Work in progress offered:
"Even though I totally despise Rush now, and I don't have that much of a higher opinion of Bill Maher, who is every bit as much a misogynist (just from a different approach), this issue is not really about them"
Just so we both understand the rhetoric employed here
a misogynist is defined as a man who hates women. Bill Maher is famously quotable about saying uncomplimentary things about some women (most of which he qualifies as either patently stupid, or hypocritical, extremely self-serving). But I would submit that anyone that has actually been exposed to Mahers commentaries for more than 15 min knows very well that he certainly does NOT hate women, and in fact has many female friends that span the collective spectrum of ideological perspectives (even crazy-eyed, fell off the cliff a decade ago, Ann Coulter). He may in fact be the most public, straight, horn dog in America today.
"From my pov, it's really about the difference in social standing between Sandra Fluke and Sarah Palin. There are reasons why the bar is set much higher for celebrities and public figures to claim slander and defamation of character than a private citizen. For one thing, the ordinary citizen does not have the same access to the media, to make their own case before the public as someone who gets a press conference together any time they wish. And the ordinary citizen does not have the financial resources to afford the security or live in a specially protected community as the celebrity either."
No, its not about social standing. Not at all. Its about power and influence, and the willingness to exploit those traits in the public square with intent to flex those muscular traits in both drawing attention to oneself for personal gain, and in influencing the otherwise uninformed/disengaged to be either fearful or submissive in their own ignorance. Anyone could forgive Palins stunning lacking capacities ignorance of current events or world affairs 4 years ago, for neither to requisite as qualification as governor of Alaska
popularity, a pretty face, and a license to hunt moose was enough in that little corner of America (whose entire counted population is roughly twice the count of the metro region of the modest city I reside within here in East TN). Big city mayors have more responsibilities and accountabilities and major issues to solve that she EVER even need contemplate to address or solve
but thats another matter for another thread
about elected officials that resigned while in office because they couldnt handle the pressure of circumspect evaluation. What's almost unbelievable is that 4 years hence, Palin still believes that any "book learnin'" is just not important enough to inculcate into her own understanding of most anything of relevant importance.
So, in spite of Palin's reputation for being vengeful and litigious, she doesn't have a serious case for slander or defamation of character against Bill Maher; but Sandra Fluke does, for the week-long tirade of misinformation and character assassination by Limbaugh.
No, she does not. In point of fact, there is no comparison whatsoever.
And, in the eyes of public, the general feeling has always been that it's okay for comedy to attack people with power and/or money, but not okay to attack the weak and powerless.....and going a little off-topic, that's why conservatives are lousy comedians....i.e. Dennis Miller...case closed!
Your point is worthy, but deserves further clarification.
Comedy has many forms (slapstick, skat, buffoonery, one-liners, and knock-knock jokes), and that resultant laughter, like any taste
is subjective in acceptance as being funny, or at least palatable. But Bill Maher is not a low-brow comedian doing fart and breast jokes, hes an accomplished and incisive satirist
satire by definition is:
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
Well
thats what Bill Maher does.. and the targets of his satire dont particularly like it very much. But, you will note (and this is key), his victims never effectively nor logically rebut his satirical remonstrances
they only attack his personal character and affiliations with rumor and innuendo. Or simply dismiss him as an atheist, and we all know what that means
right?
As Maher (the egotist that he is) likes to reiterate and remind his critics, he says but Im not wrong
and for good or ill, when challenge is transformed into test
evidence to the contrary is always elusive, and never supported.