Uh-oh -- sorry about that; wish I'd corrected that before the article went to press .... Ted Rall's site claims that "He was one of the New York Times' most reprinted cartoonists in 1997, 1999 and 2001, but I agree that he was a cartoonist whose work sometimes ran in the New York Times, not precisely a "New York Times cartoonist." Craig, thanks for the correction.

I don't think Maher got a bum rap. If the network kept his show for another nine months, they were not dropping him for the remarks. Ultimately, it is all about ratings, and if a show isn't pulling the ratings that the network thinks another show can pull in that time slot, it gets dropped. If people tune out a commentator because they don't like what he says, that's how the marketplace of ideas works.

I found Maher's show offensive from the beginning because of its title. Politically Incorrect, by definition, is contrary to Politicially Correct, which is conformity to the view of the left-wing orthodoxy that dominates academia. The ironic term comes from an infamous memo by an educrat who was completely oblivious to his own hypocrisy and provided the smoking gun to prove what we had all known for some time. Left-winger Maher should get his own term to express his position and not confuse issues by using an existing term in a way contrary to its established meaning.

Why, you might as well suggest we elevate the rights of mere individual persons over The Good of The People.

Are you suggesting that "rights of mere individual persons" may be exercised counter to "The Good of The People"?

Prof. Volokh - When you talked about economic retaliation for entertainer's speech you talked exclusively about entertainers who were popular and then suffered for things they said outside of the context of their work. I am curious as to your thoughts on when retailers/distributers drop entertainers for their actual work. This would seem more troubling since in the first case the entertainer has to already be a sucessful celebrity for people to respond to their comments, but in the case I laid out if any company with an ideology controls a significant market share of the retail/distribution of books/film/music/etc. they can close the gate on certain types of speech, rendering it unprofitable before the public has a chance to voice their opinion. Obviously this has happened with Blockbuster refusing to stock films that do not have a MPAA R rating or lower or Walmart stocking censored versions of cds. To me the most troubling part is that customers don't always know they are buying a "sanitized" product. Obviously this is legal, but I find it troubling especially considering the continuing merger of the media industry into fewer and fewer companies. Do you address this type of speech restriction in your paper? What are your thoughts on it?

As a longtime Maher viewer, I think the point he was trying to make was about the overly dismissive nature of the "cowardly" tag. As well as demonstrating that it depends on whose ox is being gored. Were the hijackers actions evil, egregious, unconscionable, barbaric and utterly indefensible? Obviously. But personally cowardly? No.

Pooh,
The terrorists thought that their actions would end them up in heaven, being serviced by dozens of virgins. Their deaths were not in any sense a sacrifice (as in actually protesting against their corrupt leaders and getting thrown in a dungeon). So in what way were they not cowardly?

In many of these instances, there is at least a grain of truth in what is said, which in fact is what gives these statements the power to offend rather than being easily dismissible as nonsensical expressions of pure lunacy.

The urge to suppress speech rather than address it is an ugly and evil expression of intellectual insecurity; but then, history is replete with such behavior on this, the planet of the apes.

Perhaps it is better to have media outlets with different philosophies, tolerant of bold expressions of view, rather than only "mainstream," "objective" media which often prove to be intolerant of ideas outside what is currently "politically correct." Certainly we have had partisan organs in our nation's past; their utility was ultimately endorsed by no less that Thomas Jefferson. I have been pondering this issue myself lately; viz. my recent posts Journalism 101 and Partisan Parrots &Trolls.

A truly liberal network mirroring Fox News is probably overdue, leaving a tripartite setup with a home for everyone; and individuals can channel-surf among them, hear it all, and decide "what is truth" for themselves.

Were the hijackers actions evil, egregious, unconscionable, barbaric and utterly indefensible? Obviously. But personally cowardly? No.

Hijacking a plane full of unarmed civilians and flying it into a building full of unarmed civilians strikes me as extremely cowardly. The Fedayeen who charged our tanks and Bradleys in Iraq - those guys had balls.

Look. Bill has a boss. The boss covers his own ass. Bill is stupid. Being on TV is not a right. Bill shit in his own nest. If bill is insured his position on TV. So am I. When do I get mine?

And....

Using Bill's logic, (which he never stepped away from) strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up childred waiting to go to school at a bus stop makes you a hero.

llamasex - I agree 100%

farmer56 - "hero" is not the antonym of "coward", "fearless" would be closer. If the terrorists are so cowardly then why are we afraid of them?

As a longtime Maher viewer, I think the point he was trying to make was about the overly dismissive nature of the "cowardly" tag. As well as demonstrating that it depends on whose ox is being gored. Were the hijackers actions evil, egregious, unconscionable, barbaric and utterly indefensible? Obviously. But personally cowardly? No.

