The O'Reilly Factor

Is the Fox News host to blame for the murder of Dr. George Tiller?

Did Fox News host Bill O'Reilly kill abortion provider Dr. George Tiller? Reading some of today's outraged commentary by pro-choice writers in both America and Britain, you could be forgiven for thinking so. Scott Roeder might be suspected of actually pulling the trigger, but O'Reilly—and other loudmouth, right-wing anti-abortionists—have already been found guilty of egging him on in the kangaroo court of liberal opinion.

Tiller was savagely shot dead while attending a church service with his wife in Kansas on Sunday. His "crime," as his alleged killer undoubtedly sees it, was to run a clinic that provided women with perfectly legal late-term abortions.

Yet rather than seeing this dreadful killing as the action of a probably crazed individual, too many liberal commentators are discussing it as the logical outcome of the "dangerous" words and images propagated by O'Reilly and others. This is the liberals' version of "effects theory," the idea that certain of speech are so irresponsible and inflammatory that they can easily provoke unhinged individuals to take unhinged actions.

Writing in Salon, Gabriel Winant slams O'Reilly's "sensationally irresponsible" and "extremely vivid" denunciations of Tiller's clinic. For example, on O'Reilly's show Tiller has been referred to as "Tiller the Baby Killer." O'Reilly himself once said Tiller "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." For Winant, "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, [as O'Reilly]."

Winant strongly hints that O'Reilly played an unwitting, offstage role in Tiller's death: "O'Reilly didn't tell anyone to do anything violent, but he did put Tiller in the public eye, and help make him the focus of a movement with a history of violence against exactly these kinds of targets."

Like me, you might find O'Reilly's comments about Tiller distasteful. But the deeply censorious implication of Winant's argument is that anyone who uses "extremely vivid" language to condemn someone he doesn't like can—and should—later be held responsible if something bad happens to that individual. Leaving aside the fact that there is as yet no evidence that the suspect was a fan of O'Reilly—according to the Kansas City Star, the suspect had been a weird, anti-government, anti-abortion nut for some time—Winant's logic is that public debate should be watered down to the level of polite tea-party disagreements, lest any borderline cranks be agitated or inflamed by it.

Michael Tomasky, formerly of The American Prospect and now American editor for The Guardian, says it's a "fair question" to ask, "Does O'Reilly have blood on his hands?" Echoing censors throughout history who have claimed that words and ideas pollute society, Tomasky says O'Reilly and other shrill media commentators have contributed to a "toxic atmosphere" on the abortion issue.

The Manhattan-based feminist writer Jill Filipovic points the finger of blame not only at O'Reilly but also at various mainstream anti-abortion groups that use "outlandish and inflammatory rhetoric." She says the killing of Tiller was "the logical outcome of years of increasingly violent, dehumanising and threatening rhetoric and action on the part of supposedly mainstream pro-life groups."

In a sure sign she has caught the censorship bug, Filipovic even falls back on the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument: "If you yell ‘Fire!' in a crowded theatre, it's reasonably foreseeable that people will panic and someone will be injured. And if you yell ‘Murderer!', ‘Baby-Killer!' and ‘Holocaust!' long enough, it's reasonably foreseeable that someone will take it upon themselves to make sure that vigilante justice is done."

This reaction to Tiller's death is driven by cowardice and censoriousness, by a desire to protect the pro-choice argument from the extremely vivid, sensationalistic, and, yes, frequently hysterical attacks of the anti-abortion brigade. In a left-leaning version of the traditional effects theory—which holds that some films, TV shows, and videogames should be toned down or wiped out entirely since they allegedly make young people violent—pro-choice commentators now seem to want "outlandish rhetoric" restricted on the grounds that it is, literally, murderous.

But like all instinctive censors, they blur the distinction between words and actions. There is neither moral equivalence nor a direct link between O'Reilly's rants and what happened to Tiller on Sunday. To seek to restrict a broadcaster's speech on the basis that it might inflame viewers to do something awful is an insult to all of us, since we're treated as little more than dumb attack dogs that hear "orders" and then carry them out. And to seek to restrict speech on the basis that it might coax one or two unhinged loners to do something awful would be turn society into the equivalent of a lunatic asylum, where everyone watches their words and controls their tone of voice just in case they give a madman the wrong impression.

I fully support a woman's right to choose abortion, including late-term abortion. I also find O'Reilly's rants and those anti-abortion websites nauseating. But the best way to make the case for the right to choose is not to criminalize the speech of the anti-abortion lobby, but to inject public debate with more and more convincing arguments for abortion rights. In short, we need more "extremely vivid" speech, not less.

Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked in London.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fascitis Necrotizante||

    So now if I kill Bill O'Reilly, it'll be these guys' fault?

  • Joel||

    There's only one way to find out.

  • ||

    help make him the focus of a movement with a history of violence against exactly these kinds of targets

    A millions-strong political movement, encumbered by a few crackpot adherents who were responsible for four or five murders over the span of 36 years does not thereby have a gorram history of violence.

  • anarch||

    Fascitis Necrotizante just invited someone to take a shot at him.

    And now I've done the same for myself! OMG!

  • Jill Filipovic||

    If you can point to where I said anyone should be censored, I'll be impressed. In fact, I explicitly said in my piece that anti-choicers have a right to voice their views. I suppose I could have added "without governmental interference," but I assumed that readers would be savvy enough to make that inference.

    What I did argue is that anti-choice activists who use this kind of inflammatory language bear some of the moral blame of what happened to Dr. Tiller, and to the other abortion providers, security guards, nurses and clinic escorts who have been victims of anti-abortion violence. Certainly one can suggest that words carry meaning and that inflammatory rhetoric is known to inflame without being accused of censorship, no?

  • ||

    But the best way to make the case for the right to choose is not to criminalize the speech of the anti-abortion lobby, but to inject public debate with more and more convincing arguments for abortion rights.

    Good luck with that. It's no coincidence that the pro-choice movement's heyday came in the 60s and early 70s when very little was known about prenatal development. (it's pretty telling when the SCOTUS decision that forms the manifesto of your movement relies as much on Stoic philosophical beliefs as science.) At this point they're best served by depending on inertia, obfuscation, and ad hominems against pro-lifers (who admittedly provide ample fodder for such).

