Bill O’Reilly is NOT Complicit in Tiller’s Murder

[dem mba]

I think KO and other DUers are very wrong on this issue.

O’Reilly and others have compared Tiller to Hitler and called him a baby killer. True. O’Reilly and others have gone on multiple tirades against Tiller and his practices. True. However, outside of libel and slander, O’Reilly has the constitutional right to say or write whatever he wants to about another person, no matter how vicious. This does not make Bill O’Reilly a criminal complicit in a man’s murder. This makes him a supreme asshole of course, but no, not a criminal.

I’ve seen enough posts on DU to know that this opinion is not shared by many. So let’s think this logic through:

Let’s say Dick Cheney, George W Bush or Donald Rumsfeld is assassinated tomorrow by some “moonbat” left-leaning extremist. Think how many thousands and thousands of posts have appeared on DU calling these men murderers and war criminals over the past 8 years. How many posts on DU said something to the effect of “there is innocent blood on Bush’s hands!”? Are we all now complicit? Should Skinner be hauled off by the FBI or Secret Service? What about KO? Kos? Uygar? Vedder?? Dixie Chicks??? Should every DUer who ever wrote a disparaging word against those guys get a visit from the Feds? If you think O’Reilly is complicit in murder than surely so are we (at least in my hypothetical example).

Or is it different for O’Reilly because he’s a famous cable personality and his words have greater sway and reach? If that’s the case then exactly what threshold are we talking about? What kind of audience reach does a pundit need before they become an exception to the first amendment? Does blogging count? How many people need to read/watch your opinion before your views are no longer held to the same standard as a layperson’s?

Olbermann is just dead wrong on this issue. His special commentary on the subject brought up advertising as an example of the effectiveness of public persuasion. Are you serious? I’ve had that damn $5 footlong jingle stuck in my head for weeks but haven’t been to Subway in months. I was raised Jewish but don’t keep kosher or attend services as an adult. Hell I’ve even read the bible and listened to countless sermons yet never converted to Christianity. This is an exceptionally weak argument.

Yes, I’m afraid that as an adult we are responsible for our own decisions, regardless of peer pressure, corporate marketing efforts or how we were raised. We all make our own choices and when it comes to the big decisions in life, like oh, whether or not to murder another human being, we stand alone. O’Reilly has no part to play in this. Roeder stood alone.

As a parting shot - if you believe O’Reilly should be held responsible for this murder by either the law or by News Corp than I hope you will back every other case like this and blame Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest for those rock-n-roll-induced suicides years ago. I hope you’ll advocate letting off every murderer who claims that they were pressured into it (especially if their persuader was someone on TV). I hope you’ll try and ban all violent video games and movies because clearly, our little peon minds can’t handle all the stimuli. And if you still think I’m wrong, go watch or read A Clockwork Orange and hopefully then you’ll understand my concerns.

We need to stand on the right side of this issue not to protect O’Reilly, but to protect our ability to say and do what we feel and not have it throw back at us in a court of law because some nut took it too far or in the wrong way.

(Now if you have a clip of O’Reilly literally calling for his audience to murder Dr. Tiller, I would be wrong, but he didn’t do that. I've seen all the related clips and I'm sorry, it's just not enough to say he shares the blame for this.)

[WeDidIt]

1. .

Welcome to DU :hi:

:popcorn:

BTW, thanks for supporting terrorism.

[L. Coyote]

50. Sue FOX. Hate lawsuits have been VERY successful, when and where there are deep pockets.

Taking Hate Groups To Court by Morris Dees and Ellen Bowden
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/courtroom_victories.pdf

"A hurdle facing most civil hate crime suits is that the defendants are penniless. ....."


Courtroom Victories:
Taking Hate Groups To Court
by Morris Dees and Ellen Bowden

NOTE: This article first appeared in the February 1995 issue of Trial, a publication of the American Trial Lawyers Association.

On a quiet evening in November 1988, Mulugeta Seraw, an Ethiopian graduate student, was being dropped off by two friends. Three skinheads from a racist group, East Side White Pride, spotted them. Wearing steel-toed boots and military jackets, the skinheads blocked the Ethiopians’ path and ordered them to move. When the Ethiopians did not respond immediately, one of the skinheads took a baseball bat and smashed their car windows. Another skinhead then turned the baseball bat on Seraw. With repeated blows, the angry skinhead crushed Seraw’s skull. Seraw was dead before the paramedics arrived on the scene.

Unfortunately, stories like Seraw’s are not uncommon. Hate crimes have reached epidemic proportions. Hate has motivated over 100 murders since1990. According to the FBI, 7,684 incidents of hate crime took place in1993 alone. The saddest fact is that these figures do not come close to measuring the true number of hate crimes in the United States. For every reported hate crime, as many as nine others may go unreported.
Hate crimes know no geographic boundaries. Once most often associated with violence in the South, hate crimes have touched every region of the country in recent years. No group is immune. Once most often associated with violence against blacks by whites, hate crimes now count Asian-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, gays, lesbians, blacks and whites among their victims.

Hate crimes pose unique threats. Victims of hate crime are much more likely to endure severe physical and psychological harm than victims of other violent crimes. Compounding the problem, hate crimes have the potential to convulse an entire community. The Rodney King beating illustrates how one hate-motivated crime can quickly become a focal point for venting long-simmering grievances. The social strife that often accompanies hate crime can irreparably damage a community’s cohesion.

The lawyer’s role
What can we as attorneys do to reduce hate crimes? One step ..............

[ChairmanAgnostic]

I dated Sue Fox for some time. She was hot, sweet, and smart.

Oh. Wait. Wrong thread.

No, the author makes some good points, but so do you. hate crimes, especially on the reichnut wing side of the aisle. And they are armed.

[liberaltrucker]

149. So are we

Well, some of us.

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

198. Agree . . . FOX NEWS is complicit in this ... they all well understand what they are doing . . .!!!

[Truth2Tell]

264. thanks for supporting terrorism?

Dick, is that you?

How quickly we become what we hate.

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. Mark Green? Is that you?

If so, thanks for destroying Air America....... :puke:

[liberalmuse]

3. O'Reilly and much of the right wing are complicit in this murder.

They created the environment that bred this cold-blooded doctor killer.

[paulsby]

23. ah. the "created the environment" argument

the same argument could be used against all anti-war protestors, military recruiter protestors, and muslims, that the guy who killed the army recruiter was facilitated by the "environment" of hate, etc.

fortunately, our founders were smart enough to write a first amendment that protects us when kneejerk anti-civil rights people start ignorning the principles of a free society because a good man got killed.

sad. but typical

[dem mba]

64. well put

I tried to make that point in my OP but I think many are just skipping right past it.

or maybe it's going over their heads...

[PeteytehMawnstar]

99. I agree with you 100 percent

I hate Billo, i think he intentionally lies and spews propaganda. I'd prefer people to realize his lies versus sinking to his level and taking pot shots calling him a terrorist.

[jpak]

206. FUCK O'Reilly, FAUX and Operation Rescue - they are all responsible

yup

[KittyWampus]

73. Is there an anti-war channel on tv? Is that channel on in multiple work places and waiting rooms?

Do we obsess about stopping the war by ANY MEANS NECESSARY? And then publish Bush and Cheney's home address and show photos of them with sniper targets over them?

Did we actively call for their murder?

[paulsby]

90. amazing

i'm not aware that oreilly used the term "by any means necessary".

but malcolm X did. does that make malcolm X guilty in your eyes.

nor did oreilly publish tiller's home address and put sniper targets over it.

nor did he actively call for tiller's murder.

to whom are you referring then>

[PeteytehMawnstar]

101. Come to think of it

I've seen many posts on here advocating publishing home and work addresses for those who supported or voted for Prop 8. Destroying the "bigots" by any means necessary.

[armyowalgreens]

157. DING DING DING. We have a winner.

The hypocrisy in this thread is amazing.

It's nice to finally have someone who is logical.

People in DU have called for "right wing extremists" to be taken out by any means necessary. And what they mean by "right wing extremist" is basically anyone who isn't left of center.

And yet now they are on here bitching about the same things they have said in the past. It's hysterical.

If it's okay for someone to suggest that all pro-lifers are extremist terrorists, it's okay for O'Reilly to suggest that Tiller was a murderer.

[PeteytehMawnstar]

185. bows

:hippie: :hippie: :hippie:


I'm here til they throw me out

[bertman]

115. I surf right past the military channel and FAUX. That's called good judgment.

[jgraz]

105. So you support the First Amendment, but not the Seventh

Let Tiller's family sue. If their case has no merit, it will be dismissed.

[paulsby]

108. this is america

you can (try) to sue a ham sandwich (to borrow a saying about grand jury indictments).

if tiller's family wants to sue oreilly, let them try. i hope they lose, and everything i know about civil law says it would never see the inside of a courtroom, but we'll see.

[spanone]

121. i didn't hear anyone on teevee calling military recruiters murderers or baby killers

time after time after time....actually 28 times by bill o'reilly.

[armyowalgreens]

138. Ever heard of Code Pink?

They called the marines murderers. They have repeatedly gone on record stating military personnel are murderers.

They have specifically targeted the marine recruitment center in Berkley and called them murderers.

[Batgirl]

148. Who hasn't heard of Code Pink what with them being in a position to fire up the reptilian brainstems

of their most rabidly ignorant, violence-prone fans every night on TV. And everyone knows those fringe loonies on the left, like the Code Pink supporters, are extremely dangerous and all the time making huge fertilizer bombs and mailing envelopes of white powder to their political enemies.

[armyowalgreens]

150. Oh so I see the double standard now.

Because you believe liberals aren't just as capable as conservatives to commit murder, somehow Code Pinks speech isn't as bad as O'Reilly's speech. That makes perfect sense. Except it doesn't make any damn sense at all.

Slander is a certain type of language. Who it is spoken to makes no difference. What Code Pink said is just as bad as what O'Reilly said.

[Batgirl]

153. The GOP built a goodly portion of its base on hate

starting at least with the selection of Pat Buchanan to address the 1992 GOP convention.

Right wingers no longer had political opponents, they had enemies of God, the evil libruls, the homos, the feminists.

Liberal Dems were characterized as a literal threat to God, Christianity, and the USA. For some, this characterization made it perfectly acceptable to openly discuss meting out violent death. Some have moved beyond discussion.


"The extreme right — those who are “hate-oriented,” “mainly antigovernment,” or those dedicated to a “single issue” — is a legitimate threat that law enforcement must deal with, according to a new assessment from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The report, which was coordinated with the FBI and is being given to federal, state, and local law enforcement, warns:

Rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment."

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/dhs-report-right-wing/

Sure sounds like Code Pink huh?

[armyowalgreens]

156. Putting out a message of hate and inciting violence are two different things entirely.

Sorry, but this bullshit that they set up an "atmosphere for murder" is complete crap. As stated in this thread by someone else, no one is responsible for murder if they set up an atmosphere of hate that could have possibly fostered a few to kill.

The bottom line is that O'Reilly never called for Tiller to be killed. He never made any statement even close to that. You can suggest that he set up an atmosphere all you want. But If Bush is assassinated by a left wing nut tomorrow, the right could use that argument to blame all the left wing critics that compared Bush to Hitler and terrorists and other dictators.

