http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/18/1358561/-I-Think-Bill-Maher-Is-Confused?detail=email
This may surprise you, but I am not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh. However, if you're one of the people with a website devoted to making him go away, you are part of the problem. And ironically, you're not even a proper liberal, because you don't get free speech. You're just a baby, because you can't stand to live in a world where you hear things that upset you.
I know it does sound rather childish to put it like this, but it seems to me that Bill is the one who doesn't "get free speech," if this is what he thinks it means. Simply put, free speech means that the state, i.e., the government, i.e., the law, has to tolerate whatever an individual citizen has to say (other than threats, perjury, &c.). It doesn't mean that individual citizens have to tolerate whatever any other individual citizen has to say. And it certainly doesn't mean that they have to [literally] buy it, or that they can't use their economic and political power -- not to mention their own free speech -- to push back and curtail intolerable speech.
Bill has his moments sometimes he says stuff that is just pushing buttons of some and garnering cheers from others. he has a point about Limbaugh overwhelmingly every word he says offends someone especially on the Progressive side of the street like others before him that is their job the hate filled rhetoric is clearly aimed to appease those of the right wing so naturally Progressives like myself will find it offensive, just like say Rev. Al makes so much sense in the truths he says to me those counterparts on the other side try to demean him at every turn mostly all the listeners remember is 1987 Tawanna Brawley and judge him on that which is still divided in public opinion.
but back to Maher you have to at least consider what was said as most of his first inpression "what?" things i've been told some need to reread more than once to get my point because of my style of writing that applies to pretty much all who express opinion. i hate to say this but as that old saying goes if you don't like it turn it off than you are free to rebut to your hearts content but for those who agree with him you become what he was to you, that might be one of those things you have to reread +o).
all i'm saying is barring things like shouting fire in a crowded theater is against the law and not considered free speech most things are regardless to how offensively ignorant the answer turn it off or walk away i prefer to listen so i know whether it is in opposition or if i had listened to 3 more words i might have agreed, and learned something from a different perspective, i wonder how much of the worlds problems might not be if those who oppose would just open their minds and listen to one another.
i don't think he means we should tolerate intolerance but be should allow those of that bigoted inclination the right to say what they want i think the misunderstanding of the author is we don't have to listen or take it as written in stone. instead of getting all worked up use that energy to rebuke when you can if you do go all twisted they win.