  • ||

    the other abortion providers, security guards, nurses and clinic escorts who have been victims of anti-abortion violence.

    How many, over the course of 36 years? Ten? Twenty? You people make it sound like the hospitals are overflowing with the victims of pro-life protesters.

  • A Bold Fresh Piece of Excremen||

    Everyone knows Soros owns this lefty fascist website!

    DO IT LIVE! FUCKING THING SUCKS!

    Buy my book pinheads!

  • ed||

    Does this mean O'Reilly can't visit Britain now?

  • ||

    O'Reilly and other loudmouth anti-abortionists have already been found guilty in the kangaroo court of liberal opinion

    O'Reilly is guilty of one thing: being a HUGE asshole. George Takei wouldn't even have to spit on his dick before fucking O'Reilly.

  • Wicks Cherrycoke||

    So, based on the logic of the pro-life crowd, if someone had taken a shot at Bush, the blame would lie with the Cindy Sheehan, Kanye West, the Canadian who produced the movie showing Bush being murdered, etc. Or does this only apply to right wing extremists?

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    You people make it sound like the hospitals are overflowing with the victims of pro-life protesters.

    Yeah, really. How can Bill O'Reilly sleep at night with all that blood on his hands.

  • Jill Filipovic||

    How many, over the course of 36 years? Ten? Twenty? You people make it sound like the hospitals are overflowing with the victims of pro-life protesters.

    In North America, at least 10 murders, 17 attempted murders, 406 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery and four kidnappings. 642 bomb threats. 659 anthrax threats. 1400 acts of vandalism. 41 bombings. 175 arsons. 151 burglaries. 525 stalkings. 100 Butyric acid attacks.

    When do we concede that these are organized and ongoing attacks?

  • Jordan||

    What I did argue is that anti-choice activists who use this kind of inflammatory language bear some of the moral blame of what happened to Dr. Tiller, and to the other abortion providers, security guards, nurses and clinic escorts who have been victims of anti-abortion violence. Certainly one can suggest that words carry meaning and that inflammatory rhetoric is known to inflame without being accused of censorship, no?



    Yawn. Is this the same magic chain of causality wherein Iraq War protests kill American soldiers?

  • EJM||

    Does this mean O'Reilly can't visit Britain now?

    If that's the case, should we then be expecting another libel lawsuit?

  • ||

    Yawn. Is this the same magic chain of causality wherein Iraq War protests kill American soldiers?

    Yup. Maybe Jill can ask us why we hate 'Merika.

  • ||

    O'Reilly uses inflammatory rhetoric to get viewers. He shamelessly stokes this fire for ratings. Screw him, he deserves all the scorn liberals heap upon him.

  • ||

    Its odd how a simpleton like Jonah Goldberg or Bill O'Reilly will decry "liberal fascists" who pie Anne Coulter or shout down speakers on campus but goad the likes of Roeder and Paul Hill into violent acts that support their own political agenda.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    O'Reilly uses inflammatory rhetoric to get viewers. He shamelessly stokes this fire for ratings.

    :::horrified face... oh no...

    You don't think...could it be...Howard Stern is offensive on purpose!?

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    @ p templeton

    :::gasp::: you're not accusing O'Reilly of playing partisan politics are you?

    :::sulks away disillusioned.


    P.S. I didn't know O'Reilly actually knew Roeder. They were fishing buddies?

  • Art-P.O.G. (Internet Tough Guy||

    Hell, I'm still pissed that J.D. Salinger Holden Caulfield made Chapman shoot John Lennon.

  • ||

    "In North America, at least 10 murders, 17 attempted murders, 406 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery and four kidnappings. 642 bomb threats. 659 anthrax threats. 1400 acts of vandalism. 41 bombings. 175 arsons. 151 burglaries. 525 stalkings. 100 Butyric acid attacks."

    And how many abortions have you pro-death people condoned? Why are you the only ones that decide who has the right to live?

  • Mister DNA||

    I'm not just pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion.

    That said, I find Dr. Tiller being called a "hero" far more offensive than being a called a "baby killer".

    It sucks having to defend an idiotic douchebag like Bill O'Reilly, but unless he put a gun in Roeder's hand, I don't see why any blame should go to O'Reilly.

    Lefties can take comfort in knowing that Bill O'Reilly will probably be named Worst Person of the Week by Saint Keith of Olbermann.

  • Alberta Libertarian ||

    You know what we should do is just criminalize all speech on contentious political and social issues. Then no one will ever be harmed by the ability of individuals to use their tongue in expressing an opinion, nor will that tongue cause some idiot a hundred miles away the "incentive" to murder.

    Perhaps we can blame the movie "Taxi Driver" for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.

    By the way, how can debate about abortion not be controversial and inflammatory? This isn't like most other issues, more or less because this deals with one group of people who see a fetus as a living human being, and another group that believe in the absolute right of a woman to abort a fetus.

    Considering the fact both the pro-choice and pro-life side are made up of nothing but extremists it shouldn't be a surprise that the debate becomes convuluted when this is the substance usually involved:

    Pro-life: You kill babies for a living.
    Pro-Choice: You just want women to live in a kitchen and be slaves to men.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Ms. Filipovic - in case you weren't aware, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. It isn't illogical for someone to conclude that, by drawing an analogy with that type of speech and this kind of speech, you would prescribe the same policies and remedies to the latter as has been done with the former.

    I would think that, as a lawyer, you would see that analogous inference as logical.

  • BunkerBill||

    Cindy Sheehan and Kanye West murder young Army recruter, read it here:
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/arkansas.recruiter.shooting/index.html

  • Suki||

    Perhaps we should use that whole time changed thingie from the new Star Trek?

    Have not been looking, but has anybody noticed the Shatner reference in the new movie? I didn't either, but I was not alive for the first run of the series.

    Of course, on Reason, ST is never a threadjack ;)

  • The Angry Optimist||

    When do we concede that these are organized and ongoing attacks?



    Conceded. now, without invoking the USA PATRIOT Act, war rhetoric or policies that are offensive to First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (at a minimum), what do you suggest we do about it?