And it would still be bullshit.


What code pink has said is no different than what O'Reilly said. And when people start offing military servicemen because they think they are murderers, the right will blame code pink for their deaths. And I will still think that argument is bullshit.

The double standard is clear. You just can't get yourself out of the that biased mentality.

[Batgirl]

161. So, in addition to being worried about unfair accusations that poor, misunderstood Bill O'Reilly

helped incite wingnut rage at Dr. Tiller, you also believe "military servicemen" need to be concerned about becoming the victims of liberal violence -- Seriesly?

:spray:

Well, perchance I can at least slightly alleviate your fears about Code Pink riling up the crazy libruls. That would be quite a feat, considering they have no O'Reilly-like television platform to gain access to a mass audience. Although if they were really determined I suppose they could always go door-to-door. Now have a nice cup of tea and try to calm down. Meanwhile I'll be in the shed out back cleaning my assault rifle.

[armyowalgreens]

165. Okay, you are resorting to distortion and mockery. I'm done.

You are no different than any knee-jerk prude out there that insists on locking down free speech because someone was killed. Have a nice evening.

[Batgirl]

174. You're "done" because you can't really think of a response to the quote I posted

about the significant uptick recently in dangerous rightwing extremism. There simply IS NO EQUIVALENT or anything close on the left.

And I'm not against free speech at all. But you'll not find me shedding any tears when O'Reilly goes on TV spewing hate from his gigantic piehole, then gets called on it.

Do you recall when he made dark threats against the entire city of San Francisco a few years ago?

"Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly said, according to a transcript and audio posted by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America, and by the San Francisco Chronicle.

"And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004302/

Overheated rhetoric is the stock in trade of shrieking heads like O'Reilly. It feels damn good when, for once, they have some rhetoric shot back at them.

[armyowalgreens]

190. I'm done because you don't understand my point and refuse to get it.

1. There have been times when left wing extremist groups have had considerable power in the US.

Simply because right wing groups are now on the rise does not mean that O'Reilly is somehow more responsible than if they weren't

2. The "creating an atmosphere" of hate which lead to murder argument is fucking bullshit. It would be bullshit if someone said it about the left and it's still bullshit even though some are saying it about the right.

O'Reilly is not responsible for Tillers murder. He could be brought to court for defamation, but that is not the same as blaming him for murder.

3. That quote you have is no different than his speech about Tiller. He could be held accountable for defamation, but not for any deaths.


Again, what you are doing is the same thing that the right has done in the past. Someone on your side gets "hurt" and you immediately blame the other side for the attack because they slandered someones character. Sorry, that's not just not right in any direction.

Calling someone out for slander and blaming them for someone death are two different things entirely. You just don't get that.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

207. GE has been sponsoring Pat Buchanan's extremism for decades . . .

GE is more right wing than the John Birch Society --

Pat Buchanan is at the least sexist, racist and homophobic--

I hear he also got money for his campaigns from the CIA . . . keeping the

right wing in power all over the world -- including in America!

This is no different from what Hitler's propaganda did -- it's universal --

first create hatred for a class of people -- Jews in his case . . . demonize

them and keep it up until killing them becomes the only logical answer!

Try the Vatican on homosexuals . . . "abomination" preached from their altars

every Sunday! Then, violence against homosexuals becomes just coincidental!!

Same with women --

Hate speech creates the atmosphere for criminal activity against the victim.


PS: Anyone who didn't see Rachel Maddow's interview with the former "pro-life"

leader should catch up with it -- posted here just yesterday! Sensational!

"They know what they are doing" --<;b>

Yes . . . they do!!

[defendandprotect]

205. Love Code Pink . . .the right-wing has been practicing political violence for decades . . .

and needing to be more out in the open about encouraging lone nuts, they now

rely on O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Terry.

They can't make plane crashes, but they do bring out the likes of Roeder!

[armyowalgreens]

215. It's the unfortunate downside of free speech.

What some people say will inevitably bring out the crazies and horrific acts will ensue. That's the price we pay for free speech.

[defendandprotect]

237. No . . . this is planned to bring out the "crazies" to do horrific acts . . .

In fact, the right wing pretty much acknowledged that in Ollie North's campaign for

Gov. of Virginia when they were selling campaign buttons in the lobby reading,

"Where's Oswald when you really need him?" It was Clinton they were wishing would be

taken down then. Sen. Jesse Helm's comments re Clinton not coming to his home state

were essentially a threat and should have been pursued by FBI.

And, quite a few gun nuts showed up at the White House to fire into it from the fence

line. There was also a guy who flew his plane to the White House very close to the

president's bedroom.

Presumably you didn't see the Rachel Maddow interview with the reformed "pro-lifer" last

night? You can probably still catch it on home page. But, he was making clear that

"they know what they are doing." This man was part of the inner circles and his father before

him. I recommend you watch it.

Pretty much everyone understands "hate" speech now and what it can do -- what it does to

women and what it's done to homosexuals and what it's done to Jews.

On and on --

[noiretextatique]

268. is Code Pink is on tv 24/7 like the Faux readers?

no.

[liberalmuse]

193. Actually, I stand by my argument.

It can also be said that hate radio in Rwanda created the environment for genocide. Words mean things. If you spread hatred towards a specific person or group of persons, then perhaps you've just created the environment that will spawn a person who will carry out your hate fantasies. Yes, much of the right wing is directly responsible for Dr. Tiller's death, but that is from my perspective.

Centuries of hatred towards the Jews created the environment that spawned Hitler and The Holocaust. Those who spread the hate are directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews. Hitler did not act alone. He had help from millions of people around the world. I wholeheartedly reject your 'lone gunman' theory because what we all do and say matters.

[armyowalgreens]

223. The RTLM literally called for mass murder. They didn't "create the environment"

The RTLM literally broadcast that all Hutis should go and kill the "cockroach" Tutsis.


Why don't you do a little research before you talk about this?

[defendandprotect]

201. Up is down, huh?

Don't think so --

Anti-war peace demonstrators are just that --

It is the right-wing which wants to suggest that anti-war protestors are

violent --

but what we see is that it is the agents of government investigating peaceful

groups and brutal policing which seeks to do damage to the Constitutional right

to free assembly.

[armyowalgreens]

216. And many DUers are suggesting that all pro-lifers are extremists...

Political slander comes from both sides. Don't be so naive to assume otherwise.

[defendandprotect]

238. Many "pro-lifers" are extremists ...many are religiously fanatical . . .

you can see that here at DU.

How extremist do you have to be to believe that a woman suddenly wakes up in
her 8th month of pregnancy and demands an abortion she doesn't need?
People actually believe that right-wing garbage.

The right-wing has made sure that people are kept ignorant of the necessity
for these medical procedures -- and, presumably, these people learn what's going
on when someone they love fails to get the medical care they need, in time.

Very few people are against "choice" -- except for their concerns about third
trimester abortions -- and that's where the lies and right-wing propaganda is
the strongest. "Partial birth abortion" = "Partial Truth Abortion"


There are many mixed up in this right-wing violence against abortion clinics
and doctors -- from militias to fanatics like Randall Terry who's been arrested
90 times at clinics? -- and, obviously O'Reilly has been helping to try to shake
loose a gun nut or two who might do his dirty work for him and get Tiller.

Meanwhile, again, we seem to be running into the issue of a lack of police/FED
enforcement -- even with the FACE laws which has been in place quite a few years
now. We've seen this before and we're seeing it again.

But, we are beyond FACE now . . . these fanatics are not going to stop . . .
This is domestic terrorism and those responsible should be sued under RICO laws and/or
tried as terrorists.

Roeder was attacking a clinic again on Saturday - the day before he murdered Dr.
Tiller. He was a repeat offender at this clinic. It was reported to the Feds with
his description and license plate number within five minutes of the attack --
and they had the guy on tape.

Presumably, had the FBI pursued this man Dr. Tiller may still be alive.

That was Rachel Maddow tonight . . . hopefully someone will put a tape up on it by
tomorrow.

Additionally, try to catch the Maddow interview with the former "pro-life" fanatic who
work up! He makes very clear that they do know what they are doing . . .

[OhioBlue]

231. if we compare those two cases side by side...

did we have a media figure like Bill O and a group like operation rescue that posted and aired publicly information about the recruiters? Give out their names and personal information? Engage in slander and hate language against these two specific recruiters? Continue for years to harass and threaten these two people?

Dr. Tiller had been shot, had his place of work vandalized, was the target of continued hate filled rants by Bill O, the target of a hate filled website by Operation Rescue, he was terrorized personally. this is so way, way freakin' beyond free speech.

[JuniperLea]

4. Welcome to DU!

Bless your little heart...

[myrna minx]

5. Oy.

This has been a long week.

[sandnsea]

6. Are Madrassas complicit in terrorist bombings?

Or should we start opening them in the US because what people are taught doesn't contribute to their murderous acts later.

[dem mba]

180. sometimes, yes they are. nt

[GodlessBiker]

7. The advertising argument is the best argument, as billions are spent ...

under the assumption that it is true. Follow the money.

"We all make our own choices." Why do we make those choices? Are our choices uncaused? Are our brains somehow shielded from the laws of cause and effect? Are we immune from any other laws of physics? If our choices are uncaused, what's the point of education? Indeed, doesn't you very post seek to cause a change of attitude in those reading it?

[dem mba]

195. raising brand awareness

and commanding one's minions to smite one's enemies are very different things.

[GodlessBiker]

251. No, not really. It's all propoganda to get people to do what you want.

[Chulanowa]

8. Your example is flawed

We're calling for investigation and legal procedures against Bush and Cheney, who, by appearances, have been breaking the law since Day One.

O'reilly and his sort have been insisting that a doctor performing a legal operation is a "mass murderer" who "must be stopped". After the murder of Dr. Tiller, O'Reilly clearly saw the shit he was standing in and did an awkward shuffle to step out of it while claiming the shit didn't stink.

Also there's the question of intent. Even if some poor kid blew his brains out because of a Black Sabbath song, Ozzy sure as hell never intended for that to ever happen. However, by using the right buzz words, phrases, and arguments, right-wing media damn sure did end up calling for vigilante "justice"

[gratuitous]

16. There's also the audience question

As awesome as the power of DU or any other internet site is, and it's indisputably teh awesome indeed, it doesn't have the slightest percentage of coverage or influence that Fox's various outlets have. There's also the quality of the solutions offered. Yes, many folks here have drawn the conclusion that many in the Bush administration committed or were complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those of us who have drawn that conclusion seem pretty unanimous as well in calling for thorough investigations, prosecutions of those who appear guilty based on the evidence, and court trials with all the rules of criminal procedure in place and scrupulously observed. Nobody's saying that the most unstable, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth nitwits should take up arms and settle the problem themselves.

Straw man? Thy degree may very well be Master of Business Administration.

[paulsby]

28. and oreilly et al didn't

say that "the most unstable, rabid, foaming..." should take up arms against tiller.

your argument boils down to : oreilly has a bigger and dumber argument than us (the oh so holy smart people of du), so therefore he can't do what we do, because if you have a dumb audience you have to watch what you say.

physician, heal thyself.

