Censorship Campaigns

Memo to HRC: Please fucking STOP!

RIght-wing campaigns to censor me after 9/11 were profoundly anti-American. Now that the left is ascendant, groups like the Human Rights Campaign are calling for Universal Press Syndicate–which also distributes my work–to drop columnist Ann Coulter.

These campaigns, whether directed against Coulter or myself, are wrong. Censor the other side and you justify censoring your own side. If people are upset about Ann Coulter’s anti-gay slur against John Edwards, they need to ridicule her. Or, better yet, just ignore her and move on. Or, better than that, write their own insults against John McCain!

24 Responses to “”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    She should be taken out of circulation. Along with Rush. At least you write about truth. Those people make money off deliberatly misleading their audience. Let them reap what they have sown.

  2. Brubaker Says:

    THANK YOU! This has been bugging me for a while.

    Thanks for verifying that I’m not the only liberal who feels about this.

  3. pwb Says:

    Ann is revolting, and her wholesale dealing in lowest-common-denominator tripe has made me lose all respect for her ideas. She would be the first to use such childish posturing against you, but that’s neither here nor there. She should not be censored. The very principles that she ridicules should be the one that keeps her on the air. This is America, her ideas deserve as much form as anyone else’s. If we’re a culture of ideas, she should stay. If we’re a culture driven solely by personality (a culture as idiotic as she believes), then let the mob tear her down and God help us all. Thank you.

  4. Matt Says:

    I agree with you that neither side should be censored. Censorship from the left is even worse than censorship of the left, because at least the right-wing doesn’t pretend to give a crap about freedom of speech.

    What someone should have the balls to do, though, is take her to task when she lies, as she so frequently does. It was unfortunate that you didn’t have a strong enough case, because I know you would have gone through with it if you did, but there are people who have had worse things said about them by her, and they just pretty much just say “thank you ma’am, may I have another”.

  5. Anonymous Says:

    Oh this is classic! First Ted Rall tries to open up a lawsuit against Ann Coulter, for merely making the same sort of unfunny joke (at Ted’s expense) that she made at CPAC. But now Ted cries foul in the other direction! Whatever you can say about Ted, at least he’s consistent in his inconsistency!

    Case 1: Ann makes joke on Ted.
    Ted Reaction: “I stand to lose. I better attack Ann”.

    Case 2: Ann makes joke on Edwards.
    Ted Reaction: “I stand to lose. I better defend Ann”.


  6. Ted Rall Says:


    At last year’s CPAC Coulter falsely stated that I, along with Garry Trudeau (cartoonist of “Doonesbury”) had entered Iran’s anti-Semitic Holocaust denial contest. I contemplated suing her for libel and slander (she repeated her false statement in a column) because a number of readers believed her and accused me of being an anti-Semite. She had harmed my reputation by stating falsehoods about me.

    At this year’s CPAC Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot.” Name-calling, though puerile, is protected speech. Nobody could have believed, as a result of hearing Coulter, that Edwards–who is married to a woman–is gay.

    Pretending not to understand the difference between libel and free speech is standard operating procedure for right-wing ideologues.

  7. Brubaker Says:


    Just wondering. Did Trudeau ever said anything about the Coulter thing? To you, at least?

  8. Ted Rall Says:

    Sort of. As it was in confidence, I’m not at liberty to say what it was.

  9. Barry Kaufkins Says:

    Way to go, Ted, I totally agree. Doesn’t it bother you, though, that Ann wouldn’t do the same for you?

  10. Ted Rall Says:

    Yea, theoretically. But I’ve gotten used to the fact that very few people have integrity.

  11. Dave Says:

    I agree, censorship of Ann Coulter or any other ideologue (be it fascist or communist) is an act against freedom and civil liberty.

    People get in a twist about who to vote for, and then let them have free reign in office, offering blanket defense (people who supported George Bush initially still support him, because it’s impossible for Americans to admit they’re wrong, they just come up with more outlandish excuses).

    By the same token, people refuse to look at actions rather than who is in charge, when it comes to violated 1) the law, or 2) civil liberties that took decades to achieve.

    You were censored because you hit a nerve. You should wear it with a badge of honor. I would not give Ann Coulter the dignity of being censored.


  12. Maura Says:

    You’re a bigger person than I am, Ted, because I wish there were an acceptable to shut Coulter the hell up. She does so much damage. Plus, she’s an idiot. (OK, so I’m not big on political analysis.)
    I do think, though, that there’s a difference between saying someone is gay and calling someone a faggot. If Coulter wanted to say that Edwards is gay, then she should have said that. That’s not an insult (although I suppose in some circles it could be). It’s an observation. Instead, she used a slur. And then, as usual, she tried to pass it off as a joke. Yep, calling someone a faggot is as funny as calling someone an anti-semite.