  • Rex Rhino||

    In North America, at least 10 murders, 17 attempted murders, 406 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery and four kidnappings. 642 bomb threats. 659 anthrax threats. 1400 acts of vandalism. 41 bombings. 175 arsons. 151 burglaries. 525 stalkings. 100 Butyric acid attacks.

    When do we concede that these are organized and ongoing attacks?



    The entire anti-abortion movement in its entire history has killed less people than the Columbine kids managed in a few minutes. When the tens of millions strong anti-abortion movement only manage to kill as many people in half a century as two angry goth kids did in 30 minutes, then no, I am not ready to concede these are organized and ongoing attacks. The whole idea that these are organized and ongoing attacks seems pretty damn stupid to me.

    I understand why the more totalitarian inclined on the left want argue that these are organized attacks, though. They want to crack down on entirely peaceful, law abiding people who are against abortion. These kind of horrible attacks can be used as a pretense for suspending civil liberties.

    The pro-choice crowd are also too incompetent politically to realize that many of us are 100% pro-choice, but freak the fuck out at the slightly hint of any sort of censorship. If I am forced to make the awful choice between a political group who supports banning abortion, or a political group who supports censorship, I will choose the group for banning abortion as the lesser of two evils. The pro-choice crowd need to realize, if they want support from people like me, they need to chill out on anything that can in any way be construed as support for censorship.

  • ||

    The difference is that anti-abortion violence is committed to change political policies and to undermine civil rights. It isn't a matter of how many people are killed, but the purpose behind the killing. According to FBI definitions, anti-abortion violence perfectly fits the definition of terrorism.

  • Alberta Libertarian||

    //Ms. Filipovic - in case you weren't aware, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. It isn't illogical for someone to conclude that, by drawing an analogy with that type of speech and this kind of speech, you would prescribe the same policies and remedies to the latter as has been done with the former.//

    The irony in the "yelling fire in a crowded theater] example is that it was the analogy used to jail anti-war protestors during World War 1. Despite the fact these individuals were shouting "fire" when there was an actual fire.

  • DavidW||

    It is immoral for anyone to goad others into committing violence. At the same time, it is immoral for anyone to suggest that their violence is excused by the words of their rivals.

    Even more immoral, however, is using violence to force people to be politically correct. It's a slippery-slope rationale that will not check violence, but rather encourage it.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Is this the same magic chain of causality wherein Iraq War protests kill American soldiers?

    Perhaps it's more like the magic chain of causality wherein Ozzy Osbourne songs prompt teenagers to kill themselves.

  • ellipsis||

    I'm getting some popcorn. This should be good.

  • ||

    Jill Filipovic
    What I did argue is that anti-choice activists who use this kind of inflammatory language bear some of the moral blame of what happened to Dr. Tiller.

    No, they don't. The moral choice and thus the moral blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the shooter.

  • Rex Rhino||

    in case you weren't aware, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal.



    No it isn't.

    1. There could be a fire.
    2. There might not be a fire, but you could legitimately believe there is a fire.
    3. It could be part of an interpretive dance piece about the elements.
    4. It could be part of a dramatic firing squad scene.
    5. You could be yelling what song you want a rock band to play.
    6. You could be calling out to your friend nick-named "Fire".

    There are hundreds of legit reasons for yelling fire in a theater that I can come up with off the top of my head, all completely legal. In fact, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be ever be convicted of yelling fire, short of a full unsolicited confession to intended to cause harm by the act.

    As far as I am aware, no one has ever been convicted of yelling fire in a theater. The argument was an analogy given in a supreme court case, when the U.S. government was trying to make its case why it was legal to imprison pacifists and war-dissenters without trial during WWI... and it has been a favorite among totalitarians and fascists ever since. It is probably the single lamest argument for restricting freedom of speech ever devised.

    The ol' fire in a crowded theater bit? Weak. Pretty damn weak.

  • Mister DNA||

    Rex Rhino, here's a link to bolster item #5 in your list:

    The Crazy World of Arthur Brown - Fire

    This song should be requested at every concert, even if it's your church choir performing on Sunday morning.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Rex Rhino - yelling "Fire" where there is no fire, with the intent of inciting a panic, is a crime. you could look it up.

  • ||

    Bill O'Reilly does not share moral blame for this crime because he expressed his opinion.

    He shares moral blame for *having* the opinion he does.

    O'Reilly deserves public censure not for honestly expressing what a twisted fuck he is, but instead for *being* a twisted fuck in the first place.

    We don't want twisted fucks like O'Reilly failing to express what they think. We need to know that they are twisted fucks, for our own protection.

    If O'Reilly didn't have an outlet for his demented anger, he probably would have committed terrorists acts against his perceived enemies long ago. Keep him in his place on Fox News, where we can keep an eye on him.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Update: O'Reilly in his opener condemns murder, says vigilantism and lawlessness will destroy a society, says the Dr. was within Kansas law, lays into pinheads and Fox News haters, reads from Times, HuffPost, others.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    O'Reilly: Far left exploiting death of the doctor. Hating Fox News is real agenda. If haters were so compassionate, should have written something about 60k fetuses (feti?) who will never become American citizens.

  • ||

    Reading some of today's outraged commentary by pro-choice writers in both America and Britain, you could be forgiven for thinking so.



    OK, lets roll the tape!

    " For Winant, "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, [as O'Reilly]."



    Nope, not there, unless you count Fred Phelps.

    Like me, you might find O'Reilly's comments about Tiller distasteful. But the deeply censorious implication of Winant's argument is that anyone who uses "extremely vivid" language to condemn someone he doesn't like can-and should-later be held responsible if something bad happens to that individual.



    Where did he imply that? No where mon frer (to quote George Carlin).

    Michael Tomasky, formerly of The American Prospect and now American editor for The Guardian, says it's a "fair question" to ask, "Does O'Reilly have blood on his hands?" Echoing censors throughout history who have claimed that words and ideas pollute society, Tomasky says O'Reilly and other shrill media commentators have contributed to a "toxic atmosphere" on the abortion issue.



    Closer I guess. But you have to have really bad reading comprehension.

    And you fare no better with Jill Filipovic.