[gratuitous]

71. No . . .

But O'Reilly is well aware that those elements are in his audience, and he panders to them. O'Reilly does indeed have a much larger audience than Democratic Underground (by a factor of hundreds if not thousands). He's also aware, as are the people who sign his hefty paycheck, of just who those people are, what their ages are, their education level, and every other demographic consideration you can name. Fox spends a lot of money every year finding out all of that information, and both the network executives and the on-air talent work very hard to tailor their message to appeal to the audience they have, and expand the audience they want.

It is quite disingenuous for Fox or Bill O'Reilly to claim that they couldn't possibly know who is in their audience, and the range of likely responses some of those audience folks are going to have to incendiary rhetoric.

[paulsby]

96. so what?

if people have to "watch what they say" because some unhinged members of their audience might take what they say and use it as a (bogus) excuse to commit a crime, then--- there is no such thing as free speech

you are basically making the same "effects theory" argument that censors on the left AND right make, when justifying (for example) attempts at outlawing all sorts of speech.

it's ridiculous.

i don't blame ice-t for my best friend getting shot in the head. i don't play those games.

i don't blame ozzy osbourne for some dork committing suicide, and i don't blame nine inch nails or rammstein for the columbine killers.

[noiretextatique]

270. ice-t didn't demonize your best friend

o'reilly did demonize tillman. faux and the rw have run amok long enough. there are limits to free speech.

[paulsby]

272. yes, he did

he demonized cops in general, thus by extension my friend, in any # of songs. in the song cop killer, he portrayed a person so angry at police injustice (alleged) that he became a COP KILLER.

ice-t used ot be a member of NWA fwiw. he has penned LOTS of songs that demonize cops.

my point is SO FUCKING WHAT?

that's his right. he's a moron, but it's his right.

and it's not ice-t's fault that some gangbanger piece of garbage shot my friend in the head.

it's not oreilly's faulty that some wackjob anti-choice d00d shot tiller.

the fault lies with the criminals.

free speech matters.

[noiretextatique]

273. o'reilly demonized dr. tiller

and probably abortion doctors in general, but he mouthed quite a bit of inflammatory rhetoric specifically targeting dr. tiller.

i grew up in south central during the watts riots. there were no riots in my neighborhood, but the all-white police force drove around our streets with shotguns hanging out the window. ice-t and i are probably close in age.

having said that, as i grew older i had other experiences with police, bad and good, that gave me a more balanced perspective.

ice-t is the same type of whore are o'reilly, imho, but unless he specifically mentioned your friend's name on his album, ice-t's whoring, though deplorable, is not the same as o'reilly's.

[paulsby]

25. rubbish

oreilly never called for vigilante justice, and certainly not for murder.

fwiw, there are plenty who have called the us army MURDERERS for their acts in iraq etc.

it doesn't follow that they are TO BLAME for the guy who killed the army recruiter.

recall the vietnam protests too.

how many people called military personnel "baby killers"

are they responsible if some wackjob murders a military member.

the "logic" fails

[KittyWampus]

75. Bullshit. O'Reilly is part of a network which ABSOLUTELY called f/vigilante justice in no uncertain

terms.

[paulsby]

91. wow. show me where they

"absolutely called for vigilante justice"

what utter rubbish

[dem mba]

48. oh?

you know Ozzy's intent with that song? how?

"Where to hide, suicide is the only way out
Dont you know what its really about"

-Suicide Solution, Ozzy Osbourne


when you start guessing an artist or pundit's intent, you get into trouble.

[Chulanowa]

65. Yes, his intent to make money

Dead fans generate no revenue. While I wouldn't exactly rate Ozzy as being among the more rational beings of the universe, trying to get his fans to kill themselves certainly does seem counterproductive to his own interests.

But I suppose you're right. We have absolutely no way to know what the agenda and intent of Fox news and its pundits may be, despite the fact that they've been announcing it every night for the last 11 years. We're not like, mind readers or anything, how are we supposed to determine what they think and aim for, despite having it in front of our face all this time, right?

I'm afraid DU is taking one hell of a downward slide when I see people holding O'Reilly's hand and frolicking through the daisies.

[dem mba]

67. I'm taking the hand of the first amendment

not Bill O'Reilly.

[Chulanowa]

76. Then I suggest you sit down and watch some Fox News

A couple hours every night. Keep a little journal, even. In this journal, write down every dog whistle phrase you hear, or phrases that you think may fall into that category. From hosts, co-hosts, guests, even some of the ads and sponsors.

By the end of ten nights I promise you, you will have a journal full of slander, libel, threats, incitement, and hate speech. I also promise you that odds are good that you will have missed quite a bit more. Keep in mind this stuff is running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The majority of what you didn't write down will either A) be so garbled by poor speakers that you didn't understand it enough to stenograph, or B) will just be supporting propaganda.

I'm all for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But we do have legal limits as to what constitutes speech and journalism. even if we accept that public figures can't call out libel or slander, Fox News does its fair share of attacks against private figures, ranging from 15 year olds who make political videos, to dr. Tiller, and even that 5 year old transgendered child.

If you want to just blindly wave your hands around while muttering platitudes, be my guest. But let's not for a moment pretend there's any sort of halo floating above the head of Fox News or any of its contributors.

[dem mba]

192. I don't need a journal because I read Media Matters

um, I am a liberal with an internet connection. I know what Fox News does. I just happen to believe in a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

So let me clarify: I fucking loathe Fox News and all they stand for. Roger Ailes found a market that was under-served (conservatives) and catered his network to them. And kudos to him because he is beating the shit out of his competitors in the ratings. As long as they comply with the FCC and established limits on the 1st Amendment I don't give a fuck what they do. They should be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want.

[Chulanowa]

239. Then maybe you should sit down and read the 1st amendment a little better

I don't think you understand it as well as you think you do.

Technically, Fox News, being on cable rather than public airwaves, does have the right to say whatever it wants.

However, we have the right to attempt to prevent their shit from being heard, whether through protest, boycot, phone calls, or any other such measures.

Technically it could go all the way up to congress, and have some aspects of the rhetoric reigned in - the right to free speech does not include the right to unlimited speech. Now this would certainly have a chilling effect overall and isn't something I endorse... but it's still legal under the 1st amendment

Second... We have the right to expect those who exercise their right to speech to bear responsibility for that speech. If they can claim that their words are protected by copyright (and they do), then they are also responsible for the content of those words

I do give a fuck what they do. A man is dead right now in part because of what they do. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq stretched out as long as htye did in part because of Fox News and its ilk. We are debating the merits of torture because of Fox news.

[KittyWampus]

77. We write laws protecting our public water and air. Our airwaves and cables are public and you can

pollute them just as readily.

But where your stupid, pathetic psuedo-argument totally fails?

No one here has said O'Reilly should be arrested and tried.

But we sure as HELL can hold him accountable for being part of a bloodthirsty network that is bought and paid for by Far Right corporations and politicians.

Fox is part of a coordinated propaganda network.

[tiny elvis]

247. mens rea

"what the agenda and intent of Fox news and its pundits may be"

I think you are talking about mens rea. I think you need to accuse someone of a specific crime before mens rea matters. What is the name of the crime?

[bertman]

117. How do you know WHAT Ozzie intended, Chulanowa?

[dem mba]

200. that's complete bullshit and you should know that

or you've never seen a post on DU calling Bush a "mass-murderer"? you are seriously white-washing the things people say about Bush and Cheney on this and other forums.

Do a DU search for "Bush Murderer"

Now try a Google search.

How'd that go? Yea, the voices on the left are saying EXACTLY the same things about Bush that O'Reilly said about Tiller. This is the entire point of my OP. When we protect O'Reilly's freedom of speech we protect our own.

[Sydnie]

9. Dr. Tiller was not a public figure ... he was elected to no public office and has full protection

from the slander and libel laws.

A baby killer would be someone who carried out infanticide, not a licensed doctor performing his medical speciality, where he had the legal consent of the pregnant woman to end a pregnancy. See a difference there sparky?

Get a clue and get out of town!

[David Zephyr]

112. Exactly. This obviously escapes the apologist's OP for inciting hate and murder.

I sometimes have to pinch myself that this is the same DU.

[dem mba]

179. watch the tape again

O'Reilly says "...some groups are calling him "Tiller the Babykiller". So, he is "reporting" what he is being called, which is a legal technicality that basically gets him off the hook for slander, at least on that issue.

[Sydnie]

253. That's right up there with "some people say" which he LOVES to use

Unless he named names of who these "groups" are, then he is the person stating it and he can only hold himself blameless if he has direct documentation that shows what groups! That doesn't relieve him from responsibility of his statement.

[OhioBlue]

232. exactly n/t

[DonCoquixote]

10. Er, you are wrong

You said:

"As a parting shot - if you believe O’Reilly should be held responsible for this murder by either the law or by News Corp than I hope you will back every other case like this and blame Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest for those rock-n-roll-induced suicides years ago. I hope you’ll advocate letting off every murderer who claims that they were pressured into it (especially if their persuader was someone on TV). I hope you’ll try and ban all violent video games and movies because clearly, our little peon minds can’t handle all the stimuli. And if you still think I’m wrong, go watch or read A Clockwork Orange and hopefully then you’ll understand my concerns."

Here is why I think you are wrong.

Ozzy and company NEVER, EVER claimed to be anything but entertainers. Granted, some of Ozzy's antiwar lyrics could stand toe-to-toe with Dylan or Guthrie, but he never said "I am a Journalist." Now, is Bill fully responsible, no, but there are a lot of so called journalists, whether they are Bill O on political issues, Jim Cramer on Financial issues, and others who speak with all the authority of journalists, but who indulge in the same freedom/creative license as an entertainer would.

Now, do I want laws on the books to limit speech, no. Sorry, but while Canada's hate speech laws do limit the wackos, they also limit people to speak out against wackos. However, I do believe it is fully possible that people like Bill O and Jim C can be sued for irresponsible behavior. You should never have to fear jail because you have an opinion, however, that does not mean you get to be a millionaire for hurting people. The best force to use against them is the one thing they care about, the wallet, and if we stopped buying products that sponsor this nonsense, even the most thick-headed network exec will think twice, and said clowns can go back to their old jobs, or to some local radio circuit where they cannot do much harm.

[endarkenment]

24. Ozzy' never singled out a specific individual and demanded his suicide.

Which would be the equivalent if the OP's stunted analogy had a chance.

[paulsby]

31. there is no tort for

"irresponsible " speech.

[endarkenment]

38. yeah we get it: not criminally liable

meanwhile the O'Reilly factor is broadcast on FCC regulated airwaves. Those stations should be subject to sanctions for what they have participated in.

