways you should respond to offensive speech.

i think politicians having their children made fun of is a healthy incentive to discourage people from going into politics in the first place.

Awesome.

[Sunsettommy]

It was still in bad taste to make fun of Chelsea. She couldn't help what she looked like.

Making fun of Chelse is pathetic.

She was an innocent girl who was unfortunate to have Bill and Hillary as parents.

She turned out much nicer when she grew up.

[Sunsettommy]

Link, please?

I am sure Limbaugh would never have said anything like what Letterman said. And if you still don't know what he actually said, click on the link in Hatton's post. It's there for all the world to see.

It is true that he said worse about Chelsea.He compared her to a car's ornament in a snickering way.The exact details escape me now since this was around 15 years ago.

[Bucks]

Well, I see some liberals in this thread are still comparing apples to salmon.

.

[SuddenImpact]

It was indeed a stupid joke - not even funny. It would have been if it had been Bristol instead of Willow; but it went beyond that with Willow since she is a minor. It's intended to make it sound like Willow is a slut. And by implication, Sarah, and the entire Conservative movement.

I really don't think such comments are protected by free speech. But then, again, as I have said before, and will say again, what many people mean by "free speech" is not free speech, but license. License implies "anything goes;" freedom implies disciplined behaviour.

I'm pretty sure Letterman just thought it was Bristol who went to the game. That joke doesn't even make sense with Willow as its subject. Still, it was distasteful, and I pity the Palins right now; especially Willow, who's my age. I know what it's like to be sexually harrassed, and I can't imagine how awful it would be to have it done on national TV when your only crimes are being the child of a politician and going to a baseball game.

[Susanna]

I'm pretty sure Letterman just thought it was Bristol who went to the game. That joke doesn't even make sense with Willow as its subject. Still, it was distasteful, and I pity the Palins right now; especially Willow, who's my age. I know what it's like to be sexually harrassed, and I can't imagine how awful it would be to have it done on national TV when your only crimes are being the child of a politician and going to a baseball game.

How can you even guess that? The "joke" doesn't make sense anyway. In fact, he's really saying that Sarah is a lousy mother & doesn't teach her kids morals. And he has room to talk!

[HebrewHammer]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with what the term 'knocked up' means.

Apparently you can't tell the difference between Letterman saying Alex Rodriguez and he would. I know, they look a lot alike.

[Bullseyed]

Apparently you can't tell the difference between Letterman saying Alex Rodriguez and he would. I know, they look a lot alike.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the challenge I made of you. You are distracting from the situation because you know having sex with a minor is different from calling one ugly.

[TxBrewer]

n law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

Since it was not presented as factually accurate information, then no, it would not be.

Thank you sir for the concise clarification.

[Bullseyed]

Thank you sir for the concise clarification.

Wikigoogle is my friend.