    So to recap, you claim " Scott Roeder might be suspected of actually pulling the trigger, but O'Reilly-and other loudmouth, right-wing anti-abortionists-have already been found guilty of egging him on in the kangaroo court of liberal opinion."

    Then can't offer a single even obscure moonbatty person making the claim.

    Who could be blamed indeed?

  • ||

    "His "crime," as his alleged killer undoubtedly sees it, was to run a clinic that provided women with perfectly legal late-term abortions."

    Uh no, assuming the killer wasn't a psychopath who would have been perfectly happy killing anyone but his chosen victim just happened to provide "legal late term abortions", he probably wasn't under the false impression that abortions were illegal. Maybe he thought, in his albeit unethical way, that abortions were murder and this guy needed to die some way. If liberals practiced what they preached about moral tolerance, this would be a no-brainer.

  • ||

    Rex: In Holmes's defense (although he was certainly wrong in this decision), I note that he actually wrote that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in FALSELY [my emphasis] shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." His less linguistically precise followers have created the muddled thought that you skewered.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    James Kabala - oh shit, I always thought that people KNEW that it was "falsely". I mean, that's a no-shit statement, isn't it?

  • Neu Mejican||

    The entire anti-abortion movement in its entire history has killed less people than the Columbine kids managed in a few minutes. When the tens of millions strong anti-abortion movement only manage to kill as many people in half a century as two angry goth kids did in 30 minutes, then no, I am not ready to concede these are organized and ongoing attacks. The whole idea that these are organized and ongoing attacks seems pretty damn stupid to me.

    I understand why the more totalitarian inclined on the left want argue that these are organized attacks, though. They want to crack down on entirely peaceful, law abiding people who are against abortion. These kind of horrible attacks can be used as a pretense for suspending civil liberties.



    Somehow, I see this moving towards a discussion of ELF and their acts of terrorism...

    Hmmmm....

    So, although not organized, the anti-abortion violence is more effective than the openly terrorist ELF. More property damage, more injury, more death. And the trespassing...let's not even get started.

  • Mad Max||

    Sorry I'm late to the party, guys - I know you missed me.

    Catholic doctrine teaches that deliberately targeting innocent human beings for destruction is wrong. Even when targeting the guilty, there are certain limitations. In particular, there is generally a requirement that even the most guilty person be afforded a fair trial according to law before being punished, and that even if convicted, the guilty person - even a guilty murderer - can only be put to death if the public interest strictly requires it.

    There is, to be sure, a Catholic doctrine of just war, and a Catholic doctrine of revolution ('coincidentally' similar to the doctrine in the American Declaration of Independence). Certain preconditions have to be met before revolutionary violence is OK, and these conditions have not been met in the modern U.S. Only in a revolutionary situation would it even arguably be permissible to launch military-style attacks against abortion providers. The U.S. is not a revolutionary situation.

    When it is not strictly necessary to deliberately destroy human life, then it is necessary *not* to destroy it. That's why Tiller's killing is murder.

    Unlike certain posters on this blog, the Church does not teach that it's OK to indiscriminately endorse revolutionary violence in response to every oppressive act by government.

    The Church's across-the-board prolife attitude provoked the Communist Leon Trotsky to declare that 'We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life.' Trotsky was a Marxist. Let us take a look at Marx's influence.

    Jill Filipovic says:

    'In North America, at least 10 murders, 17 attempted murders, 406 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery and four kidnappings. 642 bomb threats. 659 anthrax threats. 1400 acts of vandalism. 41 bombings. 175 arsons. 151 burglaries. 525 stalkings. 100 Butyric acid attacks.'

    Is this the same Jill Filipovic who displayed a poster declaring that My Marxist Feminist Dialectic Brings All the Boys to the Yard?

    The same Jill Filipovic who defended a college class entitled 'Taking Marx Seriously,' where the first sentence in the course description said, '"Should Marx be given another chance?"

    When, do you think, will Filipovic denounce American Marxists (some of whom are tenured academics) for encouraging Marxist violence throughout the world?

    How do you think the casualties of Marxist violence stack up against the casualties of anti-abortion vigilante violence?

    Incidentally, let us take a look at pro-abortion violence against the post-born, shall we? Because focusing on prochoice violence against the preborn is *so* dog-bites man.

    Let's see:

    'Human Life International has documented more than 8,519 acts of violence and illegal activities by pro-abortionists. These crimes include:
    • '1,251 homicides and other killings
    • 157 attempted homicides
    • 28 arsons and firebombings
    • 904 assaults
    • 1,908 sex crimes (including 250 rapes)
    • 106 kidnappings
    • 420 cases of vandalism
    • 290 drug crimes
    • 1,616 medical crimes'

    One of the stories provided by the site I linked to:

    '. . . Nicholas and Lola Kampf were charged with kidnaping after they allegedly bound and gagged their pregnant 19-year-old daughter and put her in their car with the intent of driving her to New York for an abortion. Police said Katelyn Kampf managed to escape from her parents in a store parking lot in New Hampshire and called police from a cell phone. Her parents could face up to 15 years in prison if convicted.

    'In Georgia, police arrested Rozelletta Blackshire after she allegedly forced her pregnant 16-year-old daughter to drink turpentine in an attempt to abort the pregnancy. The mother and two of the girl's cousins were charged with criminal abortion after the teen told a school counselor her mother had forced her to drink turpentine. The teen is three months pregnant and the health effects of the turpentine on her and her unborn child are still unknown.'

    Since these abortion threads have already been pre-Godwinned, let me say that I deplore the murder of George Tiller as much as I deplore the murder of Ernst vom Rath, a German diplomat who was murdered by a misguided youth in 1938. The youth, Herschel Grynszpan was a Jew who may have killed vom Rath in retaliation for the mistreatment of Grynszpan's relatives by the German National Socialist regime. The National Socialists used the murder of vom Rath as the pretext for the infamous Kristallnacht, when innocent Jews were persecuted and murdered in supposed retaliation for vom Rath's murder.

    I only hope that the pro-aborts won't use Tiller's murder as the occasion for a Kristallnacht against the unborn.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Dang, yo, Mad Max came to play.

