Limbaugh Backs Videogame Side in Schwarzenegger vs. EMA

Believe it or not conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh recently came to the defense of videogames during a recent call to his radio show (thanks Kotaku!).

21-year old caller Cory from Waterville, Ohio posed the question to Limbaugh, asking if Schwarzenegger vs. EMA was a “relevant thing that the Supreme Court should ever be even considering.”

Limbaugh, in answering said that since he was 21 years old, he has “been concerned about the infringements on free speech that come from Democrat regimes and courts because I’m in the free speech business.”

Saying that he was "glad" that the case was happening, Limbaugh continued:

If it takes an impingement on free speech in something you’re interested in, video games, to alert you to what’s happening throughout society then I’m glad it’s happening, because I’m sure you oppose this.

Your video game is your video game and you don’t think the government should have any role whatsoever in applying any artistic sanction to it or any stamp of approval — you can say that but you can’t say that — because that’s not permitted.  The market should determine this, correct?

Limbaugh, who was just getting warmed up, added:

Get on board, my buddy. If it’s taken a video game to get you interested and have the light go off, to have you see what liberalism is all about, I’m glad to have you on our side, ’cause I agree with you.  Leave your game alone.  The people that put together these video games are artists in their own right.  If you’re gonna start saying that video games are raunchy, then how the hell do you leave cable television alone?

The full transcript of the conversation is available on Limbaugh’s website.

Also, thanks to PHX Corp., we are reminded that that Limbaugh has come to the defense of games before: in 2007 he downplayed an attempted link between videogames and the Virginia Tech campus shooting.

Limbaugh said about that tragedy, “You have here a sick individual, an evil individual who committed a random act,” adding, "If you start blaming the video games, you may as well demand video game control because it’s the same thing when you start trying to blame guns for this."

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Arell says:

    Being Consiervative or Liberal doesn’t really give a good indication how someone will go on the whole "cencor/ban videogames" issue.  Individuals on both sides love to censor things, Cons because they don’t think something matches their "values", and Libs because they think you need to be protected in everything you do.  On the flip side, both are willing to fight censorship, Libs because of Free Speech and Cons because of Free Market (and personal responsibility).

    While I’m not a fan of Limbaugh, he is fairly rational (though his extreme distaste of Democrats gets tiring) in his views.  And he’s big on the whole free speech thing.  So, it shouldn’t be "surprising" that he feels this way about the SCOTUS case.

  2. 0
    cpu64 says:

    Why are people so freaked out by Rush supporting an industry?

    The gaming industry is there to make money and provide a service/product. And they should be free to make what they want, and we should be free to buy what ever product we want.

    The choice of game, content rating, and a price everyone can agree with, are the ONLY regulations that should exist in the industry. And that’s where Rush is standing..

    But I guess some people need the government involved so they can feel protected from offensive games. You know, there might be an American flag somewhere in a level of the game and that could mean all hell breaks lose, to liberals.

  3. 0
    Nerd42 says:

    Which is too bad because alot of the things said, especially the humor, on the Rush Limbaugh show can be very nuanced at times. One of Rush’s mottos: "Demonstrating Absurdity By Being Absurd"

  4. 0
    Nerd42 says:

    I don’t think prose counts as child pornography and you’re right, those extreme interpretations of the ban are way out of control. Child pornography can only mean pornography that involves the exploitation of actual children. Which should be banned and the ban should be enforced rigorously.

  5. 0
    Nerd42 says:

    Bill is right but I want to add that I’m a social conservative and while I think it makes sense to ban the sale of adult media to underage people and to rigorously enforce bans on child pornography, I don’t think the government has any business telling a franchise like Duke Nukem what they can and cannot put in their game and sell to 18+ adults. Ban Duke Nukem this week and they’ll be banning the reading of certain contraversial Biblical passages next week. So any "social conservative" who wants to ban Duke Nukem from being sold is both short-sighted and working against the Constitution. I’m a social conservative because I want to ban abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, assisted suicide and destructive human embreyonic stem cell research, not free speech.

  6. 0
    Neeneko says:

    While this makes sense, it would go down easier if he did not lump all liberals together.   Trying to pull a ‘there are differnt types of ‘us’ but only one kind of THEM’ makes what he tried to say pretty hollow.

  7. 0
    Nerd42 says:

    Let’s put it this way. Hawkish, Pro-Gun, Free Market Conservatives love Duke Nukem. No, really. He’s a badass glorified guntoting American male constantly making politically incorrect statements certain to piss off the feminists, who works together with the military but remains a private citizen using his privately owned, unregistered guns to kick the asses of foriegn invaders ("illegal aliens" you might say) that are trying to take over America. The Duke Nukem Forever logo incorporated the American Flag in it for crying out loud. What is not to love about that for the political Right?

    Remember, it could be argued that the U.S. Military INVENTED video games.

    Social conservatives don’t like Duke Nukem because of his hedonistic, promiscious, violent lifestyle, irreverence, vulgarity, drinking, smoking, steriods and foul mouth. (Not necessarily in that order) But remind the social conservatives that they’re supposed to be Constitutional originalists who stand on the First Ammendment and they’ll back down on this if they have any sense. (Many do, believe it or not.)