[paulsby]

43. no, you don't get it

torts refer to CIVIL action, not criminal action

and my point is that there is no TORT for 'irresponsible' speech
. i used your characterization of his allegedly civilly actionable speech and showed you that same is not a tort

hth

[liberaltrucker]

194. Faux Noise is on cable, not FCC regulated airwaves

Unfortunately.

x(

[rvablue]

11. Shouldn't you be out stalking someone with a video camera? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

12. A good argument. Here's why I don't agree.

Bill O'Reilly didn't just excoriate Dr. Tiller on the air. He spread falsehoods about his record. He again and again made terrible allegations about his work that simply were not true. O'Reilly had a responsibility to his viewers, knowing that people like Roeder are part of his target audience, to make sure that the things he was saying were accurate. They were not, and yet he repeated lies about covering up child rape and more again and again. In Kansas, Phill Klein (?) was all over Dr. Tiller and would have brought him up on charges if there was any evidence of Dr. Tiller committing such crimes. He never did. The worst was the 12 counts of improper consultation which were dismissed this March.

Bill O'Reilly lied and George Tiller died.

[dem mba]

155. let's say Bill-O did lie

so? what law do you prosecute him with? His program is infotainment. He is not a journalist.

As far as I know, O'Reilly can get on-air and say any damn thing he wishes (with some reasonable restrictions) as long as it's classified as "opinion".

[Sydnie]

257. You have to throw in the disclaimer of "In My Opinion" to claim that protection

and it STILL must be a public official and not a private citizen that is the subject. If that were the case the National Enquirer would never lose a libel/slander case brought by a celebrity, would they sparky?

You can NOT spout lies as fact and then claim it is an opinion. He can not knowingly repeat falsehoods, even attributed to some unknown "other" group and be held harmless for the speech.

[tritsofme]

13. This entire essay can be summed up in one sentence.

People are responsible for their own actions.

Most reasonable people agree with that.

[dem mba]

204. you would think. - nt

[tritsofme]

212. Well if you thought that, then it shows that you haven't been here long.

[omega minimo]

267. A founder of the movement that killed Dr. Tiller apologizes. The chickenshit pundits won't

[omega minimo]

14. Bullshit and Welcome to DU!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5776068&mesg_id=5776507

[Vidar]

15. It's different for O'Reilly because he broadcasts over public airwaves.

[Romulox]

18. Fox News is on cable. nt

[endarkenment]

22. O'Reilly is on FCC regulated public airwaves. nt

[Romulox]

29. Does he have a radio program? Because cable is not, by definition, on "public airwaves". nt

[endarkenment]

33. Do you not have google?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=O%27Reilly+factor+radio+broadcasts

[Romulox]

37. You could've just said so in your first reply.

What was the point in being simultaneously:

a) opaque;
b) a jerk; and
c) longwinded

?

:shrug:

[endarkenment]

41. I did. FCC regulated public airwaves.

You chose to be obtuse and disputative.

[paulsby]

102. lol. for what definition of "airwaves"?

oreilly is on cable Teevee.

he USED to have a radio program, but doesn't.

jeez

[Stellabella]

17. Wrong.

Fomenting violence and stirring up people who are already furious about their fates in life makes him complicit.

Just like you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, not all speech is protected.

[dem mba]

158. so Fox News needs to perform psychiatric evaluations on their viewers?

they cannot be held responsible just because more nuts watch their programs than MSNBC or CNN. you are basically saying they need to "watch what they say". if you restrict their free speech, you restrict everyones. be careful what you wish for.

[lunatica]

19. Maybe not a criminal lawsuit, but certainly a civil lawsuit can be

brought to O'Reilly. All that needs to be said is he incited violence through his rhetoric, slander and lies. And I think there may be grounds for a criminal lawsuit because 'fighting words' are not protected by the Constitution, just like yelling fire in a theater is not protected.

Funny how only low count DUers defend the indefensible.

[Qot]

54. See Flynt v. Falwell

[lunatica]

70. What's your point? Flynt did NOT incite violence

What are you comparing? Hate speech that incites violence by O'Reilly to Falwell's anti-porn crusade?

[paulsby]

87. nor did oreilly

"incite" violence.

oreilly CRITICIZED TILLER.

he called him a murderer.

he said he ran a baby murder mill.

fine.

not illegal

not an incitement.

respect the constitution . it protects us all. even bill oreilly.

[dem mba]

159. i've had 2 previous screen names

and been here since 2003 or so. funny how snobbish some DUers are based on someone's post count.

[AllieB]

202. Two previous screen names because you were banned?

:shrug:

[beltanefauve]

240. Yes, I noticed that too

[paulsby]

20. thank you for a RATIONAL post

on this topic. it disgusts me the way (alleged) progressives are JUST as quick to throw out civil rights (like free speech) as many on the far right are, when a tragedy ensues.

the hysteria, and the lack of fealty to our constitutional principles digusts me.

again, i applaud you for stating what SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.

except to those who are blind to the law, to constitutional principles, and to reason.

[immoderate]

35. I have to agree.

I think if O'Reilly had been mute on this, the assassination would have happened anyway. His behavior is outrageous and despicable, but I can't see him as culpable.

--imm

[lunatica]

39. inciting violence is not protected speech. You're wrong

[paulsby]

44. you are wrong

he did not incite violence.

i KNOW the case law. you don't.

calling somebody a murderer, on the air, is not (under any validated legal theory, and has never happened in US jurisprudence) an incitement to violence.

i attended an angela davis speech once. she called for "let's kill the rich".

that's also not viewed as an incitement, even though it's clearly more inflammatory than what oreilly did.

you don't respect free speech. i get that.

[uppityperson]

52. "i KNOW the case law. you don't.""you don't respect free speech. i get that."

and....he/she is off again......

[paulsby]

53. some of us respect the constitution

maybe you should call for a "oreilly patriot act" that would unconstitutionally criminalize calling people murderers

[uppityperson]

59. And anyone who doesn't agree with you "don't respect free speech" or the constitution.

as you so regularly point out

[paulsby]

62. not at all

people who don't respect free speech get called on it.

oreilly didn't break the law.

some of us respect free speech

criticism of him is fine, just like his criticism of tiller is fine, too

prosecution of people for exercise of free speech is disgusting otoh

and it won't happen w/oreilly. but plenty of people here think that would be just fine.

proving that fealty to the constitution is sadly limited.

[lunatica]

72. You don't have any idea what I believe

And Angela Davis paid the price. So should your Bill O'Reilly

[paulsby]

84. he;'s not my bill oreilly

just like the nazis aren't the ACLU's nazis. they defended the nazis RIGHT to march. it doesn't follow that they support the nazis.

some of us believe in civil rights. that means that... wait for it... even those with whom we DISAGREE enjoy constitutional protections.

i disagree with oreilly's stance vis a vis tiller. but i respect his right to express said opinion. and the legality of same.

to people like you, who don't respect civil rights, only those with whom you agree should enjoy constitutional protection

[lunatica]

131. O'Reilly's speech incited murder with inflammatory and raging venom

He spewed vitriolic hatred and swore a vendetta against Tiller. He made up his little rhyming slogan "Tiller the baby killer" and people like you think his right to hatred should never be questioned or criticized because of free speech. Sorry, but the Constitution does not protect his free speech. It protects his right to spew bile and putrid poison as it protects me to condemn him.

In a civil law suit he could easily lose and be found to be liable and his free speech excuse would be meaningless. In a job situation the he would not be protected from being fired or demoted. A restaurant has every right to throw him out while he's practicing his free speech and police could arrest him while he's practicing it. Especially if he's disturbing the peace, yelling at the top of his lungs and calling people baby killers and murderers.

So your defense may be pure but it's flawed because it doesn't exist in the real world.

[paulsby]

142. you absolutely have the right

to condemn him. i;m not denying that.

in a civil law suit, he would not lose, and i can tell you - he won't.

my defense exists in the real world- the world where the constitution protects oreilly, the nazis to march, mike malloy, randi rhodes, michael savage, and everybody else who "inflames"

fwiw, i am a police officer, and i know very well the extent of free speech. i am nationally trained AS a trainer in hate crimes investigations.

[chrisa]

116. Where did he ever incite violence?

I love how calling somebody "Hitler" is the same as inciting violence. Some people used to call Bush Hitler on here. Is that inciting violence?

[ejpoeta]

45. no one is saying he doesnt have a right to say these things. but he should also

face consequences when people act on his words. yes, we have freedom of speech... but that freedom does not protect a person from the possible results. think about folks who go around the web talking about killing the president. the secret service pays them a visit. it is a very tightrope walk with freedom of speech and responsibility to others. And a responsibility for the actions of those who take your words and use them as justification to harm or kill.

[paulsby]

46. utter rubbish

"no one is saying"? lol

metric assloads of people are saying he committed a crime (incitement, etc.) and should be prosecuted.

so, by definition if saying something is illegal (which is these person's claim,), then you don't have a RIGHT to say it.

cmon. get real.

[Missy Vixen]

61. Then why don't you explain to us why O'Reilly has suddenly backed off his previous statements about

Tiller? According to the article I just read, it's happened in the past 24 hours.

If there's anything actionable, anything at all, I hope the Tiller family makes O'Reilly bitterly regret his "Tiller the Killer" campaign.

[paulsby]

85. i watched the oreilly episode

he didn't back off his claims that he believes tiller was doing wrong/evil.

he merely said he doesn't condone the murder. which is not surprising because he never claimed that tiller should b e murdered.

try going to primary sources. i watched the actual episode.

[dorkulon]

187. So what happens if someone shoots O'Reilly and blames it on Olbermann? /nt

[hfojvt]

241. the shooter does not even have to blame KeithO

the blogosphere can do it. Clearly KeithO was inciting murder by calling BillO the worst person in the world almost every day.

[dorkulon]

250. Precisely.

This is why his accusations toward BillO and Bernie Goldberg bother me so much--the sheer hypocrisy of them.

[endarkenment]

21. A whole bag of wrong in one op.

O'Reilly conducted a direct campaign against Dr. Tiller, explicitly by name, as documented by Media Matters here: http://mediamatters.org/research/200906020046. Repeatedly referring to Dr. Tiller as 'Tiller the baby killer'. O'Reilly has access to the broadcast media facilities of Fox News. He bears more than a little responsibility for the terrorist assassination of Dr. Tiller.

O'Reilly is probably not criminally liable for this. However he should lose his job, Fox should lose its sponsors, and every station that carried O'Reilly on FCC regulated broadcast media should have its license revoked.

There is simply no comparison between the power of a media outlet commentator and a blogger on a message board. Well, to be more precise, there is a comparison, but it is a stunningly stupid one.

There is no valid comparison between heavy metal rock/teen suicides and what O'Reilly has done. Again, you have reached for the stunningly stupid.

You more or less betray your point of origin here as you wander away from holding O'Reilly's feet to the fire and slide into a non sequitur " I hope you’ll advocate letting off every murderer who claims that they were pressured into it" - nobody here is calling for the assassin to not be punished. Did you get that idea somewhere else.

[dem mba]

162. for the record

and I'm as liberal as they get. I just happen to take the 1st Amendment extremely seriously. All citizens, even bloviating pundits on public airwaves, should be given wide berth when opining on any topic they wish.

Judas Priest's music was blamed for causing some kids to off themselves. O'Reilly's commentaries are now being blamed for causing some guy to murder someone else. That's the connect.

