Rush Limbaugh, Free Speech Martyr?

My mornings not being brewed by Starbucks, I come to alertness gradually. Today I snapped to through the fog when I heard Joe Scarborough bemoan a bit of bad news that has clouded the sunny if nasty world of Rush Limbaugh.

In case you don’t know, Rush was a member of a group of investors who were seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams. Limbaugh’s participation engendered reaction from football players and others, mostly but not unanimously black, who had objected to things Limbaugh had said about race over the years. No doubt the team owners overwhelmingly agreed, either with the comments or with the insanity of inviting such a divisive figure as Limbaugh to help tend the pasture of one of the world’s most lucrative cash cows–why else would their front man, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, have nakedly said that “Limbaugh’s divisive comments have no place in the NFL.”

Tidying up his mess as best he could, Dave Checketts, the head of the group seeking to buy the Rams, said “Rush was to be a limited partner [Meaning: He would have been just one of those jokers in the luxury box, and nobody should hate me just because I wanted his money.] As such, he would have had no say in the direction of the club or in any decisions regarding personnel or operations. [Meaning: we swear that we're going to try and hire the strongest, fastest sides of beef we can, regardless of whether Rush would want his sister to marry any of them.] This was a role he enthusiastically embraced. [Meaning: We didn't actually ask him if he was going to keep criticizing the NFL and its stars if he became part owner, but we gave him credit for some common sense--and apparently you guys disagree.] However, it has become clear that his involvement in our group has become a complication and a distraction to our intentions and endangering our bid to keep the team in St. Louis. [Meaning: Goodell told me that if I had any hopes of moving up in status from the owner of a mediocre NHL franchise into the big time Sunday afternoon league, I should forget Rush ever existed.] As such, we have decided to move forward without him and hope it will eventually lead us to a successful conclusion. [Meaning: Please, Mr. NFL Owners--give me a do-over.]”

Now, here comes Scarborough saying that he thinks Limbaugh has been forced to pay an unfair price for his political views, and his in-house bobbleheads Mika Brzezinski and Mike Barnicle agreed. This is weird because Scarborough has had unkind things to say about Limbaugh on more than a few occasions. Just the other week, Scarborough denounced Limbaugh for cheering Chicago’s failed Olympic bid (“”I will tell you middle Americans that swing elections see that and go oh my God Republicans have gone off the deep end”), and Limbaugh fired back, saying Scarborough was doing his “best impression of a neutered chickified moderate.”

Now Scarborough decides to make nice, but in the silliest, most preposterous way. Is Limbaugh suffering for his views? Hell, yeah–like a lot of people do every day. I didn’t hear Scarborough sympathizing with Sheryl Crow when Wal-Mart banned her album because she criticized their gun-selling policies. Freedom of expression means that people get to say or write or perform what is on their minds, but not that there should no consequences for the action. It’s true, we do try to insulate people from suffering the worst sorts of retaliation for holding unpopular views, but that doesn’t include preventing a group of billionaires from keeping a race-baiting, painkiller-abusing, money-costing loudmouth from entering their presence. Is Limbaugh paying a price for his views? Sure he is. But he earns $50 million a year for spouting them. That’s a long way from martyrdom.