  • Heinrick||

    I don't know if Bill O'Reilley is responsible for this, but I do know he is a douch bag. It sound like the shooter was probably using violence to force his religious or political beliefs on others. That sounds a lot like what the Towleyban do, so is this guy going to be treated like a terrorist?

  • Neu Mejican||

    'Human Life International has documented more than 8,519 acts of violence and illegal activities by pro-abortionists. These crimes include:

    More like, a website states that HLI has documented...I am having a hard time tracking down that documentation on the HLI website...

    Any help with the documentation is appreciated.

    It should be easy given the claim of "an incredible 269 homicides and other killings committed in just the last six years."

    I am skeptical of their methods.
    But will ask questions:

    Is this world-wide?
    What is a pro-abortionist?

  • Neu Mejican||

    • 1,908 sex crimes (including 250 rapes)

    I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. What is the claim here?

    I know they aren't trying to imply that the pro-choice movement is raping women to create more opportunities to provide abortions. There is NO WAY that is the intended implication.

    Right?

  • Mad Max||

    Neu Mejican,

    You can order Human Life International's free pamphlet on pro-abortion violence, and check out their data for yourself.

  • Neu Mejican||

    a Kristallnacht against the unborn.

    Note to self: must put together death metal band. I have the name of our debut album.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Mad Max,

    I will look at it as soon as they make it freely available in a public forum...If it is convincing to you, why don't you give me the highlights. I am sure Reason would be happy to host the information to further the debate.

    The main questions I would be interested in, is how have they ascertained that a particular act is "pro-abortion."

  • Mad Max||

    And if it's rape you're into, check out these videos of Planned Parenthood covering up statutory rape.

  • ||

    What is a pro-abortionist?

    Beat's me, but I bet it rides a unicorn.

  • Mad Max||

    'as soon as they make it freely available in a public forum'

    It's free. They'll send you the info for free if you ask.

  • PETE||

    Holy shit this thread is amazing.

    It was particularly amazing for me, as the final comment before hitting refresh ended with "I only hope that the pro-aborts won't use Tiller's murder as the occasion for a Kristallnacht against the unborn."

    That last comment really has it all.

  • ||

    Radical action such as the murder of Tiller (not a random act of violence or sadism but an ideologically motivated killing) requires a mind warped by propaganda. You don't even need an insane person; propaganda works on ordinary people. I've studied propaganda and Bill O and basically his entire network fit the definition to a T. Not the most sophisticated propaganda ever devised, but propaganda nonetheless, and it works on simple people.

    You require the iron-fistedness and relentlessness of propaganda to develop the ability to act on a purely political or religious belief in this way. Nobody naturally reacts to abortion as they do child murder, and very few even of the most zealous pro-lifers suggest imprisoning all women who have abortions, even though they would be complicit in child murder.

    So this is a fabricated social frenzy agitated by propaganda where a thoughtful moral discussion should be. And Bill O is one of the prime agitators against Dr. Tiller.

  • Citizen||

    @Mad Max

    Was someone implying that Catholics (or Catholic doctrine) are to blame for Tiller's murder?

    As far as this whole thread goes, the amount of intellectual dishonesty here is enough to choke a horse. I love how Filipovic calls the group she doesn't agree with "anti-choice activists." Way to go with the word-smithing! Can she also come up with a cool way to make people who like car chases in movies sound like murdering thieves?

    'Cause I'd hate for anyone to have their own opinion.

  • PETE||

    "First I dump turpentine down my daughter's throat. Then I go to my dayjob at Planned Parenthood. All in a day's work for us pro-ab- HEY! YOU! GET OVER HERE SO I CAN RAPE YOU STATUTORALLY!!"

  • ||

    The irony of Mad Max professing shock at an organization covering up statutory rape is just fucking staggering. It's like if John started screaming about everyone's typos.

  • Mister DNA||

    According to genealogical records, I'm one-eighth unborn. Will the coming Kristallnacht Against the Unborn effect me?

  • PETE||

    "1,251 homicides and other killings"

    Other killings?

    What? Did some evil pro-abortion nurse slip on a placenta?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I've studied propaganda and Bill O and basically his entire network fit the definition to a T.



    Not anything like the above-board and neutral Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.

  • ||

    What is a pro-abortionist?

    If you mangle the syntax a little bit, Dr. Tiller was, since he received pay for his services.

    Now he's an ex-abortionist, and you can bet that when he saw the gunman, he became pretty damn pro-life, at least as far as his own well-being was concerned.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Mad Max,

    No, it comes with a very high cost.
    They would have my address and send me mountains of bullshit.

    But more to the point, I am having a discussion with YOU. What is it about their research that has convinced YOU of its veracity?

    Nothing I see in a quick look at them convinces me I should have any more faith in them than I would the LaRouchies that I walk past on the street.

    So, again...post some of their documentation...particularly their methods section...how did they determine which crimes counted as Pro-abortion...you've read it, I assume.

  • PETE||

    I love it. This thread is so awesome that here I am n the same side as SugarFree! I'm never leaving. Mad Max, you are my new favorite person.

    From the site he linked to:

    "The pro-life movement is unquestionably the most peaceful social movement of all time.

    We have all heard about the seven murders committed by self-identified anti-abortionists during the time period 1994-1998. But to put this into perspective, according to the United States government, more janitors, bartenders, secretaries, hairdressers and cosmetologists have been killed on the job than abortionists.

    The most violent social movement of all time is so-called 'pro-choice.' "

  • Neu Mejican||

    What are we gonna do about those violent anti-janitorists?

    The sanctity of filth...that's it.

    The band: Sanctity of Filth.
    The debut album: a Kristallnacht against the unborn.

    I just need me a shredder for guitar and someone to burp the vocals.

  • ||

    Not anything like the above-board and neutral Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.



    It was only a matter of seconds before this was thrown back at me. You know there is a difference between propaganda and fact-based rational opinionmaking. I'm not saying Olbermann, who is prone to grandstanding, is a great example of the latter, though Maddow is more so. At any rate real propaganda isn't defined as partisan opinionmaking. It requires an institutional message meant to motivate action based on facts only when they're convenient. Not to mention the scope--the two liberal talking heads on MSNBC are not yet competing with the reach of talk radio (the primary source of right-wing agitprop) or, as rightwingers like to remind us, the highly popular cable network FOX news devoted to rightwing propaganda. Liberal propaganda is a contradiction in terms in a way, though I'm not saying it can't happen, or that Olbermann and Maddow and Air America don't represent some form of proto-propaganda. But to compare it to the reach and influence of rightwing propaganda machine in this country is simply to draw a false equivalency.