[spanone]

26. abusing his first amendment constitutional rights and inciting violence..

complicity

[tiny elvis]

248. describe the specific illegal act

Quote the incitement, then name the crime.

[Buzz Clik]

27. I've got to agree.

O'Reilly certainly helped fan the flames, but he didn't start the fire.

[KittyWampus]

78. He is part of a well organized and well funded effort. He is a knowing participant in an effort

to influence Americans.

This effort is organized top down by strategists. O'Reilly and his ilk get talking points. They exist to serve a purpose. A specific purpose.

Read up on Grover Norquist, for example.

[Buzz Clik]

80. Sounds a bit tinfoily.

O'Reilly is a arse, for sure. But part of some massive conspiracy to kill abortion doctors? Geez.

[KittyWampus]

82. Go read up on Grover Norquist and his weekly meetings. And then look up Karl Rove

and the term "Wedge Issue".

[Buzz Clik]

86. I have no doubt that O'Reilly is a gleeful participant in spewing about wedge issues.

But that isn't what you said.

[noiretextatique]

269. operation rescue, the army of god

these people make it clear that they want to kill doctors.

[old mark]

30. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong.

The asshole in question gave encouragement and legitimized the assholes who have been plotting this for many years. He is an accomplice at least. He is as guilty as the organizations who striied up the idiot who actually did the deed, and no amount of his "backing off" should get that slime off the hook.
Some people are very quick to forgive trash like thewe RWer "christians". I am not one of them. They are all guilty and they should be disbanded and in prison where they belong.

mark

[chrisa]

118. You're wrong.

What the hell does "legitimizing" somebody in this sense mean? Last time I looked, that doesn't make that person complicit in the crime.

"He is as guilty as the organizations who striied up the idiot who actually did the deed, and no amount of his "backing off" should get that slime off the hook."

Right... Absolute BS.

[old mark]

32. Deleted - dup. nt

[old mark]

34. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong.

The asshole in question gave encouragement and legitimized the assholes who have been plotting this for many years. He is an accomplice at least. He is as guilty as the organizations who striied up the idiot who actually did the deed, and no amount of his "backing off" should get that slime off the hook.
Some people are very quick to forgive trash like the RWer "christians". I am not one of them. They are all guilty and they should be disbanded and in prison where they belong.

mark

[Matariki]

36. Did you ever see The Fisher King?

It would be really great if O'Reilly did the same sort of soul searching as Jeff Bridges' character did.

[KittyWampus]

79. Except Jeff Bridges character is just a shock-jock. He is not part of an organized, well funded

effort that is dictated by an inner-core of political leadership.

[edbermac]

40. Bill O'Reilly is complicit...according to Bill O'Reilly.

From a Talking Points he did on March 2, 2004 regarding the rapper Ludacris:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113040,00.html

Another Ludacris situation. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

You may remember a couple years ago that Pepsi hired gansta rapper Ludacris as a commercial pitchman. "Talking Points" objected, saying major American corporations have an obligation not to reward people who harmed society.

Millions of you agreed, Pepsi folded, Ludacris was fired. But now the St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch Corporation (search) has signed a deal with Ludacris, paying him big money to sell beer.

Since this guy continues to celebrate violence and drugs, Anheuser-Busch is guilty of aiding and abetting, in my opinion. And I will not be buying their products or visiting their theme parks.

And a personal note to the executives at Anheuser. You guys must be nuts. Most Americans deplore the kind of garbage Ludacris puts out, and they're going to remember that you are rewarding him. Pepsi got the message, but you guys don't seem to.

Unlike Ozzie Osborne, who curses, or Britney Spears, who's an immature exhibitionist, Ludacris is hard-core. He glorifies criminal conduct, and kids hear this stuff. Some of those children are from troubled homes and adopt the anti-social attitudes as their own.

Ludacris is real big on firearms: Quote: "Hollow bullets I pull it. I'm about to live in vain. And then I drill 'em, refill 'em. Make sure they feel the pain. My shotguns are cold and hard, and my triggers are always talking about some squeeze me, squeeze me. I smack bitches with 'no. Just get a couple of girls that shake their thang."

Got the picture?

Well, this gangsta stuff is foolish to anyone who's mature, but for impressionable kids, drug and guns make an impression.

Anheuser-Busch knows all this and doesn't care. Simply wants to make money and thinks Ludacris can sell beer and malt liquor--Society be damned.

So this Bud is not for me any more. Responsible Americans must hold corporations responsible for polluting the country, whether it's PCB's in the water or hyping criminal behavior on C.D.'s.

"Talking Points" believes Americans are getting fed up with all of this. And our poll question on billoreilly.com is: "Will you continue to buy Anheuser-Busch products now that the company has hired Ludacris?"

Will you continue to buy Anheuser-Busch products now that the company has hired Ludacris? billoreilly.com poll, we want to hear from you. We want to see what the plurality is here.

We will, of course, send the results along to Anheuser. But by the time they get them, I suspect the company will have received a message that's anything but ludicrous.

Americans have a choice when it comes to buying products.

And that's "The Memo."

[chrisa]

120. Crappy circular reasoning.

My god. I don't think I've ever seen such an attempt at grasping at straws. Something he said in 2004 about Ludacris makes him a murderer? LOL!

[edbermac]

234. No I didn't say it made Bill-O a murderer. Try reading my post this time.

Bill has been saying for years that gangster rap incites violence, so Ludacris is 'complicit' in that violence. If Bill's rants against Tiller incited his death, by his own logic that makes him 'complicit'.

:popcorn:

[Quezacoatl]

42. The courts and the justice system will prove the OP correct.

What O'Reilly said is dispicable. I will never understand why any company would advertise on his show but it's not criminal.

[yellowcanine]

47. Hmm. Maybe from a legal standpoint you are correct. How about a moral standpoint?

If I complain loudly enough that someone is a baby killer and that encourages someone else to go and shoot the person, I may be legally ok but morally I think not.

[L. Coyote]

49. You are wrong. You are characterizing others falsely.

Point to where KO or anyone on DU said "Complicit in Tiller’s Murder" as you claim?

You are twisting this around, using O'Pie-lly-esque logic.

[Rebubula]

92. Well...

...several in this thread alone have said he is complicit.

Just saying....

[L. Coyote]

51. Welcome to DU and welcome to IGNORE.

[PeteytehMawnstar]

103. HAHA

OMG you made me laugh out loud. It's a regular witch hunt around here over this issue.

That guy pwned you BTW

[chrisa]

122. Oh my god. If this pisses you off...

Where did the OP do anything wrong? I love when people fly off the wall when somebody makes a post different from the norm.

[hugo_from_TN]

258. He violated rules of the echo chamber.

[MineralMan]

55. Clearly, O'Really isn't going to face a trial over this...

I don't think many people think that will happen. However, morally, he is complicit in encouraging hatred towards George Tilly and other people who perform abortions. Abortions are perfectly legal medical treatments.

Should he face a trial? Nope. There's no criminal act in his fomenting of hatred. A civil trial? That would not succeed either, and will not be undertaken. Some material assistance to the assassin would be needed, and I doubt that O'Really ever met the man. If he had, he'd have been frightened to death by him, as he is by just about everyone.

Still, O'Really is morally culpable for encouraging hatred in people. One of those people killed a doctor who performed legal medical procedures. O'Really lied. He always lies. He is reprehensible, but not legally liable.

But, hey, thanks for posting your defense of the indefensible.

[paulsby]

56. thank you

again for a rational post.

fwiw, many people here clearly do think he SHOULD be prosecuted . which is absurd.

as for the moral argument, that's subjective and a debate i think is healthy.

as opposed to the stupid argument made by those who don't understand the 1st amendment.

the legality of what oreilly did is not (and should not) be in question

but the moral issue IS a good discussion.

[MineralMan]

66. For his immorality, O'Really should be shunned by

every decend human being. I've been shunning him for years. He is a noxious nuisance, and should have the contempt of everyone who believes that human beings are of value.

The place to try Bill O'Really is in the court of public opinion. He should be exposed for the lying sack of shit that he is, often and loudly. The things he has said are in the public domain, really. You can find examples of his moral bankruptcy on YouTube. If you have a blog, you should be pointing them out, using links to his actual words. If you meet with people, you should point out his moral failings to them, giving them examples they can see for themselves.

A campaign to expose this asshole is within all of our powers. We should make use of the court of public opinion to shame him out of his public position.

[chrisa]

124. delete. Misread.

[dem mba]

210. what was that last line for?

your entire post basically agreed with what I was saying.

it's up to the karma police now...

[hfojvt]

243. so encouraging hatred is indefensible?

Because there are lots of people on DU, on this thread alone, who are encouraging hatred of Billo. And often hatred of Republicans, Christians, fundamentalists, FReepers, etc., etc., etc. is encouraged and applauded. Not so long ago there was a thread asking if a Republican legislator deserved sympathy because she claimed she had received death threats. She got no sympathy from the DUers who posted on that thread (except me) and some chimed in to call her an "oxygen thief". That seems like a call to murder to me, since clearly she is stealing oxygen by breathing. I found it really ironic that most on the thread hated her for 'stirring up hatred'.

On the other hand, I don't think hatred is totally bad. I sometimes quote Patrick Pearse (a quote I first saw on DU) "This is a place of peace, sacred to the dead, where men should speak with all charity and with all restraint but I hold it a Christian thing, as O’Donovan Rossa held it, to hate evil, to hate untruth, to hate oppression; and, hating them, to strive to overthrow them." Except that it seems to me that the hatred goes over the top - the other side is painted as totally evil, as subhuman scum. I am not sure what happens then if people switch sides like Arianna Huffington or David Brock. It's a difference perhaps, between hating what they do, and hating who they are.

[Deep13]

57. What does one do to Hitler or baby-killers?

Even if a RW media asshole or a preahcer don't actually say "go out and kill him" can can still be contributing factors in pushing the deluded murderer into action. And they knew they were creating a danger of violence with their malicious lies.

[Blue Meany]

58. Not O'Reilly but there are those in the anti-abortion movement

who deliberately skate on the line between legality and illegality: they argue that killing abortion doctors is justifiable homocide; they honor as heroes those who attack abotion doctors and clinics; and they celebrate the impact of anti-abortion violence on the the availability of abortions. However, most are careful not to actually advocate violence--that would be illegal. But there isn't really any question that they are trying to inspire others to engage in terrorism in order to end abortion.

[annabanana]

60. This has to be "King of the hit & run threads". . . . . .n/t

[dem mba]

276. why do you say that?

i've responded to a ton of the posts. or are you talking about other posters?

[Winterblues]

63. Bin Laden didn't hijack any airplanes either..

All he did was incite and incite and incite and incite..What did O'Really do again, oh yah incite and incite and incite..

[chrisa]

132. Once again...

O'Reilly never said to kill Tiller.

[dem mba]

219. I think he did a little more than just "incite"

like finance, plan operations, arm, train and release videos of himself claiming responsibility for attacks and threatening future attacks against Americans.

[K Gardner]

68. Bill, is that you?

[JackRiddler]

69. One can be complicit, not legally liable, and still have a right to free speech, all at once.

As for O'Reilly's right to free speech, he should get to exercise it on a street corner soapbox.

