Free Speech, Limousine Liberal-Style: A Comedy in Six Acts

1) Rich Raddon, "the highly praised and well-liked director of the ever-enlarging L.A. Film Festival," privately donates $1,500 to the campaign in favor of Proposition 8, the California initiative limiting state-sanctioned marriage to heterosexual couples.

2) Because of disclosure laws, Raddon's name shows up on the Prop. 8 donor database. Hollywood blogger David Poland notices, reports the news, and word soon spreads.

3) Raddon resigns from the festival's parent organization (Film Independent, or "FIND"), but the resignation is turned down. Further outcry ensues.

4) About 10 days later, Raddon resigns again. This time it's accepted.

5) On the Santa Monica-based KCRW, arguably the most influential public radio station in the country, Claude Brodesser-Akner, host of the Industry-tracking program "The Business," opens his Dec. 8 show (about Che Guevara, fittingly enough!) with a self-descibed "rant" about the whole episode:

Raddon's censure feels an awful lot we're headed back to a time in Hollywood none of us should want to revisit. It was called the Black List. Let's not shame ourselves with a Pink List to go with it.

6) Chastened no-on-8 types decide to chill out, and think twice before demanding people lose their jobs over their political activities. Ha ha, just kidding. Legendary KCRW General Manager Ruth Seymour–past recipient of a Los Angeles Times First Amendment Award!–takes the unusual step of bitch-slapping Brodesser-Akner publicly:

Last week listeners to this program heard an announcement by host Claude Brodesser-Akner purporting to be a (quote) "rant on behalf of the entire editorial staff of The Business."

Well, a "rant" is certainly what it was, in all the pejorative meanings of that term.

The management of KCRW takes editorial positions on very rare occasions. Management alone has that prerogative. In this instance, management was neither consulted nor informed. [...]

The Business compared his resignation to the Hollywood Blacklist days when members of the film industry lost their jobs because of alleged Communist sympathies. The actors, directors, writers and producers who were targeted in the Blacklist never resigned their positions. The Business never offered those who disagreed with the producers the opportunity to answer. KCRW regrets airing this out-of-the-blue opinion and has made it clear to those involved that it is unacceptable. On behalf of the station and its commitment to fairness and accuracy, please accept our apologies and regrets.

Back in 2004, I wrote about how Ruth Seymour A) fired an essayist for inadvertently using the word "fuck" on air, and then B) blamed it on the Bush administration.

Comments

Warty | December 11, 2008, 6:07pm | #

Remember, we're the intolerant ones.

joe | December 11, 2008, 6:09pm | #

The answer to deplorable speech is more speech.

You know, like what happened here.

The system worketh.

Since when did libertarians decide to start lecturing people on who they should and should disagree with? Or not work with?

Lamar | December 11, 2008, 6:14pm | #

The thing that angers me about conservatives is that they take Warty's position, and might even actually believe it. They take an intolerant stance on gays, blacks, women, whatever the minority is. When criticized, they claim the left is intolerant of differing politics. Well BS. There is a huge difference in being intolerant against a group of people for their natural attributes and being intolerant against a group for its chosen beliefs.

While I think people are way too quick to judge others, and way way way too quick to call for somebody to lose their job, lets be clear about this "intolerance" argument. Hating you for your innate attributes is different than hating you for your decisions.

Legate Damar | December 11, 2008, 6:19pm | #

Step 2 is the only one with a legit libertarian issue in it. After that, it's just industry politics. In a particularly silly industry, but industry politics nonetheless.

SIV | December 11, 2008, 6:20pm | #

Lamar,

Hate is not a family value dude

left_nut_right_nut | December 11, 2008, 6:20pm | #

I wonder, is everyone who donated to support prop 8 necessarily intolerant of homosexuals? Could this story have happened if he worked in a different industry? My guess is no.

Elemenope | December 11, 2008, 6:22pm | #

Lamar and the Legate covered a lot of ground quickly. I agree that really the only free speech issue is the mandatory campaign donation disclosure. Everything else is just whining about people exercising their right to hate a guy for his exercising his right to open his wallet and his mouth in opposition to their interests.

SIV | December 11, 2008, 6:24pm | #

Lamar does offer an excellent example of what "begging the question" actually means.

Dammerung | December 11, 2008, 6:29pm | #

California is an at-will employment state. Funny how the pseudocons will support an employer's right to fire a person for being gay, but won't support an employer's right to fire a person for being anti-gay. Just goes to show that their real agenda isn't is employer's rights but in FEAR TEH GAY!!!

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 6:30pm | #

"There is a huge difference in being intolerant against a group of people for their natural attributes and being intolerant against a group for its chosen beliefs. . . . Hating you for your innate attributes is different than hating you for your decisions."

That's why the Hollywood Left praises the pressure groups and movie studios for their boycott of people who *chose* to side the Josef Stalin's murderous dictatorship in the USSR.

Prominent Hollywood liberals have publicly honored the Eastern European emigre groups and others who exposed and denounced the Stalinists who worked in the movie industry.

