Rush Limbaugh Issues DMCA Takedown To Censor Video Criticism

from the can't-take-the-heat dept

Radio personality Rush Limbaugh apparently has decided he can't handle criticism well, so he's abusing the DMCA to take down a video critical of him. The video does use Limbaugh video, but it seems like a pretty clear case of fair use. And, if we go by the standard established in the Lenz v. Universal case, those issuing a takedown are supposed to first consider fair use. If Limbaugh failed to do so, he could run into trouble.

But, more to the point: WTF? Why do people keep abusing the DMCA solely to silence free speech that criticizes them, at the same time they claim to be supporters of the First Amendment. You would think, by now, that Limbaugh has enough advisers who might recommend against taking down a silly YouTube video no one's watching any more -- but he seems to keep doing it, even if it seemingly goes against many of his claims.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:10am

    Introductions are in order...

    Mr Limbaugh, this is Barbra Streisand.

    I hope one of you can learn something from the other...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:13am

    Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

    I think that these lawsuits are going to do more for internet freedom than anything else. They are going to prove to more and more people/companies that you can't just shut us up.

    You are going to have to have a dialog with us. You can't just try and shut the collective "US" up. You need to address the issues expressed even if they are or are not valid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:27am

      Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

      Why would you want to have a dialog with Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, to what end?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:28am

        Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

        Not just Rush, DA. The comment was about every entity that wants to silence internet talk about them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        el_segfaulto (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:29pm

        Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

        Well...If we make him angry enough he could have a stroke and die. One less hate-monger with a pulpit would definitely be a noble end.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        The Groove Tiger (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 4:08pm

        Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

        If you do, though, ask him to do the Parkinson Dance.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:43am

      Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

      Limbaugh's behavior is typical of the attitude of the Far-Right GOP who would love to take us all back to the 19TH Century.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:04am

        Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

        No Rush's behavior is typical of the Left which always wants to control your speech.

        Argue with me on this and I will provide you link after link to prove my point. The left have always worked to control media. The right to control the message not the whole dialog.

        Liberals control more of the dialog and news than the conservatives even could hope to control. Do some basic research.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Jamie, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:18am

          Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

          You are using Rush Libaugh's abuse of the DMCA to argue that lefties censor things.

          Really.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

            No I was disputing the line "Limbaugh's behavior is typical of the attitude of the Far-Right GOP who would love to take us all back to the 19TH Century.".

            Which is false. The far-right is less likely to censor than the far-left.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              zegota (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:43am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

              You're right. Republicans don't censor. They just lie, consistently and without shame.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                corwin155 (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:57am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                just like the ultra nazi left does
                both are fascists

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  DOlz, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:41pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                  While I normally don't resort to personal invective I still have to ask. "nazi left", were you deliberately using an oxymoron or are you just a moron?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:45pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                    "While I normally don't resort to personal invective I still have to ask. "nazi left", were you deliberately using an oxymoron or are you just a moron?"

                    It's a politically opportunistic mistake, most likely stemming from Hitler calling his party a version of "socialism", or worker's party, when it was actually authoritarian. It'd be like referring to a piece of bad legislation as in America's best interests because it's called "The Patriot Act"....

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

              "Which is false. The far-right is less likely to censor than the far-left."

              I normally don't dive into the political bugaboo dialog, but that's absolute bullshit. Coming from a point of view that's relatively neutral (I hate both parties) both are absolutely as likely to censor as the other, albeit about different topics. The left will censor you over anything that involves feelings (hate-speech, political-correctness, etc.) and the right will censor you over business topics and nat'l security (Wikileaks, free-speech zones, etc.). These are not perfect generalizations by any stretch, but they're close enough.

              Basically, both parties are equally happy to shut you the fuck up over things they don't want you talking about. So let's not pretend that this want to shut others up has anything at all to do with political party....

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:55am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                DH,

                That is mostly true. The statement was that the left are more LIKELY to censor which is true.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:00pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                  I can't even begin to fathom how you could possibly quantify that....

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:40pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                    Just look to their collective actions and the amount of the popular information that the are responsible for disseminating. By simple fact the left controls more of the information dispensed to the general populous.

                    Please take a moment to see any survey on the amount of all media people that are more likely to vote Democratic. The are the New-Speak world of 1984. I don't make this stuff up.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:47pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                      "Please take a moment to see any survey on the amount of all media people that are more likely to vote Democratic. The are the New-Speak world of 1984. I don't make this stuff up."