[moondust]

74. Some things you don't seem to understand:

(Using mass media to) "create a climate of _______________________."

"The power of suggestion."

"Goebbels."

"Orwell."

Utter the word "shit" on TV? Quarter million dollar fine. Apparently it DOES matter what is said in the mass media.

[ecstatic]

81. If anyone from BushCo is assassinated, it won't be by a left wing loon

Left wingers aren't into murder. Trust me, it would be a right winger or libertarian or something.

Oh,and thanks for your concern for Bill O. :eyes:

[paulsby]

89. plenty of left wingers commit murder

political or otherwise.

but in the case of assassination of doctors that perform abortion, it is correct that it is exclusively right wing.

[bullwinkle428]

93. You could sure quiet a lot of us here, if you were to post

a long list of left-wing murderers (complete with links, of course).

Waiting with bated breath!

[ecstatic]

97. Yep. Tried to google it myself

Got nothing. Sure, we might riot or something but mass murder, etc.? Not in this country, as far as I can tell.

[paulsby]

98. you are changing the argument. but here's an example

you are saying "mass murder". i said plenty of leftwingers commit MURDER. not MASS MURDER

now, there ARE leftwingers who have committed mass murder. jim jones comes to mind, but that wasn't the question. it was that left wingers can and DO commit murder.

from infoplease.com

Almost three decades ago an unusual series of events led to the deaths of more than 900 people in the middle of a South American jungle. Though dubbed a "massacre," what transpired at Jonestown on November 18, 1978, was to some extent done willingly, making the mass suicide all the more disturbing.

The Jonestown cult (officially named the "People's Temple") was founded in 1955 by Indianapolis preacher James Warren Jones. Jones, who had no formal theological training, based his liberal ministry on a combination of religious and socialist philosophies.

A New, Isolated Community
After relocating to California in 1965, the church continued to grow in membership and began advocating their left-wing political ideals more actively. With an I.R.S. investigation and a great deal of negative press mounting against the radical church, Jones urged his congregation to join him in a new, isolated community where they could escape American capitalism—and criticism—and practice a more communal way of life.

In 1977, Jones and many of his followers relocated to Jonestown, located on a tract of land the People's Temple had purchased and begun to develop in Guyana three years earlier.

Relatives of cult members soon grew concerned and requested that the U.S. government rescue what they believed to be brainwashed victims living in concentration camp-like conditions under Jones's power.

The Visit of Congressman Ryan
In November 1978, California Congressman Leo Ryan arrived in Guyana to survey Jonestown and interview its inhabitants. After reportedly having his life threatened by a Temple member during the first day of his visit, Ryan decided to cut his trip short and return to the U.S. with some Jonestown residents who wished to leave. As they boarded their plane, a group of Jones's guards opened fire on them, killing Ryan and four others.

Some members of Ryan's party escaped, however. Upon learning this, Jones told his followers that Ryan's murder would make it impossible for their commune to continue functioning. Rather than return to the United States, the People's Temple would preserve their church by making the ultimate sacrifice: their own lives. Jones's 912 followers were given a deadly concoction of a purple drink mixed with cyanide, sedatives, and tranquilizers. Jones apparently shot himself in the head.

[AllieB]

256. Where's that list?

:freak:

We're still waiting.

[Morrisons Ghost]

Just off the top of my head

John Wayne Gacy, Aileen Wournos,Jim Jones,Charles Manson,Jeffrey Dahmer,Wayne Williams{I am pretty sure}Some could make the argument for Che Guevara,Castro,Stalin,PolPot,Chavez...... killers come in all political stripes!

[hugo_from_TN]

259. Chairman Mao

[geek_sabre]

83. The shooter is 100% to blame for Tiller's death

His clinic was bombed over 20 years ago. He was shot & wounded over a decade ago, 13 years before O'Reilly mentioned him, and his death was inevitable after that. He was "Tiller the Baby Killer" in that region long before O'Reilly was on the air.

He'd be dead whether or not O'Reilly mentioned him.

[jgraz]

107. Supporters of the right wing Christian terror movement would like us to think that

However, the evidence points to an organized network of Christian extremists dedicated to terrorizing women and their healthcare providers. Broadcasters who use hate speech to incite terror attacks should be held accountable.

[dem mba]

209. those are good points I neglected to mention

Tiller had been a target for a long time.

[LAGC]

88. It would be interesting to know...

...what Scott Roeder himself says his motivators were. Whether any particular personalities "inspired" him to do his despicable deed. Indeed, that might be a viable defense for him: "I heard voices... O'Reilly and them kept telling me to do it." Then he gets off with 20 years instead of a Life sentence due to the insanity defense...

[fascisthunter]

94. lol.... sure he isn't

4 words: hate radio, Rwanda, genocide

[chrisa]

129. LOL

Now people are comparing O'Reilly to the genocide in Rwanda? This is hillarious.

[Raineyb]

235. I believe comment was meant to illustrate the power of hate radio in inciting violence.

But why let a cogent point get in the way of your ignorant cackling?

[AllieB]

255. You need to read some history.

Early on, Goebbels never called for extermination of the Jews or other enemies of the Reich. There was subtle, coded language, much like the RW here uses today, to dehumanize perceived enemies, making it easier to commit violence against or kill them. Hate radio in Rwanda was directly implicated in the genocide of 800,000 people:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3257748.stm

Serb-controlled TV in Yugoslavia served to dehumanize the Muslim population and instigate violence. They never called for outright extermination either. Tell that to the Bosnian Muslims.

Human nature is the same regardless of country. With freedom comes responsibility.

[DonCoquixote]

95. Let's make one thing clear

Should there be a law against saying offensive things, no! If you cannot say offensive things, then all anyone has to do to shut down your speech is say they are offended, a very murky, subjective term.

Should Bill O be able to stay a millionaire and make lots of cash, no, that is something where we can put pressure. Fox has no power if they have no money..

[JVS]

100. So comparing someone with Hitler and calling them a baby killer isn't libel or slander?

What is then?

[dem mba]

277. DU and Daily Kos compaed Bush to Hitler

on a semi-hourly basis for 8 years. Do you really think we should all go to jail or get fined by the government? Well, Bush is a public figure and Tiller was not, so I can see that maybe it's not the same.

Ahem.

"I would like to announce that the DUer known as JVS is in many ways, quite like Hitler."

There. Now try and sue me for libel and see how far you get.

[Arkana]

104. You're being disingenuous at least, and stupid at worst.

O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, and their kind have subtly AND not-so-subtly encouraged violence against those who do not agree with them for years. Combine that with the fact that their listeners have the intelligence of peat moss, and you get a very dangerous scenario.

[GeorgeGist]

106. Obviously you're not sorry ...

but you still have the right to lie anyway.

[gort]

109. Bill O'Reilly and his ilk only proves one thing:

Erections have consequences.

[PeteytehMawnstar]

110. Good Post

Maybe the day will come when people will wake up and realize that O'reilly is full of shit, but the shouts of rage saying he shares blame for Tiller's murder is opportunistic at best. Education and books are the cure for him, not anti terror law, because if they are used against him you can bet your panties they will be used against you, and haven't we had enough of this garbage already. Both sides are full of a lot of shit when it comes to talking about the abortion issue. It won't get better until people decide to act like grownups and discuss the matter like rational adults instead of resorting to the usually fear/silencing tactics.

[jpak]

111. What a stupid post

:rofl:

[chrisa]

127. What a stupid response.

Hit and run smilies. No stating why the OP was stupid or anything.

[jpak]

143. Fuck O'Reilly, FAUX and Operation Rescue - they are all responsible

and FUCK O'Reilly apologists

wid a loofa

:rofl:

[MineralMan]

151. And, for your part, no content at all regarding the issue.

How about you tell us how you feel about O'Really. You're posting nothing but attacks against other posters, but not offering any real opinion.

I'm sure you can do better than that, and I'll be watching to see if you do.

[chrisa]

177. As opposed to what?

Praising them when the idea that Bill O'Reilly is responsible for a terrorist murdering an abortion doctor is completely off-the-wall ridiculous? I'm pretty sure I've made my opinion clear. Some posters here are absolutely grasping for straws.

[Waiting For Everyman]

113. I'd compare O'Reilly to Charles Manson - who didn't actually "do the deed"

but certainly planted the idea and developed it to action. I see no difference at all. Except perhaps proximity. O'Reilly wasn't in the same room with his footsoldiers... but his voice WAS.

He's most definitely complicit. That's a very accurate word for it.

[armyowalgreens]

126. Charles Manson shot someone...

Please, let's refrain from making stupid comparisons.

He shot a person and literally lead a group of people who went and murdered others. He specifically explained that people needed to die.

O'reilly did no such thing.

What he did was wrong, but it in no way compares to Manson.

[Waiting For Everyman]

133. By the same token, let's refrain from ad hominems like "stupid", then, shall we?

Quote: "He specifically explained that people needed to die."

O'Reilley did exactly that, as a matter of fact. You have not convinced me to change my mind (needless to say).

[armyowalgreens]

135. Show me where O'reilly said people need to die...

And that wasn't an ad hominem. I provided plenty of evidence to suggest that your comparison was stupid.


Manson shot someone. O'Reilly didn't.
Manson told people to go kill people. O'Reilly didn't.

[Waiting For Everyman]

140. "Plenty of evidence"??? Sure.

I was using the term "ad hominem" colloquially, not legalisticaly - but I fully expected exactly that response. (Hmm, I must be psychic.) You'll need to get a bigger microscope to find the next round of even smaller nits to pick.

Re-read the point about proximity, perhaps. And everything O'Reilley said about this doctor was the rationale to go attack him. Just because those specific words ("go kill him") were not spoken as a distinct phrase does not mean the call to action was not communicated. Repeatedly, until done. O'Reilley used the mass media to incite a murder. Not that he was the only one doing it, of course.

Personally, I think the Manson comparison is more accurate than the one to Hitler. But Manson's a sufficient second-hand killer to make the point.

[armyowalgreens]

144. I'll take that as a no.

You have no evidence that O'reilly called for Tiller to be killed.




I compare Bush and Cheney to murderous terrorists all the time. That doesn't mean I want them killed.

O'reilly has a moral obligation to tweak his message to his audience so that they don't start running around killing people. For the most part, he does a good job. But with tiller, he said many slanderous things.


Is he criminally responsible? No. Could he be taken to civil court? I think it's a possibility.

But that doesn't mean he was directly responsible for Tillers death. At worst, he contributed a very small part to the bad mentality towards Tiller.

When I come to these situations where I'm on the fence over someones speech. I always like to play it safe and say it's legal. I don't want to become reactionary and run around saying that people shouldn't have the freedom to say what they want. Even if what they say is horrible.

Code Pink has continuously stated that members of the armed forces are murderers. Yet I don't hear you complaining about that.


The bottom line is this. O'Reilly never called for Tiller to be killed. You can "suggest" whatever you want about O'Reilly's words, but he never said that someone needed to kill or even physically attack Tiller. Criminally, O'Reilly is not responsible for Tillers death. Period. And at best there is a weak potential for a civil case. At most they could sue for slanderous speech.