As Sean Penn said in an interview, "these Stalinists were apostles of intolerance, supporters of a regime which deliberately starved, murdered and tortured millions of human beings for the 'crime' of opposing collective farming and other Communist schemes, or merely because they provoked the paranoia of a dictator. The public was right not to support the careers of these Stalinist hacks, and I commend the brave efforts of those patriotic citizens who smoked out the Hollywood Stalinists and, via peaceful boycotts, either forced the Stalinists out of the movie industry or required them to work under assumed names with a substantial pay cut - a fitting punishment for their intolerant ideas!"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - I hope you didn't believe all this. In fact, the Hollywood Left is still having conniption fits over the movie industry's boycott of Stalinists, engaging in perennial self-flagellation over "intolerance of dissenters," blah blah blah.

Of course, it's one thing to support a murderous dictator who killed millions upon millions of innocent human beings through starvation, faked trials, death in gulags, and so on. That's pardonable, and those who were boycotted for it were Martyrs To Free Speech.

But what's beyond the pale is contributing money to a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That is much, much worse than supporting a mass-murdering dictator, and anyone who engages in such behavior should be driven from their jobs.

Therefore, Ruth Seymour - managing as she did a *public* radio station - was quite right to defend Hollywood's Stalinist martyrs against invidious comparisons with someone who was driven from his job because of his support for Prop. 8. After all, this evildoer submitted his resignation - thus subjecting himself to self-criticism just like Bukharin, who confessed his "guilt" during one of Stalin's show trials.

Since we're talking about a *public* radio station, representing you and me (even non-Californians, because of federal subsidies to public radio), then it is proper that - since it was government action which outed this guy's contributions to the Prop 8 campaign - a government entity like a public radio station should never challenge what other government agencies have done.

The Angry Optimist | December 11, 2008, 6:33pm | #

but won't support an employer's right to fire a person for being anti-gay.

Who said anything about not supporting that right?

DannyK | December 11, 2008, 6:36pm | #

Public Radio depends on listener support. I know this, because they ask me for money all the time. Therefore, it behooves them to avoid annoying potential donors, and to slap down any host who says controversial things in the name of the station, rather as an Op-Ed piece.

None of this, except maybe the disclosure of who donated what, has any bearing on libertarian principles as far as I can see.

joe | December 11, 2008, 6:39pm | #

SIV | December 11, 2008, 6:24pm | #

Lamar does offer an excellent example of what "begging the question" actually means.

If this is some kind of po-mo meta-meta dry humor, five starts, dude.

Because I have no idea what you're talking out, which...

Outstanding, SIV. I'm going to use this.

Tom | December 11, 2008, 6:40pm | #

Raddon resigned. Nobody forced him to. He quit voluntarily.

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 6:41pm | #

I may have posted these before, but here they are again:

human beings murdered by the Stalin regime so praised by Hollywood Communists

another victim of the Glorious Liberator Stalin

Bee | December 11, 2008, 6:43pm | #

As long as we *do* have the disclosure information, I have absolutely no issue with people using that info in whatever legal way they see fit. Have at it, kids.

I confess, arguments against publicizing contribution disclosures had never even entered my mind until Radley Balko and Katherine Mangu-Ward wrote about that a couple of weeks ago.

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 6:47pm | #

Raddon resigned. Nobody forced him to. He quit voluntarily.

David Howard also resigned voluntarily, but for some reason the mayor of Washington DC ultimately decided to let him keep his job anyway. You see, Howard relized he had become a political liability when he said that the DC government should be "niggardly" in spending the people's money in the midst of a budget crisis. Many people demanded that Howard be removed from office for using a word that sounded bad. Howard "voluntarily" offered his resignation to spare his political superiors the political embarrassment of being hassled by morons. But the mayor of DC, in the end, decided not to accept the resignation because *Howard had done nothing wrong.*

That's the course the L.A. Film Festival originally took, according to the link. Even when they accepted Haddon's second resignation, they did so with great sorrow and reluctance.

Haddon's voluntary resignation was an act of loyalty - he didn't want his organization, for which he had worked so long and loyally, to be damaged by moron boycotters. He put others' interests ahead of his own. That doesn't let the moron boycotters off the hook. Most importantly, it doesn't exonerate the authors of the "campaign reform" laws for requring political donors to out themselves even at the risk to their careers.

SIV | December 11, 2008, 6:48pm | #

joe,

You really are kinda slow aren't you?

dbcooper | December 11, 2008, 6:52pm | #

What kind of employment contract allows the employer to fire an employee for supporting a political campaign? And what clause would you need if that campaign won with a majority?

John C. Randolph | December 11, 2008, 6:52pm | #

Funny how the pseudocons will support an employer's right to fire a person for being gay, but won't support an employer's right to fire a person for being anti-gay.

Try to understand the difference between supporting someone's right to do something, and supporting the action itself. If someone fires an employee for arbitrary reasons, I'll support their right to do so, but still call them an asshole for it.

-jcr

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 6:54pm | #

I just noticed this in the article I linked to about David Howard:

"[DC Mayor] Williams also drew criticism from gay activists for allowing Howard, who is gay, to resign. . . .

