Did Fox News help to motivate the killing of three cops?

[mheslep]

...and how many people have all these groups killed? I have no idea, but I'd be willing to bet it is zero or nearly zero.

Not that I am condoning their actions, terrorism is dispicable. But wackos from the right seem to be far more dangerous than wackos from the left.

A quick google gives

A Left-wing activist confessed in court yesterday to Holland's first political assassination in 400 years, claiming that he shot Pim Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.

Volkert van der Graaf, 33, a vegan animal rights campaigner, said he alone was responsible for killing the maverick protest leader last May, days before a general election in which the Fortuyn List party vaulted into second place and shattered Holland's consensus.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...425944/Fortuyn-killed-to-protect-Muslims.html

In general:

...John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990. The FBI has 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights or eco-terrorist activities, and ATF officials say they have opened 58 investigations in the past six years related to violence attributed to the ELF and ALF.

In the same period violence from groups like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-abortion extremists have declined, Lewis said...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html

Who knows the consequences of this ditty:

I got my black shirt on.
I got my black gloves on.
I got my ski mask on.
This garbages been too long.
I got my twelve gauge sawed off.
I got my headlights turned off.
Im bout to bust some shots off.
Im bout to dust some cops off.

Im a cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, **** police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your familys grieving,
(**** em!)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even, ha ha.

I got my brain on hype.
Tonightll be your night.
I got this long-assed knife.
And your neck looks just right.
My adrenalines pumpin.
I got my stereo bumpin.
Im bout to kill me somethin.
A pig stopped me for nuthin!

Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, **** police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your mommas grieving,
(**** her!)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even, yeah!

Die, die, die pig, die!

**** the police!
**** the police!
**** the police!
**** the police!

**** the police!
**** the police!
**** the police!
**** the police!
Yeah!

Cop killer, better you than me.
Im a cop killer, **** police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your familys grieving,
(**** em!)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even, ha ha ha ha, yeah!

**** the police!
**** the police!
**** the police!
**** the police!

**** the police!
**** the police!
**** the police!
**** the police!
Break it down.

**** the police, yeah!
**** the police, for darryl gates.
**** the police, for rodney king.
**** the police, for my dead homies.
**** the police, for your freedom.
**** the police, don't be a kitty.
**** the police, have some mutha****in courage.
**** the police, sing along.

Cop killer!
Cop killer!
Cop killer!
Cop killer!

Cop killer! whaddyou want to be when you grow up?
Cop killer! good choice.
Cop killer! I am a mutha****in
Cop killer!

Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, **** police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your mommas grieving,
(**** her!)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even!

 

[LowlyPion]

... FOX and other Right-wing news media share in a guilt of creating this atmosphere of "Murderous Abortionists Slaying Babies" that could/would be taken by a few (very few) to be something that they feel they MUST act to prevent.

... Its a matter of using the emotions of the public to sway their opinions. In doing so you must accept the inevitability that some emotionally-confused or unstable person may take violent actions based on these emotions.

If you approach it as a political opinion in the news rather than right or wrong, you could cut down on these violent outcries. Unfortunately you would severely depress your ability to sway public opinion.

That of course is the whole problem. In their keen interest in fomenting discord so as to channel that energy to suit their purposes (political agenda), their rhetoric clearly violates the bounds of decent sense. I think the idea that they bear no responsibility is preposterous.

Of course they bear responsibility. It's their amped up rhetoric that has contributed to the poisonous fog of discussion on the subject, not solely their responsibility I must add, maybe not as much even as say the despicable statements by Randall Terry regretting only that Tiller was killed at church, ... but certainly their voice poisons the public colloquy, and lends weight to the idea that it might actually be acceptable to act extra-legally like a modern day John Brown.

Unfortunately for Fox, try as they might, there are 2 sides to the issue of pro choice, and the exercise of that choice is determined already to be a right already adjudicated under Law. Irresponsibly then insisting on mischaracterizing what is determined to be legal, in inflammatory language, and broadcasting that widely, under the banner ads of "Fair and Balanced" I'd say is 16 feet short of a rod, as it invests in the listening audience the unfortunate incitement to action in terms that might be misconstrued to actually thinking illegal action might be acceptable.

