Wow. I can't believe that WNOX and Hallerin Hill would allow unsubstantiated crap like that on the air. Google it up for yourself. I'm sure it will be all over the wingnut websites by tomorrow morning. Anything for a buck, I guess.

R. Neal's picture

Not that there's anything

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But still. Reverend Wright? It's the perfectly triangulated storm. Oh, and he's a "secret" Muslim. Those are the worst kind, you know.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Did you hear it on the radio

Did you hear it on the radio or did someone tell you about it? On another thread on KnoxViews is a discussion about freedom of the press.

(link...)

If you haven't heard the broadcast, then how could you form an educated opinion? I am not defending WNOX or Mr. Hill. But freedom of the press means that crazy people can slander others. They pay the price if they do so.

Who decides what is "unsubstantiated crap"?

The full content is available below at WNOX for the next 48 hours. The times are from 9:00 AM to 9:45 AM.

(link...)

Anonymously Nine's picture

You are going to have a

You are going to have a black man for President.

You underestimate the Clintons.

Anonymously Nine's picture

So much for your 1000-year

So much for your 1000-year Reich there, Mister FauxLibertarian.

I see the medication has lost its efficacy. Try this, softly repeat this phrase, "Serenity now".

Hope that helps. Feel better?

R. Neal's picture

You underestimate the

You underestimate the Clintons.

You underestimate mathematics. See the previous post re. the Perpetual Primary.

And this is from a Clinton supporter.

R. Neal's picture

freedom of the press means

freedom of the press means that crazy people can slander others.

No it doesn't.

Rachel's picture

I've never been a big HHH

I've never been a big HHH fan. OTOH, I also never expected him to descend to #9's level either.

Anonymously Nine's picture

freedom of the press means

freedom of the press means that crazy people can slander others.

No it doesn't.

Explain please.

How restricted should the press be? In other words, who is the decider?

Pam Strickland's picture

Slander and libal is where

Slander and libal is where it should stop. That's actionable.

Pam Strickland

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut

S Carpenter's picture

Principle #9

Nine says:

1. Nothing objectionable in baseless bile filled lies against Obama being given sway on Knoxville's #1 talk show.

Nine says:

2. The people should be outraged over the Knox Sentinel's pro-Ragsdale reporting! My God, how could the paper have the audacity to file suit over a secret government meeting!

Anonymously Nine's picture

Nine says: 1. Nothing

Nine says:

1. Nothing objectionable in baseless bile filled lies against Obama being given sway on Knoxville's #1 talk show.

Nine says:

2. The people should be outraged over the Knox Sentinel's pro-Ragsdale reporting! My God, how could the paper have the audacity to file suit over a secret government meeting!

Freedom of speech means people can lie, like you did above Scott.

But it is your right. So be all means, lie as much as needed.

At least you do not have a shock collar on that will punish you if you say something outside the party truespeak as decided by the party hierarchy.

We do not need a decider to decide what free speech is. Other nations have tried that approach and learned that freedom is superior to subservience.

If you actually listened to the interview, then tell me what Mr. Hill did wrong. People let Joe Wilson on radio programs as he alleged serious misconduct. Who decides who is lying?

Who is the decider? People of good moral authority like Scott?

Rachel's picture

Who know, I realize you

Who know, I realize you won't understand this, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Freedom of press DOES mean no prior restraint. So HHH can pretty much have any crazy person he wants ranting on his radio show.

However, as others have pointed out, slander is an actionable offense.

The bigger point - and the one you're missing - is just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. HHH is free to use his show to spout offensive, unfounded nonsense. But we then all free to be offended by it and condemn him for doing so.

Go read Randy's original post and get off your high horse. He isn't trying to take away anyone's freedom of speech. He's saying he found the speech on HHH's show offensive and he's disappointed and disgusted that HHH had the guy on.

Anonymously Nine's picture

Go read Randy's original

Go read Randy's original post and get off your high horse. He isn't trying to take away anyone's freedom of speech. He's saying he found the speech on HHH's show offensive and he's disappointed and disgusted that HHH had the guy on.

No Rachel, the original post was missing the most important piece of information, whether or not Randy listened to the broadcast.

I asked Randy if he listened to the post. There was no reply. Randy did not say he found the speech on HHH's show offensive in his original post. What he did write was, "I can't believe that WNOX and Hallerin Hill would allow unsubstantiated crap like that on the air."

I no how much liberals like to infer.

Rachel's picture

From the description of the

From the description of the show on the WNOX home page: Manning claims to have proof that Obama had a homosexual relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, although Manning would not reveal that proof.