  • Mad Max||

    SugarFree,

    Even if I personally supervised the burning Bruno and Joan of Arc at the stake in between my conspiratorial acts to suppress the Merovingian line of kings, I still have raised some issues which need to be answered.

    If H&R posters aren't willing to define the government schools (which they don't by any means support) by their sex scandals, then how can they so define the Catholic Church?

    A researcher at Hofstra University (which I can tell you from personal experience is *not* friendly to the Catholic Church) said:

    '"[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem? The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."


    From the statement by Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life:

    'The Church teaches us that we have to look evil in the eye. John Paul II, in "The Gospel of Life, said that we have to call evil by its proper name. This is no time to shrink back from the reality of what is going on every day in abortion. Children are being killed, and the reason it continues is that too many of our fellow citizens are blind to it.
    'Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, responded to criticisms that the civil rights activists were fomenting violence. No, he said. That's like saying the person who owns money is fomenting the activity of the robber. To expose the violence that is already occurring, to call it what it is, and to sound the alarm that it has to stop, is not to foment violence.
    'The pro-life movement is a movement of non-violence. As Ghandi and Dr. King taught, and as we teach, non-violence is not passivity, and it is not obscurity. It is a force. It is a clear and strong response against violence, in whatever form that violence takes.
    'Let the outcry against Tiller's murder be loud and clear. And let the outcry against the murders he committed - and that other abortionists commit -- be loud and clear as well.'

  • Citizen||

    @Tony

    Liberal propaganda is a contradiction in terms

    There is no chance that you're going to get away with that one. Explain.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    You know there is a difference between propaganda and fact-based rational opinionmaking.



    In other words, those who agree with me are engaging in fact-based rational opinionmaking. Those who don't agree with me are propagandists.

    Is the right better at message communication and the partisan "show" than your side? Yes, but that doesn't mean that you don't engage in it. Olbermann's so-called "grandstanding" has a tendency to use facts "when they are convenient" to rile up the left's base.

  • JB||

    Liberals are nothing but clumps of cells. They should shut their fucking clumps-of-cells mouths.

  • Mister DNA||

    Liberal propaganda is a contradiction in terms


    There is no chance that you're going to get away with that one. Explain.



    Citizen, if you'd read Michael Moore's Stupid White Men, you'd know that there is no such thing as Liberal Propaganda.

  • ||

    Citizen,

    Well I only call myself a liberal if liberal means devoted to free speech and rational inquiry. That's why I think the slur "liberal media" is actually a compliment.

    People are not agitated into being believers in pacifism and free inquiry, though I freely admit that liberals are capable of being propagandized into supporting a party (more importantly, one is propagandized into despising an other--liberals are as susceptible to this as anyone else).

    But agitprop works best and most frequently to rile up support for war and other violence, provided it can create sufficient hatred of the other (in this case abortion enablers). Religious demagoguery is a pillar of propaganda, and no one can deny the level of that which exists in this controversy. Abortion more than a moral issue is a political wedge Republicans have used to win elections for decades. They do that via their entrenched propaganda network, which relies on directed agitation and where facts are secondary to action. That is the opposite of what liberal means to me regarding public debate.

  • ||

    It's nice to hear the conservatives confirm that their words have no consequences. I never thought that they did. They do, however protect the bullies and nutcases who do their dirty work. Try walking into any women's clinic in this country. Remember Michael Savage whining about his protester's? They can dish it out but they can't take it. It's also nice to know that Randall Terry likes Guiness, that's the only thing he's gotten right.

  • ||

    Olbermann's so-called "grandstanding" has a tendency to use facts "when they are convenient" to rile up the left's base.



    I agree. That doesn't mean he compares to the right's machine and I don't see any Olbermann fans committing domestic terrorism.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Mad Max,

    From the HLI press release:

    Clowes says acts of violence include murders by abortion practitioners and abortion advocates, men who killed their pregnant wives and girlfriends, and other individuals who have killed women specifically because they were pregnant or wanted them to have abortions.

    So, at the very least, they are conflating crimes committed by doctors who have performed an abortion as "pro-abortion" violence.

    Add to that, domestic violence and it is pretty easy to get some inflated numbers.

    You CAN'T be that gullible.

  • ||

    Not anything like the above-board and neutral Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow.

    As he jumps out of his skin to protect the holy men at Fox News.

  • Mad Max||

    'Add to that, domestic violence and it is pretty easy to get some inflated numbers.'

    I'm afraid that *you're* doing some conflation yourself. It doesn't say 'domestic violence;' it says 'men who killed their pregnant wives and girlfriends.'

    There is quite a difference between a cad who smacks his wife around - hopefully earning himself a few nights in prison to cool off - and someone who murders a woman who is carrying his child - someone who, if convicted, probably shouldn't get out of prison again for a *long* time.

  • PETE||

    Dude! Do you even take a second to think that maybe people will follow your links before you post them? The Hofstra link was to a 2006 article by an NRO contributor (no Caltholic apologetics at THAT publication) complaining about anti-Catholic bigotry using the guy who "confessed" to murdering Jon Benet as a framing device!

    Also, the researcher in question "extrapolated" that "100 times worse" number.

    So, to review: Catholic priests abuse kids way less that teachers. Pro-life is the most peaceful social movement ever.

  • PETE||

    "Liberals are nothing but clumps of cells. They should shut their fucking clumps-of-cells mouths."

    Thanks JB. Way to contribute to the debate, as always. Why so angry? Did you knock over your drool cup again?

  • Heinrick||

    I wonder if people would have different opinions if a Muslim or a Jew killed a pig farmer because swine are unclean. I am sure that would become a terrorist investigation.

  • d||

    Certainly one can suggest that words carry meaning and that inflammatory rhetoric is known to inflame without being accused of censorship, no?

    You aaaruh, ow you say, Frenchie, non?