'"It's to the mayor's credit that he offered to reinstate him," said Philip Pannell, a gay activist. "I think it's very big of him and prudent. I hope this is a situation where everyone at large, as a community, learned from this."'

I suppose that 'Philip Pannell, a gay activist,' need to be educated on the fact that Howard 'quit voluntarily,' so there's no reason for anyone to complain!

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 6:55pm | #

"keep his job" should read "stay employed with the DC government."

EJM | December 11, 2008, 7:03pm | #

[From this post:] ...arguably the most influential public radio station in the country...

[From the earlier post:] ...the most lucrative link in the National Public Radio chain...

There are a lot of public-radio stations throughout the country that, I think, would argue those claims.

The Angry Optimist | December 11, 2008, 7:05pm | #

If I had to take a crack at it, I would say that SIV is stating that homosexuality is not an innate attribute.

John Thacker | December 11, 2008, 7:06pm | #

Since when did libertarians decide to start lecturing people on who they should and should disagree with? Or not work with?

Reason has felt free to blast the old Comics Code Authority on multiple occasions as an affront to free speech, despite it being a voluntary industry arrangement. (Admittedly with government prodding.)

The Hollywood Blacklist itself was also a voluntary industry arrangement, thought obviously the government's investigations had something to do with who was targeted.

Reason, and other libertarians, have a pretty consistent track record of calling these sorts of things stupid and an affront to the idea of free speech. There is a difference between thinking something is stupid and thinking "there oughta be a law..." Respecting that difference, in fact, is often part of what makes a libertarian.

Nemo | December 11, 2008, 7:20pm | #

Somehow, I get the feeling the tone in the comments section would be quite different if liberals were being pressured to resign because they supported a certain campaign.

Free speech for me, but not for thee.

Lamar | December 11, 2008, 7:21pm | #

SIV: While I disagree with you (assuming TAO nailed it), I appreciate that you know what begging the question means. And while "hate" was too strong, I was using it as shorthand for "going after somebody's livelihood." As I said, I think people are far too willing to take bread off of another man's table.

Paul | December 11, 2008, 7:23pm | #

I'm all for freedom of speech, but...

Lamar | December 11, 2008, 7:23pm | #

Anybody have any good falconry stories?

Fluffy | December 11, 2008, 7:24pm | #

Thacker:

I have no problem with the Hollywood blacklist.

I do have a problem with the fact that names ended up on that blacklist due to Congressional subpoena and extortion. Everyone who sat on the House or Senate committees that produced the names that went on to the blacklist deserved to be shot in the fucking face and hung upside down from a lamp post like Mussolini.

And my objection to the various Hollywood codes [including the current rating system] is that they were put in place using government extortion ["Regulate yourselves or we will regulate you!"] and that makes the men who put them in place state toadies and lackeys. If a genuinely voluntary "industry association" existed in the complete absence of Federal extortion, I would not oppose it, although I would preferentially patronize artists and theatre owners who chose to defy the cartel.

SIV | December 11, 2008, 7:25pm | #

Lamar,

Both your conclusion and premise are that conservatives are intolerant of innate differences.

Paul | December 11, 2008, 7:26pm | #

He quit voluntarily.

Insert reference to prior arguments about coercion within circles of power.

Fluffy | December 11, 2008, 7:27pm | #

Haddon's voluntary resignation was an act of loyalty - he didn't want his organization, for which he had worked so long and loyally, to be damaged by moron boycotters. He put others' interests ahead of his own. That doesn't let the moron boycotters off the hook.

Why are the boycotters morons?

They don't owe anyone their patronage.

If you chose to boycott the NY Times because you think they should include pages and pages from a CCD handbook any time a journalist self-identifies as a Catholic, that would be your business. You wouldn't be doing anything wrong at all.

Franklin Harris | December 11, 2008, 7:31pm | #

Since when did libertarians decide to start lecturing people on who they should and should disagree with? Or not work with?

What sort of naive libertarianism is that demands libertarians have opinions only about things the government does? By your own logic, you shouldn't be telling libertarians who we can or cannot lecture since we're not wielding the power of government.

Franklin Harris | December 11, 2008, 7:32pm | #

Why are the boycotters morons?

They don't owe anyone their patronage.

Because their reason for denying patronage in this case is moronic, QED.

Franklin Harris | December 11, 2008, 7:34pm | #

Reason has felt free to blast the old Comics Code Authority on multiple occasions as an affront to free speech, despite it being a voluntary industry arrangement.

Shameless plug: Here's another.

joe | December 11, 2008, 7:36pm | #

For someone who allegedly believes in a philosophy that emphasizes consent, Mad Max sure seems confused about the difference between being fired and resigning.

Remember when those actors and screenwriters were...er...you know...criticized, and resigned? That's how McCarthyism worked, right?

joe,

You really are kinda slow aren't you?

No, I'm frequently complimented as being one of the more intelligent commenters here, unlike you. In case you didn't notice, nobody understood what the hell you were talking about.

