I’m sure you all are aware of the recent attack on S.E. Cupp by Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine. Hustler doctored a false image of her performing a sexual act. It was disturbing, disgusting, and something that I can’t even imagine someone considering acceptable. Then again, I don’t consider Hustler acceptable “literature.” More details on the attack can be found here.
Wednesday morning, S.E. gave her first comments on the disgusting attack on Glenn Beck’s radio show:
There are two ways of looking at this – some suggest that a full out attack on Hustler for their disgusting behavior is warranted – we have to call out our enemies on their double standard. Plus, this is an image that will never go away now. One day S.E. will have kids, and if they do a Google search on their mom, undoubtedly this image will be there – and the disclaimer will be nowhere to be seen.
Another line of thinking is to ignore Hustler altogether, and take the “high road” as it were, as attacking Hustler only serves to give them publicity and keep them in the news cycle, giving them the media play they so desire.
While I think this type of attack on a woman is wrong, because of the implications involved, I also know S.E. would not want to be played as a victim. She would, and has, shifted the discussion to the bigger issue of “why.” Why was she targeted for this attack? It’s not because of anything she did. In fact, Hustler was very open and honest about the reason they went after her.
Here is what Hustler had to say about S.E.:
“S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator, who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.”
Quite frankly, a comment this honest almost makes them more credible than the mainstream media in terms of reporting their motives. Many unlikely figures from the Left have come out to support S.E. Cupp, noting that this is not a political issue. While, I actually think it is partially (just look at the reason given for the attack), standing up for someone that has been wronged is in no way, shape, or form a political issue. It’s simply the right thing to do.
Unless, of course, you’re N.O.W. who still has a campaign against Rush posted on their website for the use of the word ‘slut,’ but have still refused to comment on this issue.
After Flynt’s cowardly response yesterday, “That’s satire. I’m able to publish this because of the Supreme Court case I won in 1984, Flynt v. Falwell,” S.E. was invited on The View this morning (a show that isn’t exactly a safe zone for conservatives.) They were extremely supportive and sincere in their support.
I’m curious as to everyone’s thoughts on this issue. How should conservatives respond to this type of attack? I’ve never been a big fight fire with fire person; I’d rather put the fire out, and find a more clever (and not disgusting way) to win the war. S.E. Cupp didn’t get an ivy league education or work to get in the position she is now to be the center of discussion or distract from the issues. How do you think conservatives can fight back without distracting from the things that will win the war, not just one battle? Discuss your thoughts below – what should conservatives do? Give us your thoughts in the comment section.
I don’t think outrage is the answer to this one. It’s what Larry wants. He’s made a living off of outrage, shock and negative publicity for most of his adult life.
In my opinion, good old fashioned ridicule will do the trick quite nicely.
If one can’t make fun of a limp, shriveled, bitterly sour old geezer who’s nearly been prejudicially removed from the planet once already, then one simply isn’t fit to do jokes.
This is what happens to people who replace morality with legality. “I can do this because I won a court case”. Um. Ok. But should you? “Should? What does that mean?”
Hustler is garbage I do not think anything they do if funny or in good taste it’s a rag I would not wipe my ass with Hustler. But I do stand with there right to do what they do because of the 1st Amendment. As vile as there publication is if they crossed the line it can be handled in court. If you recall some years back Jerry Fawell took Larry Flint to court over a editorial cartoon. Hustler Sucks Larry Flint Sucks The 1st Amendment on the other hand is Awesome. Would people be this upset if South Park did a similar stunt ?
You’re asking if people would be upset if South Park showed a woman sucking a dick just because she doesn’t want the government to give tax payer money to planned parent-hood? Does that even need an answer?
I don’t think we can afford to ignore smears. Nor do I think getting indignant is the answer for everyone or all audiences. Pointing out their behavior for what it is and what it does seems rational. Hustler’s attack on Cupp was two-fold. It was supposed to mock her and belittle her position. It was also supposed to let other women know they could be next. The larger target of all women of conscience is where Hustler and others are most vulnerable. If the target isn’t shamed and other women identify with the target, it neutralizes the embarrassment and makes the attacker look craven.
Some things need condemnation. It was a trashy attack on an undeserving target by a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Of course I’m disgusted with Hustler, but I always have, so this is nothing new to me. Yeah, I’m disgusted, and I feel bad for S.E., but outrage on our part isn’t going to help. I think she is handling this quite well by using the media attention to her advantage by going on shows like The View, who have a liberal audience, and pointing out how damaging this kind of moral aloofness can be to a woman’s reputation. Good for her, she’s a smart lady.
I think the “high road” is ALWAYS the way to go. That being said, I don’t think “taking the high road” and “fighting fire with fire” are always mutually exclusive concepts. Fire can be a pretty effective tool when used correctly.
1) Your title is misleading…the entire left hasn’t denigrated Cupp, Hustler Magazine has. I’m sure you will find agreement on both sides that this is inappropriate.
2) Although incredibly offensive, I concur with everyone else. It’s a first amendment right. Looks like another Hustler v. Falwell situation, but it’s protected speech.
I know you weren’t endorsing what was done, Queen Atheist — any venom here is directed towards all those who are silent now, that weren’t when it was Sandra Fluke being “attacked,” absolutely not at you
1. I think the issue is — why the deafening silence from the Left? Why was Rush’s comments on Sandra Fluke so terrible, and yet virtually none of the entities that decried Rush’s actions have come out against Hustler and/or Flint?
I mean, all things being equal, at least Rush commented on something Sandra Fluke actually SAID. Whether some think he mischaracterized her or not, it was based on her actions. This item from Hustler is based on … what? It’s a mean-spirited cheap shot that, had it been directed at a Liberal, would have been decried both loudly and often.
It’s the rampant hypocracy of the thing. Where is President Obama? Why isn’t he calling Cupp to lift her spirits? I mean, what was his (President Obama’s) claim for interceding and calling Fluke? Something about his daughters? So, would he be okay if it were his wife, or his daughters (when they were of legal age) being depicted this way? Somehow, I am betting not.
2 Absolutely it’s protected speech. It’s just curious, as always, to see the reasons for something being bad when applied to the Left somehow not really being worthy of action when they get applied to the Right. Be honest, if a magazine had done this to Michelle Obama, do you think the Left would be silent (as they are being now)? Heck, make it Nancy Pelosi, so we don’t drag the office of the President and/or the First Lady into it — do you think we would still have this deafening silence from the same Left that made such a stink over Limbaugh’s words?
And I will be the first to admit that this happens on both sides. It’s just interesting to hear the lack of response again … like that whole civility thing. It apparently applies to one side only.
Take it and run,
Larry Flint did something? Isn’t this very much like the 12-year-old boy making fart noises, trying to get attention?
Ignore him — there’s simply no point in trying to change or correct that idiot.
Actually, I changed my mind.
S.E. Cupp didn’t pioneer this action in a public place, Clinton/Lewinsky did.
If she doesn’t protest, she might get sued!
It’s one thing to maintain that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, but it’s quite another thing to use that right to deny fundamental freedoms to others. Clearly that’s what Flint has done in this case.
I’ve never heard of this Cupp person but whatever she might have said it does not justify what Flint has done, it amounts to bullying. One way or another he should be made to pay
It should be “Larry who?”
Unfortunately you know you are winning against the liberals S.E. Cupp when you as a woman find yourself under attack like this. You’ve hurt the left and they like little unevolved animal children have to strike out like this in the only way you can. The only thing you can do is continue to be brave and keep on doing what you do.
The real, though not surprising, disgrace here is that NOW won’t defend this attack on SE Cupp. They are continually exposed as hypocrites.