                      The problem with this line of thought is that there is no right and left in this country. There's mostly just the kinda-right and the maybe-a-little-left-of-center-almost. We don't have a left wing in our political parties. Which I'm mostly okay with.

                      But this country is OVERTLY conservative all around, so much so, in fact, that are "leftist" party isn't leftist at all. They're moderate.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:58pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                        DH,

                        I really don't have time to fight that fight but America is not even close to being mostly "kinda-right". Surveys put it close to 31%-right -- 36%-left and the rest independent.

                        The media in general is and has been "mostly-left" by their own survey results. Please no fight here. I was just stating facts. The media self-identifies as democratic by a wide majority. Every time!

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:16pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                          "I really don't have time to fight that fight but America is not even close to being mostly "kinda-right". Surveys put it close to 31%-right -- 36%-left and the rest independent."

                          Ok, I'll try again, since apparently I wasn't clear last time: you're looking at this ONLY from a scale as represented by American politics. If you look at the global right and left, America is on the right, and decidedly so. We're a conservative nation, not as judged by our own skewed spectrum, but judged by the spectrum of all nations. That was my entire point. From the perspective of the rest of the world, our "leftist communist-socialist pigdogs" are "insane warmongering conservatives".

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:23pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                            America is Global Right because so much of the world has gone left and suffered for it.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:32pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                              "America is Global Right because so much of the world has gone left and suffered for it."

                              Oh, come on, this is just silly. There are obvious areas where conservative thought is beneficial and obvious areas where liberal thought is as well. Nations get in trouble when they stray too far to either end of the spectrum and "better off / worse off" is simply a matter of values and perspective. Unless you have some quantifiable measurement by which you want to evidence that the more conservative the nation the better off they are, this is a pointless conversation....

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 2:39pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                                inception reply :)

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      John Fenderson (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:23pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                      Please take a moment to see any survey on the amount of all media people that are more likely to vote Democratic.


                      Completely irrelevant, as the "media people" aren't the ones who determine the message that is being given. The media owners do.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                  Your assertion that the left is more likely to censor is complete nonsense. The religious right (and the political right, appealing to those sentiments) are the most prodigous censor of material.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:13pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                    "Your assertion that the left is more likely to censor is complete nonsense. The religious right (and the political right, appealing to those sentiments) are the most prodigous censor of material."

                    Okay, just to be fair, I'm going to fight this side of the coin as well as being equally untrue. The religious right may like to censor, but certainly to no more extent than the political correctness police....

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:37pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                      I think it's a matter of degree. I think instances of "You should say Asian rather than Oriental," and "It's misogynistic to call someone a twat," are all over the place. They happen all the time.

                      I don't think they're in the same league as the library culling and outright suppression of material committed by the right.

                      YMMV

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 2:35pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                        no they just shout down any message they dont agree with instead of having a conversation... and the left commits outright suppression of material too...

                        Its ok we get it you like one side over the other... i find both sides moronic and nethanderal... as i do most people that profess (or show allegence) to them as well...

                        Im in favor of discuss and ideas...not hate (which you both do, and call the other the evil bastards)

                        bothsides want control of your thoughts, money, and actions... and both claim to know better than the other.. Both can blow my ass

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                PaulT (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:51pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                "Coming from a point of view that's relatively neutral (I hate both parties)"

                To be fair, on a global scale that just means you hate right-of-centre and far-right... America doesn't have a left-wing mainstream political party.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:56pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                  "To be fair, on a global scale that just means you hate right-of-centre and far-right... America doesn't have a left-wing mainstream political party."

                  Thanks for saying to me what I've said 3 or 4 times in the comments section already :)

                  To be honest, I mostly hate the idea that anyone can identify on either end of the spectrum. Saying "I'm left" or "I'm right" is stupid. I'd rather just say, "I do my best to be correct on any particular issue".

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    abc gum, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 5:09am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

                    The force is strong with this one.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Liz (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

              Except with it comes to economics, science, religion, and politics.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          zegota (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:40am

          Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

          "Argue with me on this and I will provide you link after link to prove my point."

          Oh Jesus, you make it sound so tempting.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          corwin155 (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:53am

          Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

          strongly agree

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

          The left have always worked to control media. The right to control the message not the whole dialog.


          Indeed. But it's odd that you single out "the left" on this, considering that it's equally true of literally every group that seeks power.

          Liberals control more of the dialog and news than the conservatives even could hope to control. Do some basic research.