Perhaps it might have helped if Maher had first made the point that the terrorists were "evil, egregious, unconscionable, barbaric and utterly indefensible" before he went on compare their "bravery" to of military's "cowardice". I still believe he is a moral midget, and it gripes me that if I want to watch the re-runs of the "Sopranos" I must finance his inane BS.

Now I don't think I would go as far as suggesting legal protection for commentors, I just think "McCarthyism" comes from organized efforts, not personal outrage. That is the key difference.

Of course, history and Venona Project intercepts (NSA Surveillance of the 40s, 50s and 60s) proved that "Tailgunner Joe" was right. BTW, the Hollywood "Blacklist" was a private, industry measure that Joe McCarthy had little or nothing to do with.

I get the impression from many here that the idea of "Free Speech and Press" applies only to the unpatriotic. Where did you ever get that idea from? Your college professors, perhaps?

The urge to suppress speech rather than address it is an ugly and evil expression of intellectual insecurity; but then, history is replete with such behavior on this, the planet of the apes.

Unfortunately toleration of the inane opinions of Bill Mahr "is an ugly and evil expression of" a masochistic personality.

A truly liberal network mirroring Fox News is probably overdue, leaving a tripartite setup with a home for everyone; and individuals can channel-surf among them, hear it all, and decide "what is truth" for themselves.

If it is "a truly [Leftist Elitist] network" you are seeking, have tried CNN, MSNBC or PBS. BTW, the term "Liberal" has been usurped by the "Leftist Elitists". The fact is that our Founding Fathers were the "Liberals" of their albeit "Classical Liberalism". In fact, in 1775 in the New World the conservatives were known as Tories.

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: A term used to describe a political philosophy commonly held in nineteenth-century England and France but now undergoing a renaissance in the United States. Classical liberals advocate free markets, a vibrant array of nongovernmental institutions (such as civic groups, schools, churches, etc.), and minimal tax-financed government services. Classical liberals firmly believe that both persons and property should be protected from physical harm. They also emphasize the strict enforcement of contracts. Classical liberals, following Lord Acton, consider liberty to be the highest political value but not to the point of becoming a worldview. Examples of classical liberal thinkers include Frederic Bastiat*, Lord Acton*, Alexis de Tocqueville*, John Locke*, John Stuart Mill*, and Friedrich Hayek*. From: Dictionary of Key Terms for a Free and Virtuous Society

Those Patriot "Classical Liberals" would have told you, incidentally, that the truth is unchanging and did not depend on the network for its veracity. In fact, they founded this Nation on the bedrock of "Self-evident truths" - something that we, especially a Supreme Court majority, seem to have forgotten.

Bob Bobstein wrote:

I always thought Jimmy the Greek got a bad rap-- wasn't he just throwing stuff out in responding to a question as to why black athletes are so ubiquitous at the highest levels? I might be misremembering this, or what exactly he said.

My problem with Jimmy the Greek's observation is not that it was racist (which it really wasn't). My problem with it is that he was apparently endorsing human eugenics (i.e. selective breeding) as a legitimate means of improving the species (or at least the athletic subset of the species). As Prof. Volokh pointed out, Snyder did not intend his remark to be either a condemnation of eugenics, or of blacks who were (however involuntarily) engaged in it. He intended it as a criticism of present-day white athletes for not engaging in eugenics themselves.

At the time of Snyder's remark, the eugenics angle was mostly ignored amid the predictable cries of racism, but it is at least as troubling. Even if Snyder's remark did not warrant his firing over the latter, it did over the former. CBS did the right thing for the wrong reason, IMO.

The Fedayeen who charged our tanks and Bradleys in Iraq - those guys had balls.

Actually, after witnessing the effects of the first to try such tactics, the rest were insane:

insanity, n.

1. Persistent mental disorder or derangement.
2. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.
3. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning considered to be sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.

As Forrest Gump's mom said: "Stupid is as stupid does!"

Thanks, Joshua, for the perspective on Jimmy the Greek. I evidently forgot (or never got) exactly what he was trying to get at with his comments.

Neal Lang wrote:

Perhaps it might have helped if Maher had first made the point that the terrorists were "evil, egregious, unconscionable, barbaric and utterly indefensible" before he went on compare their "bravery" to of military's "cowardice". I still believe he is a moral midget, and it gripes me that if I want to watch the re-runs of the "Sopranos" I must finance his inane BS.

OT: why not just buy the series on DVD? It costs about as much for a season of the Sopranos $40-50 as it does for a month of cable plus you can (re)watch them at your leisure without having to finance Maher's garbage.

How much more mileage can we get out of a law review article that, for all its footnotes, says nothing more than Yogi Berra said: "If people don't want to come to the ballpark, you can't stop them."?