    People on the far left who want gun control and view the Constitution as a "living document" that says whatever we want it to say this week will obviously support censorship in this case.

  8. 0
    Nerd42 says:

    Vinzent, Mr. Limbaugh’s ideology is Economically-Conservative-first, Socialally-Conservative-second and Republican-third. He is the guy who invented the term "RINO." (Republican In Name Only) Liberalism, according to Mr. Limbaugh, exists in both parties, but there is a conservative wing of the Republican party and no relevant conservatism within the Democratic party. And so that’s why he always, always opposes Democrats, except in primaries. (see "Operation Chaos")

  9. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    Yeah, Schwarzenegger may be a Republican, but he’s married into a family of Democrats.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  10. 0
    Thad says:






  11. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Actually, one of the reasons you get so many moderate-liberal political figured supporting/proposing stuff like this is because of social concervatives.  It is like the media.. blame it for being liberal enough and it will pull itself in a conervative direction just to escape attack.

    These ‘think of the children’ censorhips pushes from liberals are sad attempts to not piss off the christian right any further, which they hope will cause the right to attack other democrats rather then using resources to attack them.

    In other words, they are gutless democrats craving to pressure from the radical right and try not to look like ‘crazy liberals’.   So I still count this as a social concervative issue, regardless of who they scare into proposing the legislation.

  12. 0
    Zerodash says:

    "Believe it or not"

    THIS is one thing I can’t stand about the editorial staff at GP which spills over into my disgust at the population at large.  The censorship of games/media is not another one of those imaginary situations where one side of the political spectrum is good and the other evil.  

    Leland Yee is a DEMOCRAT from the most LIBERAL state in the country. Most of the anti-games bills over the last 10 years have been supported, if not proposed, by Liberals/Democrat.  These laws are the very essence of the "Nanny State" the left has been trying to impose on us for decades.  

    Do I mean that all liberals or Democrats support these?  Of course not.  Am I saying that there are conservatives and Rebublicans who have never backed censorship?  Obviously not.

    What I am saying is that this entire debate does not fall on lines of right vs left, since both sides have elements that look to destroy freedoms (the Nanny State, Christianity, Political Correctness) as well as those that believe in their preservation.  

    For GP, and many of the commenters here, to presume that this SCOTUS battle is the righteous Liberals fighting off the evil Conservatives, is naive at best and deliberately dishonest at worst.

    Go ahead and call me a racist tea-bagger or a Rush fan (wrong on both counts) for actually pointing this out, but why not look at the big picture instead of living in a world of only black and white thinking.  

  13. 0
    Rubeus says:

    It seems most people don’t know what Limbaugh is actually about. It’s not surprising for him to take the side of the free market and free speech. I’ll challenge anyone to find a transcript or video of him championing the idea of censorship.

  14. 0
    Mr. Blond says:

    Here’s a fun fact: his uncle, Judge Stephen Limbaugh, originally upheld the St. Louis ordinance restricting game sales in IDSA v. St. Louis County, later overturned by the 8th Circuit.

  15. 0
    gellymatos says:

    Well, never thought I’d say this, but good job, Limbaugh. *twitch*twitch* That felt weird.



    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

  16. 0
    Thad says:

    "Should I be surprised that Limbaugh made it a partisan issue and blamed the law on liberalism?"

    Should I assume that’s a rhetorical question?

    "The unfortunate truth is that both side of the political spectrum tries to censor speech disagreeing extremely with its viewpoint."

    I think it’s more accurate to say that the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum try to censor speech disagreeing with their viewpoints.  A subtle difference but an important one.

  17. 0
    Vinzent says:

    It’s a view of extremes. Liberals favor government regulation, which is great in moderation. However, the extreme view is that of socialism.

    The conservative view is less government. Also good in moderation. The extreme view is that of no government, which allows other entities such as big businesses to make their own mandates.

    The extreme sides are the sacry ones, so each side tries to paint the other at it’s most extreme. It garners votes and ratings for personalities like Limbaugh. Unfortunately this might be the root cause of our divided America. Politicians are starting to believe their own propoganda, and in lashing back at their "extremeist" counterparts, they push further into their own extremes.

    So what you have left is the death spiral of the American dream.

    Oh, and for the record Mr. Limbaugh, the Governator who signed this into law is a Republican.

  18. 0
    Bill says:

    He’s talking about the conservative free market ideology which champions the markets and industry over regulation by government as opposed to social conservatism which doesn’t mind banning violence in media.  Rush has always been a free market guy.  While he is friendly with the social conservatives he doesn’t back everything they want, this being an example.

  19. 0
    Hackangel says:

    Should I be surprised that Limbaugh made it a partisan issue and blamed the law on liberalism? 

    The unfortunate truth is that both side of the political spectrum tries to censor speech disagreeing extremely with its viewpoint.

    When it comes to videogames, the truth is that members from both side of the political spectrum tries to censor them.

  20. 0
    Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    Meanwhile, in Hell:

    hell_freezes_over.png Meanwhile, in Hell picture by dark_knight_1981

    Yeah, I also readed about him "defending" games on the Virginia Tech attacks, but still I find kind of ironic him "defending" games when the free market rights of the industry are on stake, above anyone else.

    ———————————————————— My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship):

Leave a Reply