John Thacker,

(Admittedly with government prodding.) Sort of gives the game away there, doesn't it? There's a reason why everyone knows the name Joe McCarthy, but can't tell you who was running the movie studios.

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 7:36pm | #

"They don't owe anyone their patronage."

Of course not - they have freedom of association. Of course, I don't owe *them* any tributes to the intelligence and insight.

joe | December 11, 2008, 7:41pm | #

Franklin Harris,

What sort of naive libertarianism is that demands libertarians have opinions only about things the government does?

The headline, just to refresh everyone's memories, is "Free Speech, Limousine Liberal Style: A Comedy in Three Acts."

This is about as much of a free speech issue as firing your receptionist because people found out she was a Klan member.

By your own logic, you shouldn't be telling libertarians who we can or cannot lecture since we're not wielding the power of government. I, sir, am a liberal. That there can be coercion other than that practiced by government, particularly in the economic arena, is an integral part of my political philosophy, though not yours.

Because their reason for denying patronage in this case is moronic And if people decided to boycott a theater because its employees supported banning interracial, rather than gay, marriage, that would be equally moronic?

MP | December 11, 2008, 7:41pm | #

Sorry Lamar...not buying the supposition that supporters of Prop 8 inherently are intolerant of gays.

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 7:42pm | #

'For someone who allegedly believes in a philosophy that emphasizes consent, Mad Max sure seems confused about the difference between being fired and resigning.

'Remember when those actors and screenwriters were...er...you know...criticized, and resigned? That's how McCarthyism worked, right?'

For someone who is constantly complaining about other people are misinterpreting him, you seem very cavalier about imputing views to other people. Pray tell me where I praised the activities of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Come to think of it, please cite for me some examples of Sen. McCarthy targeting the film industry for investigation. I'm sure that you would never confuse Sen. McCarthy's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Government Operations Committee with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee - it was the latter which was famous for investigating Hollywood. Note that it was the *House* Committee on UnAmerican Activities, and Joseph McCarthy was in the *Senate.* If you cast your mind back to your grade-school civics classes, you may recall that the Senate and the House are distinct bodies.

John C. Randolph | December 11, 2008, 7:45pm | #

I have no problem with the Hollywood blacklist.

I do, because it wasn't voluntary on the part of the companies that used it. They acted out of fear of McCarthy.

-jcr

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 7:48pm | #

'For someone who allegedly believes in a philosophy that emphasizes consent, Mad Max sure seems confused about the difference between being fired and resigning.'

Again, I do not elevate liberty above all considerations, but the government played a role in 'outing' both the Stalinists and the Prop 8 supporters. Private parties did the actual boycotting. You can praise the process leading to Raddon's losing his job (and your definition of voluntary is distinctly libertarian, making no allowance for economic coercion), but the same reasoning would lead to praise of the process leading to the Hollywood blacklist. In both cases, the government disclosed information about the political activities of certain people, and the private sector responded.

I was interested that Ruth Seymour, manager of a public radio station, thought that the treatment of Hollywood Stalinists was horrible and wrong, but that the treatment of prop 8 donors is not so bad.

The Angry Optimist | December 11, 2008, 7:50pm | #

oh great, now we are going to get into the resolutely anti-intellectual "debate" where lefties invent other forms of "coercion" to justify actual coercion.

you guys have fun. I've been down this road too many times.

Shannon Love | December 11, 2008, 7:50pm | #

I think the true import of this story is that it highlights the profound change that has occurred in the American left since the 60's. The old left had a profound sense of being part of ongoing civic debate and a search for the truth. They protected free speech to protect the search for the best ideas.

The post 60's left is radically different drawing most of its core concepts from the European experience. Infected with postmodernism, they see no value in public debate other than as a source of legitimacy. We've already seen blacklisting and harassment used to stifle debate and destroy people's careers in academia. Soon it will spread to the point in the media and entertainment where to question leftist dogma means an end to one's career.

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 7:50pm | #

'This is about as much of a free speech issue as firing your receptionist because people found out she was a Klan member.'

After finding her name in a list published by the House Committee on Anti-Klan Activities.

The Angry Optimist | December 11, 2008, 7:54pm | #

This is about as much of a free speech issue as firing your receptionist because people found out she was a Klan member.

It's a freedom of association issue. That does not mean that libertarians have to endorse or reject the rationale for the freedom of association.

joe | December 11, 2008, 7:55pm | #

Mad Max,

Pray tell me where I praised the activities of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. First, you tell me where I said you praised Joe McCarthy?

Because, you see, I didn't. What I did was point out a rather significant difference between the Hollywood blacklists you praise and this episode - those people were fired during the McCarthy era, while this guy resigned. Resigned, because people were saying things, and might have decided to spent their dollars elsewhere.

If my use of "McCarthyism" to describe the most famous episode of the 1950s Red Scare (ie, the Hollywood Blacklist) was confusing, then I hope this clears that up for you.

joe | December 11, 2008, 7:58pm | #

TAO,

It's a freedom of association issue. That does not mean that libertarians have to endorse or reject the rationale for the freedom of association. You're right. If libertarians want to reject opposition to homophobia as a legitimate reason to make decisions about free association, they can do so without the slightest hypocrisy. There is nothing in libertarian philosophy that compels one to oppose prejudice.