 

[LowlyPion]

A quick google gives...

That would seem to be a fundamentally irrelevant issue as to whether Fox News bears any responsibility for their language.

 

[BoomBoom]

A quick google gives

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...425944/Fortuyn-killed-to-protect-Muslims.html

In general:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html

Who knows the consequences of this ditty:

Ok...so perhaps the answer is one then.

...and if you think that little ditty leads to violence against police, then I guess you agree that Fox News influenced some people to violence as well?

 

[mheslep]

That would seem to be a fundamentally irrelevant issue as to whether Fox News bears any responsibility for their language.

See #203.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, no they didn't...that would have probably really got them in trouble for inciting violence.

I am a huge fan of free speech and believe they absolutely have the right to state their opinions. It is also our right to call them out when we think their opinions are leading extremist wackos to do violent acts based on those opinions.

...they can call abortion murder, and I can call them murder instigators.

Not quite the same thing. To call abortion "murder" is a moral judgement. To say that someone instigated murder is a factual claim - a cause and effect claim.

 

[mheslep]

Ok...so perhaps the answer is one then.

...and if you think that little ditty leads to violence against police, then I guess you agree that Fox News influenced some people to violence as well?

There are plenty of other songs speaking loudly about the abuses of police power going back to Alice's Restaurant. Cop Killer says bleep them, kill them. Fox News did not call for killing anybody. But as to irresponsible inflammatory language against groups or individuals on the air waves and in film, I denounce it where ever it is found, because it's vial and there's loose evidence it leads to certain types to violence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are plenty of other songs speaking loudly about the abuses of police power going back to Alice's Restaurant. Cop Killer says bleep them, kill them. Fox News did not call for killing anybody. But as to irresponsible inflammatory language against groups or individuals on the air waves and in film, I denounce it where ever it is found, because it's vial and there's loose evidence it leads to certain types to violence.

I agree that gangster rap is repulsive, and I have no tolerance for it, but recording companies don't label themselves as news agencies. Fox claims to be reporting factual information.

If everyone had known that the 1938 War of the Worlds presentation was just a play, no one would have gotten all worked up. Fox has essentially been reporting that the aliens have landed! [Marxists are out to take over the country, or whatever it is this week]

 

[drankin]

So if Fox is responsible, in some way, why aren't they prosecuted?

Maybe it's because there is no case?

All we have here is opinion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point is to discuss whatever responsibility they may have. It is far too soon to know if civil cases can or will be filed. Consider that it took decades to prosecute the tobacco companies.

 

[russ_watters]

The point is to discuss whatever responsibility they may have. It is far too soon to know if civil cases can or will be filed. Consider that it took decades to prosecute the tobacco companies.

Yes, we can only discuss it and speculate, but this case is a spectacularly obvious one. There will be no prosecution becasue there is no instigation. The standard of the law is clear* and the standard hasn't come anywhere close to being met. This thread is just silly (the comparison to prosecuting tobacco companies is silly!).

*The standard of the law is that the incitement of violence must be direct and imminent. Direct means there can be no dot connecting to come up with the idea that it is inciting violence: they actually have to say 'cops should be killed' or 'abortion doctors should be killed'. And imminent should be clear enough. 'go kill cops now'.

There is clear case law about these boundaries. There is nothing to argue here. Some examples from a quick google:

D. Fighting Words

As noted above, “fighting words” are not protected by the First Amendment, so the government can treat them as disorderly conduct or a breach of the peace. Fighting words are defined as personal insults: (1) directed at a particular person or small group of people, (2) inherently likely to create a violent reaction, and (3) that play no role in the expression of ideas.

It is not enough that the words are very insulting or highly offensive or arouse some people to anger. Also, words are not fighting words if they are spoken to a crowd. Listeners are expected to turn their heads and ignore such speech.

...In another case, demonstrators outside an abortion clinic held signs that identified the clinic as “the killing place.” The court held that the signs were not fighting words. Although very offensive to people entering the clinic, the words were not inherently likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace.