  • Jack Thread||

    Look, this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, bust it'sworth sharing. I live in the ghetto of a lage US city. By and large it's a good place to be.

    Anyway, there is this ice cream truck that drives through the neighborhood and for some reason, the folks that own and operate the truck haven't the slightest grasp of the American songbook. It's not uncommon to hear them playing "Deck the Halls". And why not? It's a happy up-tempo song. And happiness sells ice cream.

    But tonight, they're playing "Old Folks at Home".

    What I love most about life, is that you can't make this shit up.

  • Citizen||

    Tony,

    People are not agitated into being believers in pacifism and free inquiry

    Your statement implies that humans are inclined to behave peacefully without some external stimulus. What significant culture, group, or nation can you point to support this? I would submit that in their natural state, humans are indeed not peaceful, and require no rhetoric or propaganda to swiftly become violent and agitated.

  • ||

    You know, this thread should be all about hating on O'Reilly, yet defending his right to free speech. Yet instead we're into loony "OMGWTF FOX IZ TEH HUGE RIGHT-WING CONSPURACY" territory.

    See, O'Reilly is a world class douchebag all on his own. He doesn't have to co-ordinate with Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

  • ||

    Your statement implies that humans are inclined to behave peacefully without some external stimulus. What significant culture, group, or nation can you point to support this? I would submit that in their natural state, humans are indeed not peaceful, and require no rhetoric or propaganda to swiftly become violent and agitated.



    Very true. But I'm talking specifically about violent action motivated by political and religious passion.

    Pacifism and liberalism certainly aren't natural states of mind. But surely you can agree that some positions can be arrived at with thought.

  • Grant||

    "But tonight, they're playing "Old Folks at Home"."

    Wow! That's like a half a step away from "Dixie"

  • g4m3th30ry||

    Tony -

    Pacifism can be found through *stupid thought, and also religion like the Amish.

    I say stupid thought because so long as there are people who aren't pacifists, subscribing to that theory is suicidal.

  • Grant||

    Last year, Tiller aborted 250 third-term pregnancies.

    There was a time when Roman society found it acceptible to leave infants to die.

    Either you believe in evolution or you don't.

  • hmm||

    More than the Romans have left infants to die. It's not uncommon in civilizations.

    Blaming anyone, but the demented fucktard that pulled the trigger is stupid.

  • PETE||

    That reminds me of a wedding I went to. The DJ got sick and had to send some dude - who he presumable gave a quick lesson on the play and open/close buttons and that's it - to replace him. I had sat down to a meal of dry chicken and mac & cheese, when what should I hear wafting out of the speakers but "Another Day in Paradise" by Phil Collins. I shit you not, my friends. That entire day - start to finish - was a disaster.

  • Hybrid||

    PETE,

    Phil Collins? Free dinner? Chance to score?

    I don't see a down side to that day.

  • alan||

    • 904 assaults
    • 1,908 sex crimes


    Woah, woah, back up there. Does that include the obligatory postcoitus punch in the stomach? That is only to ensure only the most agile sperm makes the trip upstream, and has nothing to do with attempts at termination.

    I keed, I keed.

    Exquisite use of anti-Marxist rhetoric in your post even if I am not entirely convinced of other matters addressed.

  • alan||

    Episiarch | June 1, 2009, 6:27pm | #
    O'Reilly and other loudmouth anti-abortionists have already been found guilty in the kangaroo court of liberal opinion

    O'Reilly is guilty of one thing: being a HUGE asshole. George Takei wouldn't even have to spit on his dick before fucking O'Reilly.


    Now, we all know he is into the young fresh, Asian meat, not the old, leathery, but still quite handsome, Takei.

  • Peter||

    This is absolutely hilarious.

    "And if it's rape you're into, check out these videos"

    I can't stop laughing when I read that, or this:

    "I know they aren't trying to imply that the pro-choice movement is raping women to create more opportunities to provide abortions. There is NO WAY that is the intended implication."

  • ||

    I had sat down to a meal of dry chicken and mac & cheese

    You're fucking kidding, right? Mac & cheese at a wedding? Was this a Canadian wedding or something?

    Does that include the obligatory postcoitus punch in the stomach?

    Alan, you need to be more subtle. A bottle of Jack and a trip down the stairs does the trick, and you only do it if she gets pregnant first.

  • Grant||

    "More than the Romans have left infants to die. It's not uncommon in civilizations."

    So you're okay with that?

  • Mad Max||

    'an NRO contributor'

    No, Professor Shakeshaft of Hofstra University was not a NRO contributor. National Review reported Professor Shakeshaft's conclusions, but, then, so did Education Week, not exactly a neocon fundie publication. Professor Shakeshaft was the author of a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education.

    Critical reading skills are important.

  • ||

    When those 3 police officers were killed in pittsburgh, I recall the commontators on leftwing blogs spewing the same stuff, about how rush and glenn beck needed to pay for this. Some of the straight up fascism coming from the Dailykos and DU crowd is scary.

  • Mister DNA||

    "More than the Romans have left infants to die. It's not uncommon in civilizations."

    So you're okay with that?



    As long as they're accompanied by at least one parent, I'm fine with it.

    btw, I'm curious: are there any pro-life misanthropes out there?

  • Fascitis Necrotizante||

    "Are there any pro-life misanthropes out there?"

    Raises hand.

  • alan||


    Alan, you need to be more subtle. A bottle of Jack and a trip down the stairs does the trick, and you only do it if she gets pregnant first.


    When you pay twenty bucks extra for bareback, you get to throw in the gut punch for free.

  • Margaret Sanger||

    I'd like to see the racial stats on this rich white male's third-term abortion practice.

  • ||

    alan,

    Don't worry about Episiarch. He's a few days late and a bit anxious. If only someone would have sold him some Plan B after Warty's condom broke.

  • ||

    When you pay twenty bucks extra for bareback, you get to throw in the gut punch for free.

    If only Spitzer were more like you, alan.

    He's a few days late and a bit anxious.

    "Don't worry, NutraSweet--I can't get pregnant. My ovaries are diseased."

  • alan||

    Don't worry about Episiarch. He's a few days late and a bit anxious. If only someone would have sold him some Plan B after Warty's condom broke.

