- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 57,651
- Reaction score
- 32,201
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Agreed.
Who is persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime?
Agreed.
Who is persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime?
Excerpted from “O'Reilly's campaign against murdered doctor; The Fox News star had compared Tiller to a Nazi, called him a "baby killer," and warned of "Judgment Day"” BY GABRIEL WINANT, Salon, SUNDAY, MAY 31, 2009 16:32 EDT
[SIZE="+2"]W[/SIZE]hen his show airs tomorrow, Bill O'Reilly will most certainly decry the death of Kansas doctor George Tiller, who was killed Sunday while attending church services with his wife. Tiller, O'Reilly will say, was a man who was guilty of barbaric acts, but a civilized society does not resort to lawless murder, even against its worst members. And O'Reilly, we can assume, will genuinely mean this.
But there's no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on "The Factor" on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as "Tiller the Baby Killer." …
There were certainly questions about Bill O'Reilly and the murder of Dr. George Tiller.
"Do political pundits cause violence?" Of course they do. And I believe some intend to for the political gain. I believe someone like Bill O'railly should be held responsible when he continusely calls a doctor a murderer and "baby killer" for months and finally some idiot shoots him, or when Rush Limbaugh calls democrats "bastards that must be defeated at all cost", and people start spitting on and threating them. Or when Glenn Beck suddenly decides the IRS that hasn't changed a bit suddenly becomes evil because we have a democrat president and is now stealing your money, and some fool flies a plane into a building because of it trying to kill IRS employees. This is wrong, It's evil, and I don't understand why decent "moral" Christian republicans don't speak out against it. It leads me to think there are no moral Christian republicans. They just say they are.
I think the folks who say that the language some of these pundits use is never to blame for what some of their listeners might do is to gloss over the effect this language is intended to have on their audiences. These pundits play on the emotions of their listeners and viewers; they know just what to do to encourage joy or rage and not uncommonly all in the same one hour program. It's a form of entertainment but it is dangerous and for some who are mentally or emotionally challenged, it can result in tragedy.
I think the folks who say that the language some of these pundits use is never to blame for what some of their listeners might do is to gloss over the effect this language is intended to have on their audiences. These pundits play on the emotions of their listeners and viewers; they know just what to do to encourage joy or rage and not uncommonly all in the same one hour program. It's a form of entertainment but it is dangerous and for some who are mentally or emotionally challenged, it can result in tragedy.
Are you proposing that pundits be charged with someone when someone does something violent?
So we should fine video game companies, music labels and so on anytime someone claims an external source made them or inspired them to do something illegal?
Of course they do, else why do you have revolutions, attacks on political and governmental infrastructure. Someone has to stir up the pot with words to make people do those things.. they do not happen by themselves. It would be like saying Hitler is not at fault for Nazi Germany.
Hitler is the source of all political principles. Did Pete tell you how Hitler left Spain out of the war because Franco allowed him to tryout his technology on Franco's enemies?Pete, you do know the difference between the official leader of a country, and someone who talks about politics on TV, right? Or did you just invoke Godwins Law for the heck of it?
There is no need for claims that particular media items inspire criminal action, the media companies have already imposed labeling games and music based upon maturity and content which very much affects the monetary value of the properties, in effect, fining themselves.
So as long as pundit puts a warning on what they say then that alleviates them of any responsibility?
That's an interesting concept; after all, if Comedy Central can label its programming based on maturity, language and content, why not Rush Limbaugh?
You want Limbaugh to warn his viewers who are mostly conservative that he speaks or somewhat speaks conservative values on his show? … As far as I know Limbaugh does not curse or tell racial or sexual jokes.
So we should fine video game companies, music labels and so on anytime someone claims an external source made them or inspired them to do something illegal?
I think listeners should be warned that Limbaugh is an entertainer, he says things that make some people happy, truth and facts be damned, and, no one should take anything he says seriously.
That's an interesting concept; after all, if Comedy Central can label its programming based on maturity, language and content, why not Rush Limbaugh?
'GRAND THEFT' GAME MAKER SUED IN SLAYS
Don't you think ranting and raging political pundants should be held to the same standard?.
Or at least make them say "the following is a paid political telacast". It takes a complete fool to not know these stink raisers are working directly for the republican party
Video game companies should not be sued just because some scumbag says he got the idea from a video game. Besides that lawsuit will be thrown out of court. A civil lawsuit has nothing to do with the federal government forcing a talk show host to have some liberal anti-1st amendment partisan trash read before their show aired.
I do not support forcing some garbage like that being read before a talk radio program airs. If a pundit wishes to say some nonsense like that then that is his or her business.
What have you got against people knowing the truth and the financing behind every message?
Why should a party get away with skirting the law by calling their 24/7 negative political campaigning, entertainment?
Everyone with a brain bigger than a pea knows that's all it is.