What it is NOT is a free speech issue. That's all I'm saying.

John C. Randolph | December 11, 2008, 7:59pm | #

I'm frequently complimented as being one of the more intelligent commenters here

Joe,

Your inability to pick up on sarcasm is one of the things that makes you so amusing.

-jcr

John C. Randolph | December 11, 2008, 8:00pm | #

They protected free speech to protect the search for the best ideas.

Nope. They were already shouting down their opponents at every opportunity, way back in the days of the so-called "free speech movement" at Berkeley.

-jcr

The Angry Optimist | December 11, 2008, 8:02pm | #

joe,

I frankly do not understand why Mr. Welch is making a big deal out of this.

People find out the guy is (potentially) a bigot, get pissed, pressure guy out.

That's how markets work.

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 8:04pm | #

'This is about as much of a free speech issue as *firing* your receptionist because people found out she was a Klan member.'

Wait a minute joe - the secretary would have to voluntarily resign in the face of protests against her government-disclosed political affiliations, to maintain a complete parallel with the Raddon case.

Or have you forgotten your own comments about 'the difference between being fired and resigning'?

I suggest you pick a story and stick to it.

Mad Max | December 11, 2008, 8:14pm | #

Sen. Joseph McCarthy is such a devil-figure to the left that they tend to forget that what they call "McCarthyism" actually began before McCarthy gave his Wheeling speech in 1950. The Hollywood investigations were pre-McCarthy. But his sinister backstage influence was so powerful that it must have been the "McCarthy era" even before the Senator's anti-red crusade.

Of course, any good leftist would have to agree that a person resigning from his job under pressure is acting voluntarily.

Yes | December 11, 2008, 8:35pm | #

California is a disease.

Matt Welch | December 11, 2008, 8:41pm | #

The headline, just to refresh everyone's memories, is "Free Speech, Limousine Liberal Style: A Comedy in Three Acts."

joe, that's just not true!

California is a disease.

Yes, that's just not true!

church49 | December 11, 2008, 9:08pm | #

This post really is a comedy, for entirely unintended reasons.

This is clearly not a "free speech" issue. The guy was free to donate to anti-gay causes, the public was perfectly free to boycott his productions as a result, and his bosses, watching all this unfold, were perfectly free (and wise) to listen to their market and accept his resignation. I don't see a state actor anywhere but for the fact that his donation was disclosed. Which of course he knew (or should have known) when he made it in the first place.

This is a perfect example of the power of markets. Surprisingly, gays make up a large part of the fanbase for musical theater. When a person at a particular theater donates to a cause they find distasteful, they threaten to take their money elsewhere. The guy who made the donation was free to tell them all to @#%^ off. His bosses were free to tell them all to @#$% off too. Turns out, they like money more. It's incredible that libertarians, of all people, would find this shocking.

Pac | December 11, 2008, 9:33pm | #

OMG, i now understand what they mean by Cosmotarian.


Everyone is singing a much different tune than when Joe the Plumber had all his business outed.

free speech a.k.a. joe's an idiot | December 11, 2008, 9:53pm | #

joe | December 11, 2008, 7:36pm | #

No, I'm frequently complimented as being one of the more intelligent commenters here,

Citations for this statement please joe. Frequently hmmm... nah, not buying it. I might agree to occasionally, but frequently..?

Anyway; since you are a self confessed Liberal I'm sensing something algebraic: Liberal + intelligent doesn't that equation look like this scL+i = oxy... something.

Oh yeah, oxy-moron...that's it.

Emphasis on the latter! Yes comments about joe often do recognize that he has a clever smoothness with words, can often turn an amusing phrase, make a clever observation from time to time, yet he's quite slimy about the way he likes to defend his position at all costs i.e. loves to be right! And whenever his position is about to crumble from reasoned argument by some other poster he gets in a snarky huff and and says he's going home to do something useful like play with his kid - except he usually pops back up after he says he has said all he has to say, calls everyone who doesn't agree with his position (by this time quite obscured by his flexibility at toing-and-froing) an idiot (or worse). Bottom line ya just can't trust him to mean what he says, or to have a reasoned discussion with someone who has a different perspective. Oh yeah, (slaps forehead) I keep forgetting he's loud and proud about the rightness of being a political LIBERAL!

If he was actually being liberal (as in, supporting liberty) instead of just bragging about the political label he's taken on, he'd probably be more effective and worth engaging with.

Anyway, in closing, I wish you Merry Christmas joe - I hope Santa brings you all you deserve.

Ken Shultz | December 11, 2008, 10:01pm | #

KCRW is probably the most influential radio station in the country. For those of you outside of LA probably won't believe it.

If the government shut off funding tomorrow, I think KCRW would probably survive just fine on member donations alone. ...it seems to depend on member donations a lot.