I think Rush was in the studio. It was Dennis Miller who did color for MNF and was canned after a year. As I recall neither was at all well liked since they weren't particularly knowledgable about football.

As I recall Howard Cosell originally did color for Monday Night Football from its inception until 1983. Of course, the fact that he was even less knowledgable about football than either Miller or Rush didn't stymie his career. People who enjoyed and had some appreciation of the game would turn down the sound, in order not get upset by Howard's evident lack of knowledge. Despite this handicap, Howard Cosell enjoyed a long and rewarding career on Monday Night Football.

As far as verbal gaffs go, especially ones with a potential racial implication, I don't think any could top Howard Cosell's description of an exciting play in a Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys game when he referred to Redskins wide receiver Alvin Garrett, who happens to be black, as a "little monkey": "Look at that little monkey run!" This cost Howard his job on MNF after months intense public pressure over the offhand comment.

Personally, I found the banter between Howard Cosell and any number of former football player hosts, such as "Dandy Don" Meridith, to be pretty humorous. My favorite involved Howard and former Detroit Lions defensive lineman Alex Karras (MNF color host 1974-1976 - 4 time Pro Bowler). After a particular savage hit, one of the players was slow getting up and Cosell made the "off the cuff" remark: "That didn't hurt him.", to which Karras immediately responded: "Howard, how the hell would you know!" In fact, maybe that is real secret to Howard Cosell's Monday Night Football success - he provided necessary "comic relief".

Sigivald

You are tying to make an excuse for a person that is neither smart, or funny.

Your basis is that dying is a courageous act. No dying is not courageous. Dying in the defense of someone, or something, or some principle, that is courage. For you to equate killing a plane load of people and the men women and children that are targeted has not a single thread of courage.

How can you think of the lose of life on sept 11th and attach the word courage.

My sister-in-law just lost a battle with cancer. She showed courage. A Close friend died trying to rescue a man from a sewer pit. He had courage. It would be best if you would stop trying to equate the premeditated murders of innocents with courage.

I do not understand your point. Please. do explain. I was going to say stop posting , because I am so upset. But, Please , do explain to me how you put murder and courage in the same sentence?

Hey Bob!

I guess I will take my inability to type, any day, rather than your inability to recognize a typo.

the terrorists were not timid or cowardly. It takes some courage to rob a bank, too, it doesn't mean it's something we all should or do uphold as a model. Regardless of the motivations or ideology underlying it, it take some degree of individual courage to storm a plane, then steer it into a building.

No, because they knew that airline doctrine was NOT TO RESIST the hijacking. How much courage does it take to take control of people you know won't fight back (and in the case of the people in the buildings, can't fight back)?

It takes no great courage to kill yourself, especially if you believe you're going to paradise as a result. Most of the hijackers were just along for the ride, anyway - they went where the pilot took them.

It is more courageous to rape someone at knifepoint than to shoot them from half a mile away, because the former is a greater risk to your life than the latter; she might shoot you.

Really! I never considered a rapist pretty cowardly, as I did a petty thief or armed robber. Frankly, it takes way more corage to get and keep a job, or clean up your act so you can interact with opposite sex in situations not involving a weapon.

As for the courage to "shoot (someone) from half a mile away", before you dismiss the courage that it takes to be a military sniper I suggest it might be appropriate to read something about it. I recommend: Marine Sniper Charles W. Henderson -the story of Marine Sniper, Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock, exploits in Vietnam. The "pucker factor" for Marine "Scout/Snipers" is quite major and few men have 'nads to even try it.

Bob; Sorry, I accept. I will try the decaf thing. Just a few samll points. 9-11 and the courage of the murderers have not a single breath of similarity.

The vast majority get a paycheck from someone. That someone has the right to refuse you a paycheck.

Bill's paycheck was largely dependent on what the 'people' thought. This is not a freedom of thought fight. It is a piss off your boss and get fired, fight.

And, I so wish I had the ability to get to you a game or two of Cosell and Karras were teamed up. TO me. And it must be 'just me' I find this to be some of the funniest TV ever.

OK, on this coward v. courageous thing. For one minute set aside moral judgment about the mission in question.
Assuming all other factors (who is the target to be blown up, and why) are equal, which is more brave - pushing a button from a position of relative safety, or riding the delivery system right into the target? Instead of terrorists, recall Slim Pickens struggling in the bombay of a B-52 to un-jam the doors, and then having no choice but to ride the bomb down. In terms of sheer willingness to risk one's own safety for a cause, REGARDLESS OF THE MORALITY OF THE CAUSE, the terrorists were willing to accept more personal risk than our pilots are. As to whether that's more righteous or smarter (NOT!), I don't recall whether Mahr actually said anything about that.