[Waiting For Everyman]

146. By all means... take that "no" (which I didn't say, you did), and stack it alongside

your "plenty of evidence". I'm done wasting my time for today anyway.

[chrisa]

128. Wow. No...

They're not even close. When did O'Reilly even tell anybody to kill Tiller?

[Waiting For Everyman]

134. See reply to #126 above - ditto.

In answer to your specific question, read the thread (or others on this same subject) - it has been answered multiple times over.

[tiny elvis]

249. What is the name of the crime?

Which quotes of O'Reilly's violate a law?

[chrisa]

114. Keith Olbermann doesn't know what he's talking about

Half of the time.

Where did O'Reilly ever say, "Go out and kill Tiller!"

Some of these people who blame O'Reilly (as much as I think he's a blowhard) are just as hollow as he is.

[MineralMan]

152. Nobody has said that O'Really ever said that.

What he did was to villify George Tiller at every opportunity. What do you fail to understand about the impact of such things on the mentally unstable? You're supporting O'Reilly? Why? I'd really like to know what YOUR opinion is. You seem overly cautious about providing it. Please write a paragraph or two about the murder, the assassin, and those who fed his paranoia and anger. We'll all be waiting to read it, since you're so sure that O'Reilly had nothing to do with influencing Roeder. Do tell...

[dem mba]

164. and DU has villified Bushco at every turn

if they were ever to be assassinated then your logic would condemn us all. do you really not see that?

[chrisa]

183. No thanks

I've already said I don't like O'Reilly. I don't need to defend myself.

And what does it matter if Roeder was influenced by O'Reilly? That's not O'Reilly's fault.

[bertman]

119. As much as I hate O'Reilly, I agree with the OP.

It's like that you have to give up your freedom to have security deal. Either you have free speech or you don't.

[armyowalgreens]

123. While I don't think O'reilly is responsible for Tillers murder, he definitely helped it along.

Do I think that O'reilly is directly responsible for the murder? I don't think that is possible to prove one way or another.

However, his words could have incited someone to kill Tiller and based on that alone, I'd say that he is indirectly a part of the reason why Tiller is dead.

Do I think he should he criminally prosecuted? No. But he could be taken to civil court and wrung dry of all his money because he slandered Mr. Tiller and said things that framed him as a murderer that deserved to die.

[dem mba]

166. "could have incited"

those words don't cut it in the legal world, esp. not regarding freedom of speech, and that's the point I'm trying to make.

[armyowalgreens]

170. I'm on your side.

I'm saying that there is a clear difference between morality and legality.

Morally I'd say that what O'Reilly was deplorable and may have contributed on a very small scale to Tillers death. But that can't be proven and we should not start throwing out free speech because of this knee-jerk reaction by the left.

I could picture a defamation lawsuit by the Tiller family against O'Reilly. But they can't prove that O'Reilly had anything to do with Tillers murder. And that's the bottom line. What O'Reilly did was perfectly legal and should remain legal.

[Cincinnati Kid]

125. Agreed with the post

Thank you for a well reasoned post.

[democracy1st]

130. How did this guy build up such a hatred for the Dr,did he just do research ?

[Marr]

136. If someone had been killed in the hysteria Orson Welles stirred up with his War of the Worlds

broadcast, wouldn't you think he was responsible, on some level? Wouldn't the FCC be justified in moderating his future use of public airwaves?

[dem mba]

169. no

if you think aliens have just invaded the earth you are a moron.

but seriously, it's still a fine line. a prank that goes wrong or is taken the wrong way is a different scenario than what happened with O'Reilly. I think it's too apples and oranges to really compare the two events.

[Marr]

181. Really?

You wouldn't think Welles had contributed to the killing in any way? You're entitled to your opinion, of course-- but I suspect you're in the minority there.

I don't think it's apples and oranges at all, or at least-- if it is, then it's a comparison that's overly kind to O'Reilley. If a person with a microphone like Bill O'Reilley uses it to demonize a *private citizen*, going so far as to say he's murdering babies everyday and we as a nation are without morality if we "allow" him to continue, and that private citizen is later murdered by someone for that very reason... I don't think it's unreasonable to think the person with the microphone had something to do with it.

It doesn't necessarily follow that the law needs to deal with it, but do think the fact should be pointed out. It should be,at the very least, taboo to abuse the public airwaves in the way that Bill O'Reilley and others like him regularly do.

[MisterK]

137. yes he is

Youre wrong.
Hes an incitor of violence. Thats guilt in my eyes

[NashVegas]

139. And Financial Analysts Hyping ARMS For Investment Housing Weren't Complicit In the Housing Bubble

or the mortgage meltdown.

Apologist.

[dem mba]

208. no they shouldn't

it's called "buyer beware". Adjustable rate loans of any kind should be a red flag to anyone seeking capital. now, if you get lied to your face and ripped off that's one thing, but enthusiastic salesmen are not to blame for this recession. I suppose the dollar signs the real estate investor had in their eyes weren't a factor in them hastily signing those papers, eh? the greed went both ways (not in every case of course).

"liar's loans" were a probably a bigger cause (one of many) but those were internal policy and procedures of the lending firms and banks.

[NashVegas]

262. That's Your Perspective

Are you a member of the media?

[Bjorn Against]

141. It is true that even O'Reilly's hate speech is protected by the first amendment.

I agree fully that those calling for O'Reilly's prosecution are dead wrong, the first amendment even protects hate speech and that is a good thing because once we give the government the authority to crack down on one type of speech they will find a way to clamp down on more speech.

While O'Reilly can not be prosecuted criminally however, WE have the power to make his life a living hell. We need to get out and protest him, and we need to make sure he can't go anywhere without having to hang his head in shame. Bill O'Reilly has freedom of speech, but we have freedom of speech too and we all need to use our speech to expose him.

[baldguy]

145. .

[Orsino]

147. Yep. Denial of complicity.

OP Fail.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906010038
http://mediamatters.org/research/200906020046

[AngryOldDem]

168. That pretty much sums it up.

People like O'Reilly and their inflammatory rhetoric most definitely set the stage for violence. They have just enough plausible deniability to distance themselves from the acts that stem from their words; I hope that distance begins to close.

[dem mba]

217. ha

yea I get it. but the lady in the cartoon still did nothing illegal and I would go to bat for her to be able to say those things as often as she wants. I don't believe that by and large human beings are mindless automatons shuffling about until a powerful and persuasive voice tells them to do this, do that, go there, kill that. I certainly think some people are sheep-like and more susceptible to suggestion, but murdering somebody is a pretty far leap. You really got to be batshit insane to do that. At the guy's church. Sober.

[baldguy]

225. We're not dealing with people.

We're dealing with a cultish mob - a seething, dangerous, bloodthirsty animal which recognizes no law or reason.

And they've succeeded in terrorizing this nation.

[dem mba]

229. did you ever read Audacity of Hope?

Obama realized that you can't make progress on this issue by dehumanizing the opposition the way you are.

Besides, breaking down sides of a complex issue into black and white with no shades of gray in between is something Bush would do. and you don't want to be like Bush, right?

[baldguy]

236. They dehumanize themselves; they don't need my help.

Obama has to convey his idealism. That's his job - he has to deal with & sometimes illicit support from the same people in Washington who support these fanatic terrorists. Idealism is fine for the rest of us too - until we start being murdered for our beliefs. That's black & white.

The only Bushian thing about this is you trying to deflect responsibility away from the very people who are responsible.

[Marr]

228. Would you.

Yes, she has a *right* to say those things. That does not mean that it *is* right to say those things. People who ramp up rhetoric like that ought to be marginalized every bit as much as a violence-preaching Imam would be in most of this country. They aren't. They're largely accepted as part of mainstream dialogue out of a respect for free speech.

When a clinic is bombed or a doctor murdered, they should have that act pinned to their chest. Let them go ahead and continue saying whatever they like, of course-- but let's at least admit the rhetoric leads somewhere.

[DearAbby]

154. You have free speech

to say those words...you also have to take responsibility for those words. You don't get to sling shit without it smacking back onto you. At some point it really isn't free speech, you have to own up to it.

[dem mba]

176. in a just world perhaps

but we don't live in a just world. we live in the real world. and sometimes people say horrible things with no negative consequences. as far as I can tell, O'Reilly did nothing illegal.

it's up to karma to punish him now...

[openletters]

160. Do You Want Your Name Broadcast on Fox, or by O'Reilly in this fashion?

I don't want him mentioning me:

Discusses not participating in lynching of an American citizen, unless she said something wrong. (Check out who the very successful and classy lady is, that he is talking about.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1sPlGfpAiE

Bill O'Reilly's Call To Violence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmDua-nfWCE

Threatens to kill gays that come into his church: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91H1h9GmjN8


On the Tiller matter: The news people use 'alledgedly' all the time until someone is actually convicted of a crime. Tiller was never a convicted murderer. He also probably was not part of the Nazi party. I think that a good lawyer would find all kinds of things that O'Reilly said about Tiller that could bring the family a wrongful death lawsuit. I have seen those kinds of lawsuits end in a ruling that a person was a percentage responsible for the death.

These lawyers are smart, they can find something. O'Reilly (and others) said horrible things about Dr. Tiller and they ran like rats when their preaching came to reality. The amount of scrubbing of sites against Dr. Tiller that immediately happened shows how responsible these people think they may be.

Fox News and O'Reilly are on 'all negative-all the time'. It is a slow brainwashing and their conversation is frequently violent. Their viewers, readers and listeners are also violent. Just read their comments.

[Quantess]

244. Awesome first post!

Welcome to DU!
:hi:

[Junkdrawer]

163. CONGRATULATIONS....

:party::party::party::party::party::party::party::party::party::party:

This thread wins the prestigious "Most RW Cliches in a Single Thread" award.

Free Republic, eat your heart out.

:party::party::party::party::party::party::party::party::party::party:

[HughMoran]

171. You oughta know

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

167. BillO is a lying shit stain who is guilty

Nobody who defends this anus puss will make friends here.

[dem mba]

172. I'm defending the First Amendment not Bill O'Reilly

and it makes me sad that so few DUers recognize that.

I thought we were supposed to be the smart ones.

[HughMoran]

175. Who cares - people are just letting off steam

Being a kill-joy "that's not precisely how the law reads" person won't endear you to many :freak:

[dem mba]

213. I could give a fuck less about who is endeared to me, lol

I'm not the type to apologize when I'm right. But yes, I understand that people are venting. A terrible tragedy just happened. O'Reilly's a titanic ass buffoon who said horrible things about the victime. I get it...

[HughMoran]

218. Heck, he may have even inflamed his millions of watchers enough to promote his murder

Hey, but free speech is cool, no matter how many people are negatively influenced by his outrageous hateful rhetoric.

[dem mba]

227. free speech IS cool

because it lets DU say Bush is a murderer and not have its moderators, administrators, or posters hauled off by the Secret Service for inciting violence against the POTUS. Free speech is cool because it works for people we disagree with as well as it works for us.

But hey, you're smart. You don't need me to explain this to you.