I don't think I'm goin' out on a limb suggesting that KCRW's members are made up of the latte-swilling liberals conservatives love to hate. I don't think there's much question but that KCRW"s members are probably heavily pro-gay marriage. If the station manager wasn't concerned about offending their donor base, I think that would make for a storyline too.

I think this is an example of what self-censorship might look like in Libertopia. ...another example was when whats-her-name got fired for saying "fuck" on the air (amid the aftermath of the Janet Jackson Nipple Scare as I recall)--if "public" stations relied exclusively on subscriptions for support, I suspect they'd be more sensitive to the sensibilities of their customers.

...more so than they are under the regulation of the FCC and others.

The Angry Optimist | December 11, 2008, 10:04pm | #

Everyone is singing a much different tune than when Joe the Plumber had all his business outed.

In case you did not know, that took a special search by a government functionary into a private database. (for some of it, anyway).

OTOH, this guy knew he would be on a public donor list, and a private citizen "outed" his donation.

You may note that I am defending this KCRW stuff and not defending the partial government-intrusion into JtP's life, which really does not lend itself to the small-minded ideological boxes in which you undoubtedly reside.

von Laue | December 11, 2008, 10:07pm | #

Here's a thought: put your stinky, gouty little finger over the title of the post. What do you see now? Yes, pretend you never read the words "free speech". It's easy if you try, bitch!

I see another fine anecdote about Ruth Seymour, who is the dumbshit who fired Sandra Tsing Loh. What's wrong with upbraiding a super-uptight, firin'-for-crossing-the-party-line manager?

Nothing, that's what. I guess even though I'm a "libertarian" or whatever, if I were king of town, I'd make a law requiring all NPR outlets to hire the most faithful, swear-happy replica of Tommy Mischke in their market; failure punishable by gorilla mask.

There's a streak of libertarianism, mostly incompatible with conservatism and managerial liberalism, that wants repression in all spheres to, you know, recede. Sure, we might think that government is the largest component of it, and I'd usually agree. But I don't know why Howleyesian acknowledgment that repression actually exists for reasons other than the government is so off the ranch. Nobody called for the DA to get involved for 1st A. violations, so anyone going on about it not being a free speech issue is sort of missing the point. A guy, who writes on a blog that's about the freedom and whatnot, thinks some other person sucks for being hypocritical on speech issues, and here's why. A laser-like focus on isms isn't that useful, but use that hammer, sport! P

Ken Shultz | December 11, 2008, 10:13pm | #

Oh, and any of you who are criticizing this station manager for overruling someone else's opinion at the station... Yeah, any of you who have done that and also criticized Reason staff for not conforming to your definition of what a real libertarian is...

Shame on you.

If you're the kind of person who expects Reason to react when you say you're canceling your subscription and then turns around and expects other donor supported media outlets to ignore the sensibilities of their subscribers, then you're a jackass.

church49 | December 11, 2008, 10:14pm | #

"Here's a thought: put your stinky, gouty little finger over the title of the post. What do you see now? Yes, pretend you never read the words "free speech". It's easy if you try, bitch!"

Shorter von Laue:
If you pretend the author didn't say what he did the post makes perfect sense! Bitch!

Pac | December 11, 2008, 10:14pm | #

ou may note that I am defending this KCRW stuff and not defending the partial government-intrusion into JtP's life, which really does not lend itself to the small-minded ideological boxes in which you undoubtedly reside.


lol absolutely hilarious, i hope you're never attacked through government or private action for expressing some political belief.

As for small-minded, i don't need the govt to validate my personal relationship, but you go ahead and assume what you like. I enjoy seeing small minds at work.

Matt Welch | December 11, 2008, 10:19pm | #

I'm naming my next prog-rock band "Howleyesian Acknowledgment."

von Laue | December 11, 2008, 10:19pm | #

and "P" really is the nut of my argument.

PAc | December 11, 2008, 10:22pm | #

TAO,

SO you think he's possibly a bigot? Nice brain power at work there pal. let's forget that there are plenty of limited government or libertarian reasons for not wanting the Govt. involved in marriage, for straight or gay people, in case you don't understand.

If i were you, i'd be embarrassed.

von Laue | December 11, 2008, 10:22pm | #

Even shorter von Laue: You are a bitch.

I may not know why, but you do.

MAX HATS | December 11, 2008, 10:27pm | #

i hope you're never attacked through government or private action for expressing some political belief.

You're conflating private and government action pretty easily.

mc_racken | December 11, 2008, 10:31pm | #

I like this case because it shows how things should work. Sure it seems dirty how it played out but thats what makes it good.

Discrimination of some sort was tossed back and forth and no outside agency got involved. It may suck for those involved, but such is divisive politics.

left_nut_right_nut | December 11, 2008, 10:32pm | #

wait is it still politics if only private groups are arguing? then its just what?

von Laue | December 11, 2008, 10:44pm | #

I have a little suspicion about the totally new moniker who would use the eternally-unfunny "shorter guy I don't like", with a you-can't-read nyaaaaah sentence construction. Where's my fucking psychology PhD to unravel this mystery? Oh, there it is, next to my cell phone.