          This is objectively incorrect, and yes, I've done a lot more than basic research. The truth is that this isn't a left vs right thing. This is a corporatist vs noncorporatist thing. The vast majority of media in the US is tightly controlled by major media corporations, and they control nearly the entire dialog outside of the internet.

          Corporations are not left or right. They use the fake left vs right dichotomy in order to maintain their power.

          The reality is that there isn't really much of a "left" in the US anyway until you start talking to normal people. In the media and in our choices for politicians (with less than a half-dozen exceptions), the range is "right leaning moderate" to "ultraright".

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Niall (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 5:01am

          Re: Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

          You obviously never heard of Goebbels then?

          And Conservatives definitely want to control what you do, obsessibely starting with the bedroom...

          They also love to punish you for not having a trust fund.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DOlz, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:28am

        Re: Re: Rush, Rush, Rush I thought that you were more savvy than that.

        The 19th century? Geez would they get upset for you calling them that progressive.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Glen, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:17am

    Even though he isn't in office and is paid to give opinions, I am convinced that he along with damn near anyone involved in politics do not believe in free speech. It doesn't matter their political affiliation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:26am

      Re:

      I dispute that. You forget the fight against the dems effort to implement the Fairness Doctrine because they had little success in the talk radio arena. The non-dems fought hard to stop it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ahow628 (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:27am

    Interesting dichotomy

    So if people abuse the internet to share movies and music, we need to shut it down by blocking sites.

    Yet, when these windbags abuse the DMCA button, nothing happens.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Scott Lazarowitz, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:29am

    "But, more to the point: WTF? Why do people keep abusing the DMCA solely to silence free speech that criticizes them, at the same time they claim to be supporters of the First Amendment."

    Because Rush Limbaugh really does NOT support the First Amendment. If Limbaugh supports the Patriot Act and all the other forms of Bush-Obama censorship, and NDAA arrests of people who criticize the government's "war on terror," then he does NOT support the First Amendment!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 2:40pm

      Re:

      correct, whos in power are all for more for them, and when they are out of power they are all for no power for those in power... its not left v right (but damn some of you make me want to slap you for the stupid shit you spout) its about power and who has it, who wants it, and who is using it. They have a need to control you, control your thoughts, control your actions, remove choice because they "know better"...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Several things need to change

    Fair Use needs to be defined in black and white law so there is a bright line boundary where fair use begins and ends.

    Since at present fair use is a blurry line, possibly requiring litigation, and risk, then there ought to be a statutory penalty for a false DMCA takedown over fair use. It is not fair that the risk is only on one side. If you're going to pull the trigger on accusing of copyright infringement, and you don't consider whether the work is fair use, then if you lose, there ought to be some serious bite.

    Finally, there ought to be some serious penalties for a defective DMCA takedown, no matter for what reason it is defective. Fair use. Falsely claiming to be the copyright owner or their registered agent. The penalty for false copyright ownership claim should triple in obvious cases, such as claiming copyright to someone's nature sound recordings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:05am

      Re: Several things need to change

      There are serious penalties: 512(f). Diebold was found liable under this for issuing a takedown notice against criticisms of its electronic voting machines and ultimately ended up paying $125,000 in damages and fines under the law. https://www.eff.org/cases/online-policy-group-v-diebold

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:15am

        Re: Re: Several things need to change

        It's good to know that one false DMCA takedown was punished. Only a gazillion more to go.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:21am

        Re: Re: Several things need to change

        I'm not really sure that a $125,000 fine is "serious" for a company such as Diebold.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 9:24pm

        Re: Re: Several things need to change

        That is serious like a scratched knee, now if the punishment was a percentage of the annual revenues before net deduction of that company that could mean serious like a heart attack otherwise bad actors just don't care.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:17am

      Re: Several things need to change

      Fair Use needs to be defined in black and white law so there is a bright line boundary where fair use begins and ends.

      Unfortunately, it really doesn't work that way. Fair Use is a only defense against copyright infringement and can be fairly subjective. The right's holder will claim it's infringement and the defendant will claim it's fair use. It's up to a court to determine who is right and it has to be on a case by case basis because there will always be an untold amount of variables and variations.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        DannyB (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

        Re: Re: Several things need to change

        Yes, that's true. All of it. But the line can still be made less blurry. There can be things codified into law that are clearly fair use.