You probably don't even need to Search DU for "bush blood hands", "bush murderer", or "bush killed" to see all the posts that link all the innocent lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina to Bush. You probably don't need me to tell you that every thing O'Reilly said about Tiller, DU has said about Bush. You probably don't need me to tell you that if O'Reilly is guilty of inciting violence against Tiller, then surely we are guilty of inciting violence against Bush - even if he hasn't been made a victim like Tiller was.

My OP might seem like I'm defending O'Reilly, but as you can surely see by now, I'm defending DU as well. Even you HughMoran. It's cool baby. I got your back.

[HughMoran]

230. "every thing O'Reilly said about Tiller, DU has said about Bush"

Hmmm, I don't disagree with your logic, just your motives.

I guess someone had to do it.

[dem mba]

233. well I guess go by the message and not the messenger

see, that's why I don't pickup women online anymore. Turns out they're not actually all women. Some lessons you learn the hard way, but I digress...

[noiretextatique]

271. the logic is flawed

DU isn't broadcast to millions of viewers daily...o'reilly and other hatemongers are. also, there are different points of view allowed here, something that i don't think happens often at faux. apples and oranges.
a more apt comparison would be the left-wing equivalent of o'reilly on television, but of course, there isn't one.

[chrisa]

186. Okay.

Fine. I don't make any friends here. I won't lose sleep over it.

Your post, on the other hand, is ridiculous. What is he guilty of? This ought to be good.

[HughMoran]

188. He's guilty of being as ass hole

...of course.

And people who defend ass holes just to make a point are boring.

[chrisa]

189. lol

You're right. We should all be calling O'Reilly a murderer just because we disagree with him. Knee jerk reactions are the way to go.

[HughMoran]

191. O'Liely is a anal cyst on our society

I'm with Olbermann - why am I even wasting my breath on such a hate-filled buffoon?

[Kaleva]

173. A well written and thought provoking post

Some of the counter responses are very good also but many are what one would expect from a grade school bully.

[Forkboy]

203. I think it illustrates how easily anger makes us willing to give up rights for a sense of justice.

It worked to a far larger degree after 9/11, but the theory holds, as we see.

And I think that illustrates how this is a terrorist attack. It has clearly sent a message, and a damn scary one. So I admit I can understand the reaction to want to get everyone who contributed to this, and I most certainly think people like O'Reilly have fostered an atmosphere of hate in this instance, and many more. But I wish we could see that our best weapon against hate speech is our own free speech.

I would love to see this bastard off the air (I've hated him since he did local news here in the Boston area long before Fox), but I want to do so by convincing others just how awful he is by using my own speech and my own rights, not by taking his away. He clearly walks a very fine line (and he knows it), and in an ideal world people wouldn't want to hear this stuff, people wouldn't want to hire men like this, and people wouldn't watch Fox fucking News. This is where morals come in (and we all know Fox and O'Reilly have none), but laws against morals sounds like a sketchy thing to me.

If we take away O'Reilly's rights (and to be fair, I think most want to see him punished in some way that doesn't do this), and we start chipping away at the 1st Admendment, the day may come when others can decide what we can say, and what ideas we can discuss. Imagine another Bush without the right to speak out? Imagine not being able to speak out about the Iraq war, abortion and things like the global gag order, torture, Afghanistan, Gitmo, impeachment, or war crimes. We just had one looney in the White House, and odds are we'll get another one some day. It's too big a chance.

Without free speech every other right falls apart.

[Quantess]

178. I respectfully disagree.

O'Reilly needs to own up to his inflammatory words, and although he of course did not directly cause Tiller's murder, he is responsible for his part in rabble rousing and inspiring unhinged extremists to engage in criminal acts.

However, I don't think your opinion is necessarily freeperish. A lot of moderates will agree with you. Welcome to DU.

[TexasObserver]

182. Strongly disagree.

[Raine1967]

184. OK.

Good Thank you for you opinions-- that said, You failed Why ?

Here is Why. you said:

"We need to stand on the right side of this issue not to protect O’Reilly, but to protect our ability to say and do what we feel and not have it throw back at us in a court of law because some nut took it too far or in the wrong way. "


What the hell are you saying? What is the right side of the issue? and what are you protecting?

[dem mba]

211. I have succeeded in creating a lively discussion

which I am a bit fascinated by.

I am saying the right side of the issue is the ability to speak out forcefully against those we disagree with. For DU, we want to speak out against Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Addington, Phelps, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, the hypocrites, the posers, the greedy and the reckless. For the O'Reilly's they want to speak out against Tiller and their foes, real and imagined. It is CRUCIAL that we both keep our rights to say whatever we want (within reasonable limits) about whoever we want. Be they a doctor in Kansas, or a former POTUS.

Look at what O'Reilly said about Tiller. Now look at what DU has said about Bush. Google "Bush murderer" on DU and the Web. Do you see what I'm getting at? Freedom of speech is like a giant umbrella and it CANNOT lean to the left or to the right. It must cover us all equally.

[Quantess]

242. Oh, stop your silly patronizing.

And please, stop with your finger wagging. "Now look at what DU has said about Bush."

Oh for shame, for shame. Are you aware that DU moderators deleted posts, amd sometimes banned people, for posting threats about our prezdument Bush?

Yes, that's right. Anyone posting a perceived threat, or in any way wishing harm, to those evil assholes who formerly held office (Bush or Cheney, to be precise) got their post deleted as soon as the moderators were able to.

Anything you think "the right side of the issue" is, I would like to be to the left of.

[AllieB]

196. This thread is like troll flypaper.

:popcorn:

It sure is fun to watch them out themselves.

[Forkboy]

220. I agree with the OP's point, and I've been here since 2001.

If defending the 1st Admendment is now trolling on DU I don't even know what to say.

[Quantess]

246. No, it's not about the 1st Amendment. Not at all, not to me, anyway.

It is stating that Bill O'Reilly was partly to blame for fomenting violence because of his inflammatory words, saying the baby killer must be stopped. I doubt any DUer seriously thinks O'Reilly could ever have his first amendment rights taken away.

[HughMoran]

221. Nevermind

.

[BlooInBloo]

224. Beat me to it.

[Marr]

226. Pretty much.

[defendandprotect]

197. Olbermann is right as many others are on this . . . it is hate speech and

Randall Terry's hate speech, O'Reilly's hate speech, Limbaugh's hate speech

are incitement to murder.

What was it Randall used to say all the time . . .

"If you think it's murder, act like it!" . . . ?

And without doubt the "pro-life" leaders were responsible for the deaths of other

clinic workers and other doctors ---

and I'm not at all sure that this is the end of it . . . I think it may only be the

beginning of it!

[MadMaddie]

222. I disagree

What O'Reilly and Operation Rescue did was to figuratively yell "Fire" in a movie theatre. Over, Over month after month....they have some liability in Dr. Tillers death.


There is Free Speech and there is inciting violence.....they can hide behind their stations and Free Speech for only so long.....Families need to start suing this people and groups and make them pay $$$. That's the only thing they understand.

Finally, until these right wing groups like Operation Rescue are identified officially as Terrorist groups and treated as such they will continue to feel emboldened and continue to be a threat to the general public!

[tsuki]

245. KO did not say to boycott advertisers, he said to complain to companies

that show FAUX news in the waiting room, bar, lounge or walk out. I have been doing that for three years. It is effective, especially if you tied your objections to the News Corp-Saudi connection.

[AllieB]

252. The Media played an important role in Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia

Early on, Goebbels never called for extermination of the Jews or other enemies of the Reich. There was subtle, coded language, much like the RW here uses today, to dehumanize perceived enemies, making it easier to kill them. Hate radio in Rwanda was directly implicated in the genocide of 800,000 people:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3257748.stm

Serb-controlled TV in Yugoslavia served to dehumanize the Muslim population and instigate violence.

So, you may say that the US is different, but human nature is the same. There has to be responsibility along with freedom of speech.

[dem mba]

278. but we don't have state-controlled TV in this country

unless you count PBS. That's a quite a big difference between your examples and Fox News.

[nomaco-10]

254. Bill O'Reilly had a hand in Dr. Tiller's death...

He may not have purchased the gun and pulled the trigger, but he was complicit. He ratcheted up his audience of brain fried morons, and o'reilly's name was mentioned multiple times on websites that the shooter posted on.

He had a hand in it for sure. To say likewise, makes you ignorant of the facts.

[robertpaulsen]

260. Rather than enumerate your strawmen or elaborate on your flimsy analogies, I shall simply say -

You suck!

And welcome to my ignore list.

[LanternWaste]

261. legally or morally?

Legally or morally? For the two may have completely different answers...

[dem mba]

275. I was thinking legally

but morally, that's a tough one. On its face its very easy to say O'Reilly was morally culpable and I can't truly deny that he is.

However morality and free speech are tricky concepts to jumble together because O'Reilly was stating his opinion. If he truly believe Tiller was a baby killer is he being immoral by saying so? If O'Reilly really equates abortion to killing babies wouldn't he be immoral by NOT fighting against pro-choice groups? I kind of think it's too easy to just say O'Reilly is morally culpable for this tragedy.

Is it even proven that Roeder watched O'Reilly? I think everyone just assumes he did. All I could find about this link was blog chatter, which has little creedence in my mind. What if he listened to other shows more often?

[Truth2Tell]

263. Thank you for the post. K&R

How quickly we become what we profess to hate.

On this issue the hypocrisy and disdain for fundamental principles of democracy are mind-boggling around here.

This is why civil liberties are on life support in America. Even many on the left have zero clue what they are about.

[Moral Compass]

265. Oh, BS

Like hell, Roeder stood alone! He had O'Reilly, Operation Rescue, and the FBI standing there with their thumbs up their butts along with him (please watch the Maddow clip on the this topic. It is very interesting how the FBI failed to act after repeated violations of federal law by Scott Roeder).

O'Reilly sells hate. He beat this drum for a long time. 28 times in fact. If I went around my neighborhood and posted fliers on everyone's door telling them that there was a convicted child murderer at a specific address on my block and someone shot that person would I be complicit?

I would think so. Even if I had not actually suggested that anything be done.

I don't think that you can stretch the law far enough to indict O'Reilly. But his his moral culpability is as real as Randall Terry's.

If you are on the national stage and you defame someone with incendiary rhetoric over and over again--what is likely to happen? Some nut case is going to do something.

Moral complicity--absolutely. Legal culpability, unfortunately not. Civil culpability--a case could be made. If I was Dr. Tiller's widow I'd be conferring with my legal advisors.

[dem mba]

274. so you oppose the law where convicted pedophiles

go around their new neighborhoods informing their neighbors about what they did and where they live? because surely that might cause a worried parent to take violent action against this potential public menace, right?

"If you are on the national stage and you defame someone with incendiary rhetoric over and over again--what is likely to happen? Some nut case is going to do something."

be very, very careful about this line of thought. DU (various members) and other blogs and pundits have surely defamed Bush and friends incessantly for years. Would we be to blame if some nut shot one of those guys? By your logic we would.

[Moral Compass]

279. Missing the Point

You've managed to completely miss the point. Congratulations,

[omega minimo]

266. more bullshit from you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5767293