You know who you are, and you're on notice, little girl. Enjoy me, camping out in your mind! Don't worry, I leave only footprints.

pibb_gig | December 11, 2008, 10:44pm | #

It's an argument stupid!

Dixie Chicks | December 11, 2008, 10:48pm | #

His free speech was violated just like ours and Bill Maher's was.
You libertardians are way too literal and pay no fucking attention to context.

powerbuttergod | December 11, 2008, 10:49pm | #

Oh, there it is, next to my cell phone.


Hey man, I like, think I lost my phone. Could you like call mine so I can find it. [phone] thanks!

von Laue | December 11, 2008, 10:58pm | #

yr a dick dood why r u havin me call Mexico

The Angry Optimist | December 11, 2008, 11:11pm | #

SO you think he's possibly a bigot?

Yes.

let's forget that there are plenty of limited government or libertarian reasons for not wanting the Govt. involved in marriage

I'm aware. I am highly skeptical that this guy was that principled (even though I find those arguments nonstarters, I have more respect for them than others).

He's Mormon. His Church ordered him to donate, and he said "How much?"

That's enough in my mind. If he comes out with one of the arguments to which you allude, then I'll change my mind.

The Angry Optimist | December 11, 2008, 11:14pm | #

But I don't know why Howleyesian acknowledgment that repression actually exists for reasons other than the government is so off the ranch.

Usually, it is because the arguments for other types of repression are just ex post justifications, invented by statists, to support their pre-determined conclusion that "There Oughta Be a Law!®"

* - Registered TM of MNG

James B. | December 11, 2008, 11:47pm | #

Where are the threatened boycotts of businesses that employ donors to the Obama and Biden?

I seem to recall during the campaign that they said they were opposed to gay marriage.

The Angry Optimist | December 11, 2008, 11:56pm | #

That's a little convoluted, don't you think, James B.? Are you going to call for boycotts of businesses that donated to McCain/Palin, because they said the same thing, or are you going for "teh PaRtiSan hack!" look?

Tom | December 12, 2008, 12:41am | #

How do you all feel about today's resignation by Richard Cizik as the National Association of Evangelicals' vice president for governmental affairs? http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3708&Itemid=53

church49 | December 12, 2008, 12:48am | #

"Even shorter von Laue: You are a bitch.

I may not know why, but you do."

Yep, I'd say that about sums up your argument.

parse | December 12, 2008, 7:57am | #

The answer to deplorable speech is more speech.

You know, like what happened here.

The system worketh.

How is the part where Raddon lost his job "more speech"?

KCRW regrets airing this out-of-the-blue opinion and has made it clear to those involved that it is unacceptable.

How does this comment from station management demonstrate a committment to "free speech"? joe, when station management "made it clear that it's unacceptable," do you think they told Brodesser-Akner "If you do that again, we will respond with more speech" or "If you do that again, you will lose your job"?

James B. | December 12, 2008, 7:59am | #

That's a little convoluted, don't you think, James B.? Are you going to call for boycotts of businesses that donated to McCain/Palin, because they said the same thing, or are you going for "teh PaRtiSan hack!" look?

That is an excellent idea. I look forward to hearing about the planned boycott of all companies and organizations that have at least one employee who made at least one contribution to Obama, Biden, McCain or Palin.

Fluffy | December 12, 2008, 8:25am | #

Because their reason for denying patronage in this case is moronic, QED.

This might seem like a clever retort, but it's actually not.

I am absolutely sure that if we were able to review every purchase you have ever made in your lifetime, and were granted omniscient insight into what attracted you to the product or service, we'd find occasions where you bought something because a TV ad made you laugh; or where the product packaging was clever; or because all the other kids had one and you didn't want to stand out; or because you thought it would impress some chick who never noticed you anyway; or because you believed some urban myth or junk science claim.

Given all the really, really stupid reasons that all of us - me included, I'm sure - will choose to extend our patronage, doing so to express political outrage is actually way up there on the non-moron scale, unless the political position expressed is so insipid that it fails the laugh test. If a No vote on 8 was even remotely intellectually respectable, savaging the supporters of 8 where you can find them can't really be "moronic" compared to, say, trying Life cereal because Mikey liked it.

Seamus | December 12, 2008, 8:30am | #

Everyone knows that Hollywood blacklists are only bad when they're targeted against the Left. No one wept when Lillian Gish couldn't find work after joining the America First Committee before World War II, then suddenly became employable again after she quit.

Seamus | December 12, 2008, 8:34am | #

There is a huge difference in being intolerant against a group of people for their natural attributes and being intolerant against a group for its chosen beliefs.

So the anti-Catholic bigotry of the Know-Nothings was OK?

Fluffy | December 12, 2008, 8:40am | #

I look forward to hearing about the planned boycott of all companies and organizations that have at least one employee who made at least one contribution to Obama, Biden, McCain or Palin.

If it would work, that would be awesome.

That's one thing that's annoying about all the whining from supporters of Yes on 8. Most people support the right of people to organize boycotts - unless those boycotts actually succeed. If the boycotts succeed it's "bullying" or "intimidation". And that's silly.