        I'll also add one more thing to my original. There should be severe penalties for misusing the DMCA merely to silence critics or material that is embarrassing to a public figure.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Who is Rush Limbaugh again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    bosconet (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 10:55am

    One of the big problems with DMCA takedowns....

    is there are no consequences for bogus take down requests. With out any consequences the incentive is to abuse the statute for ones own gain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:20am

      Re: One of the big problems with DMCA takedowns....

      I agree. There should be some way for everyone to dispute the take-downs and receive compensation if they prove to be bogus. Also allow for punitive damages and reimbursement of costs associated with the defense.

      Sadly, the trial lawyers won't let something like that pass.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        VMax, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:03pm

        Re: Re: One of the big problems with DMCA takedowns....

        If the damages were high enough, trial lawyers would be climbing over each other to get a cut.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Paul Alan Levy (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:19pm

        Re: Re: One of the big problems with DMCA takedowns....

        With respect, it is not "the trial lawyers" who "won't let something like that pass." The inability for others to sue over takedowns is a consequence of the Burger and then the Rehnquist Court's increased used of standing and other Article III doctrines to prevent suits in the public interest on the ground that the person suing lacks sufficient personal, concrete interest in the litigation to justify use of the courts. Not at all the "trial lawyers."

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          crade (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:47pm

          Re: Re: Re: One of the big problems with DMCA takedowns....

          ? people don't have personal concrete interest in their own freedom for speaking on political issues? Why don't you just say people don't have sufficient concrete interest in being able to vote?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:02am

    If a DMCA takedown can be abused to silence speech, just imagine what would happen with SOPA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:32am

    im sorry is this what is being discussed?

    http://vimeo.com/40888702

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:32am

    I still dont' know why TechDirt thinks we still have rights!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:41am

    He could run into trouble, yeah sure he could. There doesn't seem to ever be repercussions for people who abuse DMCA take-downs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:46am

      Re:

      Sure there is, they get plenty of free publicity and have their 15 seconds of fame extended to 16 seconds.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JoelinPDX, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:46am

    None

    I don't know why Limbaugh is getting upset. First, it's all in the past and he said it. The thing is that other than the stuff about filming herself having sex, it all makes perfect sense.

    Second, it all is pretty much favorable to Limbaugh. He actually should be thanking Daily Kos for making his point so well. Kind of shows how biased they are at Daily Kos since nothing on the tape is hurtful to Limbaugh. Only the Daily Kos died in the wool liberals would think there was anything wrong with what Limbaugh was saying.

    Anyway, Limbaugh shouldn't be complaining and using the DMCA to take it down is kind of a pussyfied thing to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Pitabred (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:30pm

      Re: None

      Meh. Only a 2/10 as a troll. Way too obvious about the bait.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 2:16pm

      Re: None

      Rush is mad as hell because he perceives Sandra Fluke as an inferior person (female student complaining about the high cost of contraception), yet she is getting lots of sex, but he (the superior person) is not. Sexual frustration combined with perceived unfairness to him, is what is motivating his multi-day rage against Sandra Fluke.

      Chances are, due to his age, overweight and unfitness, he is suffering from erectile dysfunction. He needs to seek professional help, plus spend more time getting down to his correct weight and improving his fitness. In a way, his rage is a cry for help.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 11:49am

    Interesting that Rush Limbaugh says Sandra Fluke is a whore and he wants to see her having sex.

    I can see it now, Rush alone in his back room..."Oh Sandra, you dirty little whore, oh, oh, oh take it you nasty prostitute!" I'm sure it would be repeated over and over.

    Someone needs to get laid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    Lush Windbag has never cared about free speech. Back in 1994, he filed complaints against an ABC TV Show called She TV for parodying him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 12:31pm

    sex sex sex who wold want to fuck fluk, not me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Scott (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

    add this one

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:28pm

    I don't think this guy knows how birth control pills work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    adamj (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 1:42pm

    Hey guys, what is going on? I don't have any clue what's happening since Rush removed the video from youtube. He nipped that problem right in the bud. :D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 24th, 2012 @ 3:18pm

    Why do people always go nuclear?

    All he had to do was turn off his implant and he couldn't hear what they had to say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 4:10pm

    hey mike your such an expert on free speech, how about objectivity?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 4:11pm

    truth hurts, i'm dying here

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2012 @ 11:43pm

    to a point he right, he went about it wrong, but he is right

    her basic claim is birth control is expensive, although she is attending a very expensive school

    so she wants the governemnt to pay for it, so that does bascially mean, she can't keep he legs closed and wants us to pay for her to have sex without consequences

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This