Similarly, courts have held that the display, ridicule, and even burning of effigies of public figures do not amount to fighting words.

However, there are limits. In a recent case a group of protesters formed a semicircle around a woman and for six minutes shouted at her that she was “a whore, harlot, and Jezebel.” A court held that those were fighting words under the circumstances. Notably, the words were directed specifically at the woman.

[emphasis added]

http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/attorney/freespeech.htm

Also quite relevant to this thread, from that same article:

Courts reject a “heckler’s veto” that would silence a speaker because of a hostile audience reaction.

An attempted "heckler's veto" is what we have in this thread.

Need I also point out the irony of liberals attacking the concept of freedom of speech...?

 

[LowlyPion]

See #203.

I trust you are not trying to justify an irrelevant issue with another one. It is of no consequence to me what the other kids are doing. It's Fox's behavior at issue. They are the ones responsible for their behavior.

As Russ has noted, to meet a criminal standard there needs to be a more immediate nexus proffered. And in this regard I don't for a moment think that Fox is any more criminally liable than Frank Schaeffer, whom I quoted earlier, was a decade ago for being an agent for this kind of hateful rhetoric.

On the other hand, there are certain moral issues involved, and words do have consequences. Shouting for a jumper to jump to their death may not be criminally liable, but neither is adding one's voice to a chorus anything to be proud of.

From my point of view, I think it's unfortunate that Fox apparently sees its role so insensitively in the public discussion of issues like this, issues that do have consequences - a man living within the law - compassionate for the needs of women, some of whom were in desperate straits, slaughtered at his church - that they have been so keen to whip up emotions for their political agendas - that they have lost sight of such fundamental values and are incapable of manning up and taking responsibility.

Fair and Balanced? Maybe Inflammatory and Irresponsible hits closer to the mark in how the public should view their content?

 

[Al68]

Need I also point out the irony of liberals attacking the concept of freedom of speech...?

That's only ironic if you accept the mainstream media's working definition of the word "liberal" which is nearly opposite to the dictionary definition. Otherwise you would simply observe that such people are not "liberal".

 

[mheslep]

I trust you are not trying to justify an irrelevant issue with another one. It is of no consequence to me what the other kids are doing.

Yes, I had guessed as much.

It's Fox's behavior at issue.

Alright then, why? Why are Fox and O'reilly's comments on the doctor an issue? People are killed, arsons are committed that are easy to connect to media themes all the time as I showed in my earlier posts, but these other actions are 'of no consequence' to you. So then what is one more shooting to you?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Now what of O'Reilly's frequent screeds on, and in this case most specifically against this Dr. Tiller? Has his characterizations of this man as a mass murderer or as "Tiller the baby killer" represented "Fair and Balanced" exposition? (MSNBC puts O'Reilly's mentioning Dr. Tiller at 28 times.) Has his failure in the afterglow of Dr. Tiller's murder now to accept even the slightest amount of responsibility in labeling and condemning this Dr. Tiller's legal, let me say it again, legal activities, using highly charged inflammatory polemical language ... at what point are you willing to say there is no accountability, that there is no connection between the environment that these nut-balls live in and their actions?


As a side note I'd say the threat assessment DHS Report on Right Wing Extremism was apparently a little more prescient in identifying this very kind of threat, than the Right Wing Ideologues that were decrying its publication may want to admit.

How many more incidents will it take before Fox begins to take responsibility for the polarizing atmosphere that they are apparently feeding?

"Fair and Balanced" is his problem and that of his audience. Not mine. If that is what they think of such content I can't stop them. I also can't stop "El Rushbo" from calling himself infallible or keep his audience from believing it either.

The legality of Tiller's work is also irrelevant. There are many people out there doing things that are legal which many of us would likely consider criminal. I want to be able to call things as I see them. If I think that something someone is doing legally is wrong and wish to label their actions in a manner that suggests they are criminal I will do so. I don't care if I am on a podium, a stage, radio, or television I'm going to call it as I see it. I am not going to concede it as potentially wrong just because people I don't agree with do the same thing. Otherwise I would be a hypocrite and I hate hypocracy.