A reasonable person could infer from just the description pretty much that what was said was offensive. And it says right there that it was unsubstantiated - no inference needed.

Or perhaps you'd find it ok if I went on the HHH show and claimed to have proof that you had an affair with Mike Ragsdale but that I would not reveal the proof.

Anonymously Nine's picture

A reasonable person could

A reasonable person could infer from just the description pretty much that what was said was offensive.

A reasonable person would listen to the broadcast before forming an opinion.

Rachel's picture

Ok, so it would be ok with

Ok, so it would be ok with you if the WNOX home page said that their broadcast was someone claiming to have proof that you had an affair with Mike Ragsdale but that they would not reveal the proof.

Because, after all, a reasonable person would listen to the broadcast before forming an opinion.

You're such a troll. I've wasted enough of my Saturday on you.

R. Neal's picture

I did listen to it. It was

I did listen to it. It was offensive. Hill should have gone to commercial and apologized to his listeners. Maybe he did. All they have on their website are the two offensive clips. Hmmm. Imagine that.

Justin's picture

Why do you bother commenting

Why do you bother commenting here? Were you not banned a few months ago during the great "purge" for being an ass? Are you not getting enough comments over at SU in your Ragsdalian diatribes? What a pathetic little man you are. I can imagine you sitting in front of your monitor hitting "refresh" over and over again frothing with anticipation at new responses to your inane posts. What is it that Metulj calls you?..."pontificating pharaoh of pharragut" sad.

Jake Jost's picture

Randy: Not to be a

Randy:

Not to be a revisionist historian of the Niner, but it would seem he does have a point, if clumsily made.

Our manner of rendering freedom of the press and freedom of speech makes prior restraint a virtual no-go. As Pam noted, slander and libel are where it stops--but it's important to remember those civil torts are remedies after the fact.

That being said, smart media agencies are very careful about giving forum to potentially libelous claims, insofar as they might be made a party to a potential lawsuit.

R. Neal's picture

Yes, I understand the

Yes, I understand the difference between prior restraint v. consequences. I guess my problem is "can" v. "should."

(And "can" v. "can get away with it.")

Pam Strickland's picture

And my guess is that if this

And my guess is that if this guy was invited to be on WNOX that somebody there knew how crazy he was and should have vetted him on what comments he was going to make. I think this reflects poorly on both WNOX and Hollerin' Hal.

Pam Strickland

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut

Factchecker's picture

Some say...

Maybe they're one in the same.

ANGRYWOLF's picture

The

station is a republican station, the host is a republican although he claims to be an independent, he's a republican from his speech, tone and actions on the air...
So why should anybody act surprised ?

peter777's picture

Offensive Remarks about Obama

Don't usually listen to HH, but whoever was on as guests this morning was very offensive with their remarks about Obama. Get somebody on there to balance the spew coming forth from the guests. (And, a lot of it unfortunately was racist. I am an old guy, and I know a lot of folks that are going to vote for him because they like Obama and don't care what color he is.) I have been a lifelong Republican, and I deplore the tactics now being used by the party. Address the issues, or require Obama to. Demonizing Obama is not going to get it done this year.

Speaking of Conservative Democrats winning, one of the best models right now is Virginia. They have beat the Republicans in the last 3 key elections (Gov. or Senator), and are on track to win another. Why? Because the Republicans are putting up bad candidates that cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. Republicans show by their actions in National offices and in their campaigns that they think the best government is no government. Until they cast off the radical Republican mantle espoused by Hannity, Ingram, Bortz, Limbaugh, and that ilk, they are going to lose.

By the way, HH or guests, have you read his book? "The Audicity of Hope" That might begin to tell you who Obama is, better that looped sound bites on Fox.

jake001's picture

peter777

peter your comments are so laughable and without merit that you confuse even yourself ....to honestly vote for a man because he's black is a joke ...why?...because this man has no answers aand surrounds himself with radicals such as yourself ...you read into obama what you want to read ..your a lonely liberal that is angry and spew dribble in what ever forum you can find..........change begins with one's self not depending on others to do it for you ...in that lies the answer ...the dem's havent had an honest idea in my lifetime andd to hear old libs like yourself sickens'me ....sucking @ the tit of gov. giveaways and wanting more ...pete take a step back and breathe....... count on it repub's will win the white house again our base doesnt shrink it constantly grows as the common sense takes over...

concerned's picture

HHH

WNOX needs to get rid of HHH but they never will because he is black. Maybe he will get a bigger market offer and move on........

Hammersmith's picture

Obama gay?

Where does he hang out?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives