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.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dmca abuse, fair use, lenz v. universal, rush limbaugh


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


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

    Introductions are in order...

    Mr Limbaugh, this is Barbra Streisand.

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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Apr 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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?

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Apr 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.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        el_segfaulto (profile), 24 Apr 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.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 24 Apr 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.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      gorehound (profile), 24 Apr 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.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Apr 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.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Jamie, 24 Apr 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.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Apr 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.

            link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              zegota (profile), 24 Apr 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.

              link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                corwin155 (profile), 24 Apr 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

                link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  DOlz, 24 Apr 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?

                  link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Apr 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"....

                    link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Apr 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....

              link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Apr 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.

                link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Apr 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....

                  link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Apr 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.

                    link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Apr 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.

                      link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Apr 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!

                        link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Apr 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".

                          link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Apr 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.

                            link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Apr 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....

                              link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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 :)

                                link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 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.

                      link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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.

                  link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Apr 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....

                    link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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

                      link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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

                        link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 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.

                link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Apr 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".

                  link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    abc gum, 25 Apr 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.

                    link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Liz (profile), 24 Apr 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.

              link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          zegota (profile), 24 Apr 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.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

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

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

          strongly agree

          link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 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".

          link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Niall (profile), 25 Apr 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.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        DOlz, 24 Apr 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.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glen, 24 Apr 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Apr 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.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ahow628 (profile), 24 Apr 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Scott Lazarowitz, 24 Apr 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!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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"...

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 24 Apr 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:01pm

          Re: Re: Re: Several things need to change

          That is a more serious then a $25,000 fine for Google

          link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 6:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Several things need to change

            I agree. What's your point?

            link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 24 Apr 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.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        DannyB (profile), 24 Apr 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.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

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

    Who is Rush Limbaugh again?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bosconet (profile), 24 Apr 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Apr 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.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        VMax, 24 Apr 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.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Paul Alan Levy (profile), 24 Apr 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."

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          crade (profile), 24 Apr 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?

          link to this | view in chronology ]

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

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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

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

    im sorry is this what is being discussed?

    http://vimeo.com/40888702

    link to this | view in chronology ]

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

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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

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

      Re:

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

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    JoelinPDX, 24 Apr 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

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

      Re: None

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

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 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.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 24 Apr 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Pitabred (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:31pm

      Re:

      Pretty sure he'd have to be able to find his dick for that to happen, and given his girth I'm not sure ANYONE would be up to that herculean task...

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:41pm

      Re:

      Someone needs to get laid.

      It's probably not a good idea to mix Oxycontin and Viagra. Just sayin'.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 24 Apr 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

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

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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

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

    add this one

    link to this | view in chronology ]

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

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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    adamj (profile), 24 Apr 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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Apr 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

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

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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

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

    truth hurts, i'm dying here

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 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

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.