As far as whether or not his expressing of his opinions led to the man's murder. I do not agree. The sentiments he expresses have been around for a long time. He didn't invent his rhetoric. There were protestors following the guy. The guy has been shot at before. No, Mr. O'Reilly is hardly likely to have made a difference. I also refuse to hold any person responsible for the actions of others simply because they share certain opinions.

These are dangerous positions to take. Government suppression of dissent has generally been proped up by the same sorts of concerns you outline here. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[LowlyPion]

Alright then, why? Why are Fox and O'reilly's comments on the doctor an issue? People are killed, arsons are committed that are easy to connect to media themes all the time as I showed in my earlier posts, but these other actions are 'of no consequence' to you. So then what is one more shooting to you?

There's the obvious answer that Fox's content is the topic of this thread. Merely because I would consider other acts by other believers of other causes irrelevant to this issue, does not imply in the slightest that I either condone those acts or that they are of no consequence. You do yourself a disservice to suggest it. If you feel strongly about those issues you tried to layer on here, I encourage you to explore your theme in another thread, and examine the culpability of those groups in settling their disputes about those issues.

The issue is Fox's culpability in lending their voice and their facilities to the amplification of hateful speech. It doesn't vanish with some act of vandalism against a fishing trawler half way around the world or red paint splashed on women in fur.

The fact is that a man was shot to death as a consequence of a debate that has been carried to extremes on the shoulders of hateful speech. I would think that should be a concern to everyone. There but for the grace of chance goes anyone. I'd say it tears at the very fabric of civilized behavior, if murder is the only means to settling a dispute.

For Fox's O'Reilly to brazenly suggest that he bears no responsibility for the heat of the discussion, by his repetitious expression of inflammatory language about this specific individual - I'd say calling people mass murderers and baby killers is indisputably inflaming - then is to seek to avoid the consequences of his words. I'd call it callous and unconscionable, regardless of whether it is actionable under Law.

Words have consequences, just as surely as they have intent for the reason they are uttered in the first place.

 

[LowlyPion]

The legality of Tiller's work is also irrelevant. There are many people out there doing things that are legal which many of us would likely consider criminal. I want to be able to call things as I see them. If I think that something someone is doing legally is wrong and wish to label their actions in a manner that suggests they are criminal I will do so. I don't care if I am on a podium, a stage, radio, or television I'm going to call it as I see it. I am not going to concede it as potentially wrong just because people I don't agree with do the same thing. Otherwise I would be a hypocrite and I hate hypocracy.

As far as whether or not his expressing of his opinions led to the man's murder. I do not agree. The sentiments he expresses have been around for a long time. He didn't invent his rhetoric. There were protestors following the guy. The guy has been shot at before. No, Mr. O'Reilly is hardly likely to have made a difference. I also refuse to hold any person responsible for the actions of others simply because they share certain opinions.

These are dangerous positions to take. Government suppression of dissent has generally been proped up by the same sorts of concerns you outline here. Be careful what you wish for.

The legality of Tiller's work unfortunately is a central issue whether you like it or not, if you are to believe that we are a Nation guided by the rule of Law and not the rule of Mob. He was engaged in an activity that was not illegal. It was a peaceful activity. He was being targeted by hate groups and Fox as an information resource bent its back to the task of amplifying that rhetoric, for its own agenda.

I don't say that they have pulled any triggers. I do say they have contributed to the temperature of the discussion. The issue is really their failure to accept any responsibility for adding their voices to that of the mob. I'm not asking for you or anyone to be censored. I don't see any reason to suppress speech. (I'd say if you are unable to show restraint, and recognize the consequences of your words, and take personal responsibility for your views, that says far more about you than you are saying about any issue.)

I do expect however that those whose speech has ended in consequences, like the murder of a doctor, or the killing of 3 policemen, would recognize their part in adding to any chorus that might have mistakenly led someone to believe such inflammatory words provided in any way justification for their actions.

 

[seycyrus]

Neither Fox nor O'reilley bear any responsibility for the mans actions.

Do we have clips calling for the doctor's murder? Evidently not.

O'reilley used his freedom of speech to express an opinion that many people share.