    Anyway, I agree that her right to be a foul-mouthed, disingenuous idiot is and should be protected. It’s unfortunate, but it’s a bigger issue than just this incident.

  13. MCS Says:

    What happened to that $21,000 you raised in order to sue Ann Coulter? Is it still sitting in an account somewhere or did the lawyer fees use it all up?

  14. JXC Says:

    Its true that even hate speech such as Coulter’s is tolerated in this country, so let her rant. It unfortunate that she gets rich doing it while you, my friend, toil in relative anonymnity. So I’m glad to see she’s losing some sponsers from her blog.

  15. Anonymous Says:

    This is a very grey area for me and it hurts because two fundamental parts of my conscience are at war: my hatred of Coulter (and the hypocrisy spewed by her and those who rally to her cause) and my hatred of censorship in all its forms (in my world, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater could still be considered free speech).

    Is it rationalizing to argue that what is happening to Coulter is not censorship because a) it is not the government but those citizens offended by her who are trying to silence her and b) the decision to drop her from the newspapers in question is not due to pressure by the government but rather the market concerns of the publishers fearing her vitriol will cost them subscribers?

    Are people required to buy records and listen to a singer with fading (or no) talent? Should the record companies and radio stations be forced to continue publishing and playing the lousy singer’s songs because denying her a platform or taking her off the air is “censoring” her? If this singer is continually allowed precious air time, not only will there be no room for better singers, but people will change the channel to avoid the music they do not want to hear.

    Please do not confuse Coulter with Rall, simply because both have the ability to piss off a large number of people with one column or cartoon. Coulter is a PERFORMER, and as such, if people no longer like the act (or its sagging package), she should not be given the stage. Rall is a journalist; one who has paid his dues by being willing to visit world hot spots while others cower in protected Green Zones.

    On a side note: it seems that Malkin is circling the kill now, picking up Coulter’s leavings, and in many ways, she is even worse than Coulter. Better the devil you know?

    Evil Kumquat

  16. Anonymous Says:

    You make that same point on today’s cartoon…nice….just one question though; who are the two guys in the last panel…one of them looks like ?Reagan?

  17. Ted Rall Says:

    “Matthew” asks: “

    What happened to that $21,000 you raised in order to sue Ann Coulter? Is it still sitting in an account somewhere or did the lawyer fees use it all up?”

    Asked and answered. I never collected any $21,000. I collected promises to send $21,000 if needed. It never was, and I never asked for it.

    I’m not replying to this troll again.

  18. Chris from Maine Says:

    all due respect, i love your site and your blog, but the right wing is far too dangerous to be given a free pass because of some kind of sense of equality.

    the right wing controls the media, and the white house, and most of the courts.

    and ridiculing a woman without shame does nothing. she needs to feel the pain in her pocketbook.

  19. blackhelicoptercircling Says:

    Ann Coulter fans have refused to set their clocks forward.

    They prefer living in the dark.

    Actually, Ann would like to the set the clock BACK — 50 years or so — so that she can use an offensive expletive against Obama. Darn those progressive liberals and their civil rights!

    Ann should be glad, however, that we aren’t setting our clocks back 400 years. They used to burn her kind at the stake back then. (Or am I thinking of another word that ends in -itch?)

  20. Nancy Says:

    I don’t think you realize that these people take no prisoners. There is no compromise with them. They would squash you like a bug while you were being ‘fair and balanced’ towards them. People who are yelling fire in a crowded theatre or spreading hate literature do not deserve the same consideration as a Pat Buchanan or Justin Raimondo (who represent different aspects of the political spectrum without resorting to gutter journalism.)
    I did not petition UPS to drop Coulter’s column. I did write to Google asking them not to place their ads on her website. She can blather all she wants–she just doesn’t deserve major sponsorship, and neither does Limbaugh.

  21. Matthew Says:

    Yikes! That’s a rather snippy answer to a simple question.

    Consider editing your Wikipedia profile, which does not make clear at all that money never changed hands.

    I’m amused how you put my name in quotation marks. You’re a very paranoid guy.

  22. Ted Rall Says:

    Thanks for the suggestion.

    It’s not paranoid when they’re out to get you, you know.

  23. Anonymous Says:

    So who are those two guys in the last panel of your March 10th comic?

  24. Anonymous Says:

    I think that Coulter is entitled to call Edwards a “faggot”, because, as a gay male, Coulter is merely trying to identify with someone (s)he’s attracted to…….
    anyone ever check out her Adam’s apple?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: