Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
It seems pretty simple to me. Take the Murrow example. Advertisers effectively shutting down someone for raising a ruckus, according to the movie. Who cares that it isn't the government doing it, and that the advertisers have a legal right to do it? They weren't right to do it. Free speech is valuable for a reason, and that reason is often harmed by people trying to shout down someone for saying something they don't like.
Coming at this from the other side, it sounds like you're saying advertisers have a moral obligation, when buying ad space, to continue supporting the free speech of whoever they happen to be buying from even if it will result in a loss of money for them. Is the purpose of advertising to make money for the company, or to provide a megaphone for a few lucky citizens? It seems unreasonable to me to expect advertisers to be anything but self-interested in a situation like this. I think the onus is on demagogues like Rush to either be in tune with what their audience/advertisers want to hear, or else pay for their own privileged level of speech.

Ajax