This is once again, an example of "Freedom of speech unless it's speech that I don't like."

Even more egregious in this case, because it's been addended by "by people and/or corporations who express views that I don't like."

 

[LowlyPion]

Neither Fox nor O'reilley bear any responsibility for the mans actions.

Do we have clips calling for the doctor's murder? Evidently not.

O'reilley used his freedom of speech to express an opinion that many people share.

This is once again, an example of "Freedom of speech unless it's speech that I don't like."

Even more egregious in this case, because it's been addended by "by people who express views and/or corporations that I don't like."

You do a disservice to the discussion trying to remake it into a freedom of speech issue. The issue is not wanting to silence Fox or OReilly. The issue is accepting the consequences of their hateful speech. Characterizing this man specifically on National TV, by name, calling him "Tiller the Baby Killer", mass murderer, they must accept responsibility for specifically singling him out, now that their light into the private life of this individual has ended causally or not in his death.

It's one thing to express your opinion about abortion and wanting to deny women the right to make any choice, but it is quite another for Fox to amp up the discourse, pandering to the millions of viewers they claim, the particulars and identities of those that the Supreme Court has already assented are operating legally within the framework of the Laws of the Nation.

That tends to make us not a Nation of Law, but a Nation of Mobs. And I think Fox should be ashamed.

 

[mheslep]

There's the obvious answer that Fox's content is the topic of this thread.

That begs the question. Starting a thread in PF does not automatically make the the topic an issue of any consequence.

Merely because I would consider other acts by other believers of other causes irrelevant to this issue, does not imply in the slightest that I either condone those acts or that they are of no consequence. You do yourself a disservice to suggest it.

I refer up thread where you said exactly that

...It is of no consequence to me what the other kids are doing. ...

... It doesn't vanish with some act of vandalism against a fishing trawler half way around the world or red paint splashed on women in fur.

The links I provided were not about vandalism, though there's plenty of that, they were about murder, arson, and the like.

...The fact is that a man was shot to death as a consequence of a debate that has been carried to extremes on the shoulders of hateful speech. I would think that should be a concern to everyone.

At the moment I'm concerned about arguments carried on the shoulders of ambiguous metaphors.

Well, I second Russ's post above, and I'll leave the thread alone.

 

[seycyrus]

You do a disservice to the discussion trying to remake it into a freedom of speech issue.

Thought it would be a bit more prudent than simply poiting out that hypocrisy fueled by a political agenda is still hypocrisy.

The issue is not wanting to silence Fox or OReilly. The issue is accepting the consequences of their hateful speech. Characterizing this man specifically on National TV, by name, calling him "Tiller the Baby Killer", mass murderer, they must accept responsibility for specifically singling him out, now that their light into the private life of this individual has ended causally or not in his death.

His own actions singled him out.

It's one thing to express your opinion about abortion and wanting to deny women the right to make any choice, but it is quite another for Fox to amp up the discourse, pandering to the millions of viewers they claim,

Oh, I saw no amping up, nor pandering. And I watched the original broadcasts rather than simply viewing what some blogger or youtuber put out on the net. I make the last statement with the hope, (nay with a yearning) of being contradicted.

That tends to make us not a Nation of Law, but a Nation of Mobs. And I think Fox should be ashamed.

That they covered an event deemed newsworthy by their viewers? I think Fox should hold their head up high.

 

[LowlyPion]

I refer up thread where you said exactly that ...

Let's amend that then since you want to extract it from the context of my intent on the narrow issue of this particular discussion.

It is of no consequence to me what the other kids are doing...

... within the context of Fox's aired content on this matter.

Your suggestion that there are others engaging in similarly inflammatory rhetoric and there are similarly horrific outcomes certainly offers no absolution to Fox for their particular content in this particular case.

The fact of the matter is that words have consequences, and for Fox to behave as if they were ingenues blithely unaware that their words could have this outcome, shows to my mind a remarkable insensitivity and a rather horrifying regard that they must hold for the value of human life, that they would not moderate their rhetoric, knowing full well the kinds of demographics they are appealing to. (It's good for ratings to throw them this kind of red meat?)

