So, Rush is not the only bad guy.

Delta must have decided it was distasteful enough that they did not want Jon Stewart associated with their business. Or they simply weren’t getting their expected results for their advertising dollar and wanted to pull the plug on his show.

Hmm, Delta's move had nothing to do with the "outrage"....

A spokeswoman for the Atlanta-based airline told Buzzfeed.com that the ad pullout had nothing to do with the Catholic League’s campaign to get Stewart to apologize for the April 16 segment on the Comedy Central show.

Delta spokeswoman Leslie Parker told Buzzfeed the ad pullout had nothing to do with “any opinions expressed” by the show. “We are constantly evaluating our advertising strategy and at this time no longer advertise during “The Daily Show”, she said.

http://blogs.ajc.com/business-beat/2012 ... id=thbz_hm

Kate wrote: I'm not getting it. How is what Stewart did "hate speech?"

What exactly has Rush said that's any more hateful that what Ed Shultz or other liberal hacks like Maher have said? Are we just picking and choosing haters based on their politics?

I guess if you can't see a difference in verbal attacks on public figures and attacks on a college student who only agreed to speak to congress, then there isn't much to be gained by telling you why what Rush did is hate speech against an innocent and what Schultz and Mahar do is partisan political attacks like go on in every talk radio show. I see a line that Rush crossed, apparently you don't.

CritiKalbILL wrote:

Kate wrote: I'm not getting it. How is what Stewart did "hate speech?"

What exactly has Rush said that's any more hateful that what Ed Shultz or other liberal hacks like Maher have said? Are we just picking and choosing haters based on their politics?

From the article:

In a statement, the Catholic civil rights group called the segment “the most vulgar expression of hate speech ever aired on television.” President Bill Donohue demanded Stewart apologize and threatened to pressure the show’s sponsors to pull their advertising if he didn’t.

I'm trying to understand why the Catholic League calls Stewarts words "hate speech." Do you understand why they did that and if so, can you explain it to me?

Kate wrote:

CritiKalbILL wrote:

Kate wrote: I'm not getting it. How is what Stewart did "hate speech?"

What exactly has Rush said that's any more hateful that what Ed Shultz or other liberal hacks like Maher have said? Are we just picking and choosing haters based on their politics?

From the article:

In a statement, the Catholic civil rights group called the segment “the most vulgar expression of hate speech ever aired on television.” President Bill Donohue demanded Stewart apologize and threatened to pressure the show’s sponsors to pull their advertising if he didn’t.

I'm trying to understand why the Catholic League calls Stewarts words "hate speech." Do you understand why they did that and if so, can you explain it to me?

Speech... "is the vocalized form of human communication. It is based upon the syntactic combination of lexicals and names that are drawn from very large (usually to about 10,000 different words) vocabularies" Hate... Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike, directed against a certain object or class of objects."

Stewart made this comment... “Maybe women could protect their reproductive organs from unwanted medical intrusions with vagina mangers.” The birth of Christ (and it's representation in the form of the manger scene or tableau) is one of the most holy events in the Catholic liturgical calender. Only Easter garners more spiritual attention than the Birth of Christ. And like the birth story, the death story produced one the much used image of Christ hanging on a Roman cross.

So a manger scene is a physical representation of Christ, his birth, his family and various other figures that were present at the event. For Stewart to suggest that a woman use this object to block access to her vagina is blasphemy ("Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things.") What if Stewart suggested that woman shove a cross inside their vagina to prevent access? His comment was hateful in my opinion.

Would you find it appropriate for Stewart to have suggested using a Koran to prevent access to a vagina if he was trying to make a comedic point about how Mohammed consummated his marriage to Aisha bint Abi Bakr at nine ("Traditional sources state that she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53")? Would you have considered that hateful?

What was not hateful about Stewart's rhetoric?

Do you really think that Stewart was using the manger scene to depict "a deep and emotional extreme dislike" of Christianity? Is that what the alleged hate speech was? I don't see it as an attack on Christianity, nor do I see it as hate speech directed at any group.

Kate wrote: I'm still unclear. Why is that hate speech? Can someone who thinks it is hate speech explain in simple words?

"Hate speech" occurs when someone other than Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton makes a statement about another race.

Nobody but you is talking about race here.

Kate wrote: Do you really think that Stewart was using the manger scene to depict "a deep and emotional extreme dislike" of Christianity? Is that what the alleged hate speech was? I don't see it as an attack on Christianity, nor do I see it as hate speech directed at any group.

It doesn't matter what I think... does it? I was directing my comment to you... I already spent three long paragraphs filled with facts about the manager scene, Catholic (and Christian) sensibilities and vaginas (I never thought I would use those 3 thoughts in the same sentence). Now... you never answered my question. I gave you a detailed explanation of why the Catholic League would consider this hate speech. I asked you "What was not hateful about Stewart's rhetoric?" I expect in the least NOT YOUR OPINION but some facts, just like I presented you three paragraphs of reasons why this comment by Stewart is hateful.

And there really was a second question hiding in plain sight in my comment, the hypothetical question I proposed about Stewart making a joke about Mohammed, woman, the Koran and vaginas. Would you see THAT as hateful speech?

Let's see if you can actually give me an answer that addresses the facts, not your feelings.

If you actually watch the segment, the jump to call that hate speech seems to really be a diversion from the topic of the piece. I personally think all of the laws aimed at women are the offensive part of this, not a single picture that has nothing to do with hate.