I feel bad for the targets of these boycotts to the extent that their identity is known only because of campaign finance reporting requirements. But I don't feel bad for them because somehow "regular folks" have a right not to be the target of a boycott. No one possesses such a right.

SugarFree | December 12, 2008, 8:46am | #

Fluffy, don't you ever get righted of being right? It must be exhausting.

perilisk | December 12, 2008, 9:44am | #

"Because their reason for denying patronage in this case is moronic, QED.

This might seem like a clever retort, but it's actually not.

I am absolutely sure that if we were able to review every purchase you have ever made in your lifetime, and were granted omniscient insight into what attracted you to the product or service, we'd find occasions where you bought something because a TV ad made you laugh; or where the product packaging was clever; or because all the other kids had one and you didn't want to stand out; or because you thought it would impress some chick who never noticed you anyway; or because you believed some urban myth or junk science claim.

Given all the really, really stupid reasons that all of us - me included, I'm sure - will choose to extend our patronage, doing so to express political outrage is actually way up there on the non-moron scale, unless the political position expressed is so insipid that it fails the laugh test. If a No vote on 8 was even remotely intellectually respectable, savaging the supporters of 8 where you can find them can't really be "moronic" compared to, say, trying Life cereal because Mikey liked it."

Dude, this whole subthread started as a discussion of a guy who resigned because people were up in arms because they didn't realize the word "niggardly" has nothing to do with African Americans. He resigned to prevent his organization from suffering due to other people having limited vocabularies. Having a limited vocabulary is often considered a "moronic" attribute. QED. Stop digging the hole.

creech | December 12, 2008, 9:50am | #

One more example of why campaign contributions should be as secret as your vote. If public policy is to prevent, say, employers from knowing how you voted, then it should be policy to prevent them from knowing about the far more damning fact of putting money where your vote went.

Fluffy | December 12, 2008, 10:09am | #

Dude, this whole subthread started as a discussion of a guy who resigned because people were up in arms because they didn't realize the word "niggardly" has nothing to do with African Americans. He resigned to prevent his organization from suffering due to other people having limited vocabularies. Having a limited vocabulary is often considered a "moronic" attribute. QED. Stop digging the hole.

Wrong.

Haddon's voluntary resignation was an act of loyalty - he didn't want his organization, for which he had worked so long and loyally, to be damaged by moron boycotters. He put others' interests ahead of his own. That doesn't let the moron boycotters off the hook.

Max's reference to "moron boycotters" was a reference to the threatened boycott of the LA Film Festival [albeit with a misspelling of the guy's name].

I asked why the boycotters were morons.

Franklin Harris answered:

Because their reason for denying patronage in this case is moronic, QED.

Maybe you thought we were discussing the case in DC, but we weren't.

Stop digging the Chunnel.

Lamar | December 12, 2008, 10:12am | #

"Both your conclusion and premise are that conservatives are intolerant of innate differences."

My conclusion was that conservatives have no purchase to argue that liberals are the intolerant ones.

Ravac | December 12, 2008, 10:37am | #

Dude, this whole subthread started as a discussion of a guy who resigned because people were up in arms because they didn't realize the word "niggardly" has nothing to do with African Americans.

Dude, click the little x on all the jib-jab, college humor, and MILF pop-ups on the top half of your screen to see read how the thread started.

heretic | December 12, 2008, 10:48am | #

At this point, the only thing to do for California is to carpet-bomb it from end to end ala Dresden, until all life has been obliterated, and then just recolonize it. That would be the single greatest improvement that could be made to the country.

EJM | December 12, 2008, 10:55am | #

KCRW is probably the most influential radio station in the country. For those of you outside of LA probably won't believe it.

If the government shut off funding tomorrow, I think KCRW would probably survive just fine on member donations alone. ...it seems to depend on member donations a lot.

Ken, as I hinted at earlier, my hunch is that those claims would probably be more applicable to such public-radio stations as Boston's WBUR, D.C.'s WAMU, Seattle's KUOW, and S.F.'s KQED than to KCRW. Granted, part of the reason is that KCRW does have to compete with KPCC (SCPR) in the news/talk sub-genre of public radio (as opposed to classical KUSC and jazz KKJZ).

Still, I also think that you're right about KCRW likely being able to get by on only donations and (probably more importantly) underwriting.

EJM | December 12, 2008, 10:59am | #

How do you all feel about today's resignation by Richard Cizik as the National Association of Evangelicals' vice president for governmental affairs?

Yikes! (However, it's not unexpected.)

EJM | December 12, 2008, 1:04pm | #

FYI, I have no idea how similar it is to that of KCRW, but KUOW's Wikipedia listing includes a basic breakdown of the station's "operating support".

Tobin Lippert | December 12, 2008, 2:48pm | #

As a KCRW listener, I find this not surprising in the least. Ruth Seymour is among the most pompous and annoying people alive. She single-handedly costs the station thousands of dollars with her grating domination of the station's many pledge drives -- listeners can't change the channel fast enough. California would be a happier place if her voice were never heard on the radio again.