I'd say they have gone beyond the threshold of mere advocacy for their anti-abortion positions, to violating the privacy of an individual man, by repeatedly singling him out by name for scorn, in the harshest of terms, fostering the idea that there was possibly nothing wrong with acting beyond the Law to stop his acts that the Law protected.

I'd say this roughly parallels to Fox's portrayals of Obama's position on gun control and floating the more extreme rhetoric that Obama was coming to take away everyone's guns, albeit OReilly irresponsibility seems admittedly a bit more extreme in its focus and specificity as to this particular man.

The sooner there is recognition that they have responsibility, and exercise restraint, then the sooner, the discussion may lead to solutions and not to the kind of amped up atmosphere that has fostered such acts of uncivilized behavior. That serves no purpose.

 

[LowlyPion]

Oh, I saw no amping up, nor pandering. And I watched the original broadcasts rather than simply viewing what some blogger or youtuber put out on the net. I make the last statement with the hope, (nay with a yearning) of being contradicted.

That they covered an event deemed newsworthy by their viewers? I think Fox should hold their head up high.

Here's a bit of a compilation that puts the lie to Oreilly's claim that he was "just reporting".

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906020046

I'd say his references were gratuitous, and unnecessarily inflammatory.

 

[seycyrus]

... knowing full well the kinds of demographics they are appealing to. (It's good for ratings to throw them this kind of red meat?)

That sounds suspiciously like a bigoted statement. What exactly is this demographic that you hold in apparent scorn?

I'd say this roughly parallels to Fox's portrayals of Obama's position on gun control and floating the more extreme rhetoric that Obama was coming to take away everyone's guns, albeit OReilly irresponsibility seems admittedly a bit more extreme in its focus and specificity as to this particular man.

Bringing up gun control is a topic that deal with murder illustrates that this rant is simply anti-fox.

 

[seycyrus]

Here's a bit of a compilation that puts the lie to Oreilly's claim that he was "just reporting".

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906020046

I'd say his references were gratuitous, and unnecessarily inflammatory.

As I said, I watched the original broadcasts. I disagree.

Are we going to argue specifics or are you just going to throw a link at me? Oh wait, let me guess. The onus is on to goto the seconhand link you provided, figure out which arguments I think you would like to use, paste them down, and then respond to them...

 

[LowlyPion]

Bringing up gun control is a topic that deal with murder illustrates that this rant is simply anti-fox.

Bringing up gun control is a nod to the original post of the thread, which is about the senseless killing of 3 policemen in Pittsburgh, and the climate of rhetoric that Fox has been throwing around.

This isn't a rant about Fox, so much as it is my opinion that from the fog of their broadcast content comes highly charged rhetoric that is neither fully factual nor responsible, in its subordination to their apparent political agenda as a propaganda arm for Right Wing positions. Their failure to recognize the consequences of their words, words that have contributed to an environment of such hatred that 3 police officers are dead, and now a doctor, whom they singled out by name as a mass murderer, baby killer on repeated occasions.

 

[russ_watters]

Fair and Balanced? Maybe Inflammatory and Irresponsible hits closer to the mark in how the public should view their content?

That may well be true (we're not necessarily disagreeing with each other here...), but it is a component of freedom of speech/press that the people hearing the message are responsible for their reaction to it in nearly all cases, even if that reaction is simply accepting or not accepting it. Limbaugh calls his show "the excellence in broadcasting network". Arrogant and silly, sure, but the listeners surely can decide that for themselves. And they must. That's how freedom of speech/press works!

But [from a previous post]

As to the condoning ... that isn't the issue. The responsibility is the thing. The filling of the air waves with hate-mongering polemics that this Doctor was a mass murderer, even though he was doing NOTHING illegal, there is no consequence for that because O'Reilly thinks that what he was saying was "truthful"? The failure to take responsibility for his words and his rhetoric, contributing to a climate that only serves to encourage a deadly outcome, a murder that is clearly illegal, this then is OK?

Words have consequences as Fox well knows, else they wouldn't be engaging in perpetually painting the news with their palette of right wing pigments.

In the context of what I said above, what consequences could there be? Saying that the doctor was a murderer is inflamatory, yes. But the fact that he's doing something legal isn't relevant to that because the whole issue is whether it should be legal. O'Reilley is making an argument - even if it is an inflammatory way.

It doesn't matter if O'Reilly is being responsible or not - heck, I'll agree that it is irresponsible. But that's not relevant! Turning hate mongering like that into a choice to murder someone is a personal choice only, made by the listener. It is the listener's responsibility to choose to react to the message with a vote, a protest, or a shooting.

So that's really the purpose/thrust of this thread: just plain bellyaching about a message people don't like and attempting to find a reason to censor it.

 

[russ_watters]

That's only ironic if you accept the mainstream media's working definition of the word "liberal" which is nearly opposite to the dictionary definition. Otherwise you would simply observe that such people are not "liberal".

Um...that is the irony! (it isn't just the mainstream media's definition, though)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The legality of Tiller's work unfortunately is a central issue whether you like it or not, if you are to believe that we are a Nation guided by the rule of Law and not the rule of Mob.

You realize that you are arguing that a man's legal actions make him responsible for murder because he was arguing that a man's legal actions made him responsible for murder right? If someone who reads PF kills O'Reilly will you hold yourself partly responsible?

 

[LowlyPion]

But the fact that he's doing something legal isn't relevant to that because the whole issue is whether it should be legal. O'Reilley is making an argument - even if it is an inflammatory way.

The key difference here is that OReilly is making specific comment about a specific man. He is not just offering comment about his personal thinking and biases about the issue of abortion. If his statements had been more general, and not about the man specifically, not about mentioning his name repetitively with his invective rhyme, in such extreme terms, as to be judging that this particular doctor, by name and location, was guilty of capital crimes, when the Law makes no such connection ... this is where OReilly has left the solid ground that he makes his argument to be and enters the realm of offering up opinion as fact, ... something to which I would think you would be sensitive to.

And once again, I'm not looking to censor anyone, despite the attempts to paint it so. My central point is that people need to take responsibility for their statements. I readily agree that there is no particular criminal threshold that has been met that I can see. The absence of shame, the lack of remorse, however, contributing in whatever small way to the chorus that created such a venomous environment, that has led to this man's death, does say something about OReilly's callousness for refusing to acknowledge his part in any part of it. I suspect that in OReilly 's calculus though making such a public concession to conscience equates to concerns for being found civilly liable. Which leads to my opinion of him being all that much smaller.

But I think that the most likely reason of all
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.

 

[seycyrus]

The key difference here is that OReilly is making specific comment about a specific man.

That is not a key difference. The media makes specific references day in and day out.

 

[LowlyPion]

You realize that you are arguing that a man's legal actions make him responsible for murder because he was arguing that a man's legal actions made him responsible for murder right? If someone who reads PF kills O'Reilly will you hold yourself partly responsible?

No. I am arguing that OReilly is callous and irresponsible in not accepting any responsibility on the stage of public colloquy for his publicly hounding an individual in the harshest of terms as a mass murderer, and now that this man has been shot to death, not accepting his role in raising the heat of the public discussion.

If an individual would equate the expression of my opinion of OReilly's boorish callousness for his part in creating the venomous context in which Dr. Tiller was murdered, that is truly a bridge too far, that begs all reason. One would have reason to expect that anyone following a discussion in this limited venue would have a certain modicum of maturity and restraint. Given the red meat that Fox routinely shovels to its demographics however, one cannot accuse Fox audiences similarly with any good conscience.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No. I am arguing that OReilly is callous and irresponsible in not accepting any responsibility on the stage of public colloquy for his publicly hounding an individual in the harshest of terms as a mass murderer, and now that this man has been shot to death, not accepting his role in raising the heat of the public discussion.

If an individual would equate the expression of my opinion of OReilly's boorish callousness for his part in creating the venomous context in which Dr. Tiller was murdered, that is truly a bridge too far, that begs all reason. One would have reason to expect that anyone following a discussion in this limited venue would have a certain modicum of maturity and restraint. Given the red meat that Fox routinely shovels to its demographics however, one cannot accuse Fox audiences similarly with any good conscience.

Ah... so we're better than them and because of that referring to O'Reilly as responsible for murder here is different then him referring to someone as responsible for murder on Fox. I see.

 

[LowlyPion]

Ah... so we're better than them and because of that referring to O'Reilly as responsible for murder here is different then him referring to someone as responsible for murder on Fox. I see.

I should certainly hope so, even though you seem to want to persist in characterizing my position as saying that OReilly personally would be solely responsible or even directly and immediately responsible for the man's acts. That would be a misstatement. What I have said just to be clear before you go looking for OReilly's address to flesh out your hypothetical any further is that he does bear some responsibility insofar as he has contributed that kind of heated and specific rhetoric to inflame the public against this Doctor, a man legally serving his patients.

As a point of interest and perhaps a little more extreme than OReilly's boorish inflammatory behavior I think comes this story now:

Internet Radio Host Hal Turner Faces Connecticut Charges
Internet radio host Hal Turner — accused of inciting Catholics to "take up arms" and singling out two Connecticut lawmakers and a state ethics official on a website — was taken into custody in New Jersey late Wednesday after state Capitol police in Connecticut obtained a warrant for his arrest.

Turner, who has been identified as a white supremacist and anti-Semite by several anti-racism groups, hosts an Internet radio program with an associated blog. On Tuesday, the blog included a post that promised to release the home addresses of state Rep. Michael Lawlor, state Sen. Andrew McDonald and Thomas Jones of the State Ethics Office.

"Mr. Turner's comments are above and beyond the threshold of free speech," Capitol Police Chief Michael J. Fallon said in an e-mail announcing the warrant. "He is inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence and has created fear and alarm. He should be held accountable for his conduct."

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-turner-arrest.artjun04,0,99236.story

I'm not sure that I subscribe to the extremes of arresting Hal, but certainly his actions must bear some accountability.

 

[Huckleberry]

Oh, this is good! Could you expound on this? I'm curious of what these code words are that might flip a switch in my head and turn me into an anti-social psychopath. LOL! *cough* sorry, this is serious stuff!

The guy was crazy before Fox News got to him. He was already prone to this sort of behaviour. Someone could make a suggestion to him that would provoke him to act, where the same suggestion would not be effective on you. They aren't magic words.

Listening to the short Fox News clip that Ivan posted, in 14 seconds the commentator managed to associate Osama with Obama, and suggest that killing one would be the equivalent of killing the other. She even used the word suggest. Then they laughed about it. If one were prone to agree this could be suggestive material from a 'credible' source. It means that at least some people would agree with the actions taken on the suggestion. It gives the impression there is an accepting audience for such an act. Take a look at the Asch experiment to see how group conformity can influence one's ability to make decisions.

Society seems to like to find scapegoats. Its hard to believe that a human being can be capable of killing another. Murder comes from greed and "evil" and your average joe just isn't greedy and "evil". But who is? That news guy who spews all of that hateful rhetoric for profit? He seems pretty evil. How about those guys that dress up in demonic makeup and sing songs about death and drugs and nihilism and sell millions of albums to young impressionable kids? They seem pretty evil. How about those guys with those sick imaginations who draw pictures and write stories about dismembering women and sell millions of copies to young impressionable kids. They seem pretty evil too! Hey I bet these sick disgusting people are what's making average people do disgusting evil things!

I don't think it's so hard to believe that one person is capable of killing another. Take a look at the Stanford prison experiment, or the Milgram experiment. These experiments (though I'm not sure they are peer reviewed) suggest that role playing and authority are highly involved in moral decisions. Whether a person is capable of an act or not is largely dependent on the circumstances they find themselves in, not necessarily how they believe their consciousness defines them. The average joe doesn't know what he is capable of.

I hate Fox News, but I wouldn't hold them responsible for this. I think they do instigate negative social behaviour, but I don't think it was their intention at all that people shoot police officers.

edit- also, I think that holding a person solely responsible for their own decisions is more likely to discourage people from submitting to appeals from authority or group conformity. I don't like the idea that responsibility is held by many for the actions of one, though I do believe there is some truth to that concept also.