    Warty! That is definitely not the Conway Twitty way (which is the only right way).

  • NTTAWRT, though, right?||

    Nobody naturally reacts to abortion as they do child murder

    Except the abortoreum staff when the occasional live-delivery occurs.

  • MNG||

    Max
    You're committing one helluva equivocation with your "pro-abortion violence".

    Sense #1 Pro-Abortion=the pro-choice movement
    Sense #2 Pro-Abortion=anyone who has pushed another to have an abortion (literally it seems from some of the stories you cite)

    It's quite terrible. It would be like if I cited every instance of a parent, husband or expectant who attacked a child, spouse or lover because they had an abortion as "pro-life violence."

  • alan||

    You know what would be beyond awesome?

    If they could book Bono & U2 to sing 'One Tree Hill' at Dr. George Tiller's funeral. Good God, I'd pay money to see that even though you couldn't get me at a regular U2 concert. The kitsch, the cheese, the vainglory, the schmaltz, it would be insane.

  • ||

    U2 is the Grateful Dead of my generation.

    I mean this in the most pejorative sense possible. They were dozens of better bands, but we get an extra two decades of crap because they managed to survive.

  • MNG||

    Oh, I love U2. They rocked the Super Bowl a few years back, when Bono came through the crowd to Where the Streets Have No Name and had the jacket with the stars n stripes on the inside. Best Super Bowl performance ever.

  • MNG||

    "They were dozens of better bands"

    Like Duran Duran?

  • ||

    I don't know, NutraSweet. Let's see:

    1. They're way overrated, but not terrible with some catchy songs
    2. Pretentious as all hell
    3. Super-obnoxious crusading lead singer
    4. Liked by people who could be counted on to like R.E.M.

    So...they're basically the Police, not the Dead.

  • alan||

    Sure we don't know how to play our instruments to the point our guitarist plays only one note at a time during rhythm sections and double stops during the solos, but we have these deep, sensitive feelings.

  • By Any Means Necessary||

    "I'd like to see the racial stats on this rich white male's third-term abortion practice."

    Good question.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Did Fox News host Bill O'Reilly kill abortion provider Dr. George Tiller? Reading some of today's outraged commentary by pro-choice writers in both America and Britain, you could be forgiven for thinking so."

    Ho Hum - nothing new here from the liberal twits.

    They tried to blame Limbaugh for Timothy McVeigh years ago.

    The logic of that was total BS then and the logic of this is total BS now - end of story.

  • MNG||

    "If H&R posters aren't willing to define the government schools (which they don't by any means support) by their sex scandals, then how can they so define the Catholic Church?"

    Uhh, I dunno, near systematic cover ups by the Church hierarchy? I'm just taking a guess here...Perhaps the public school hiearchies (whatever that would be, it's hard to analogize something other than maybe the USSR politboro, to the centralized hiearchial clusterfuck that is the Catholic Church) reassigned known pedophiles to other schools and worked to hush up these abuses too...

    To make this post a true counter to Max I should have a highlighted link to some Social Scientist who has had his work in, you know, Prominent Journals and Venues that have No Love for the Church and so therefore must be right, but alas, I am a lazy man and don't know, or care to know, how to html...

  • MNG||

    "Liked by people who could be counted on to like R.E.M."

    That, my friends, is funny.

  • MNG||

    "The logic of that was total BS then and the logic of this is total BS now - end of story."

    Hmm, whadday know, I actually agree with Gilbert Martin on something.

    But Gilbert, how will we PHYSICALLY PROVE this?

  • Lester Hunt||

    This reminds me of the "climate of hate" created by right-wing anticommunists that caused Oswald to assassinate Kennedy -- according to some of the liberal commentators of those days. Believe it or not.

  • MNG||

    The focus on the molestation in the Catholic Church is I would guess a function of
    1. The Church sets itself up as, well, holy and all, and tells the world how to behave, and people love it when such an entity is then shown to have some moral failing
    2. The knowledge and cover ups by the higher ups

    Number one is not really fair. Telling people what's right and wrong is just what churches do.

    Number two is a firmer foundation. When an employer for example knows about shenanigans going on in his workplace and does not take the correct steps to address it, or worse acts to cover it up and sweep it under the rug, then their responsibility grows, and it's less "a couple of bad apples" and more "a bad organization."

    And then you ge South Park episodes where aliens are part of the leadership of the Church...Hilarious episode btw.

  • alan||

    1. They're way overrated, but not terrible with some catchy songs

    Hey, wait, The Dead qualify for this first entry. Good Lovin', Sugar Magnolia, Shakedown Street -- they were like a Southern harmony rock band that progressives could listen to without feeling embarrassed.

  • MNG||

    "This reminds me of the "climate of hate" created by right-wing anticommunists that caused Oswald to assassinate Kennedy"

    Lester, you must be one old dude!

  • ||

    Oh, I love U2. They rocked the Super Bowl a few years back, when Bono came through the crowd to Where the Streets Have No Name and had the jacket with the stars n stripes on the inside. Best Super Bowl performance ever.

    I really hope you've been drinking.

  • Peter||

    "This reminds me of the "climate of hate" created by right-wing anticommunists that caused Oswald to assassinate Kennedy"

    Don't you know that Harvey Lee Oswald (American Hero) was just trying to shoot the guys on the grassy nole?

  • anarch||

    Oswald was a violent marijuana prohibitionist at elite academic institutions?

  • Tim||

    So is everyone who opposed the war, the use of torture, or Gitmo responsible for enraging the terrorists who kill our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan? Both Bill and the above people honestly believed a wrong was done and brought that wrong to the attention of society, and they are in no way responsible for the actions of crazy people who happen to on some level agree them. I'd expect reason readers to be smarter than this but here they seem to be little better than your average daily kos or Huffpo blogger ranting about how "Bill O" is the devil and "Fauxnews" is some rightwing conspiracy.

    And today's "liberals", who are really collectivist progressives, on the most part do not believe in free speech and rational inquiry. Otherwise, why do many of them support restrictions on speech such as the fairness doctrine, campaign finance laws, hate speech laws, and censorship of movies music and games? Why do they ignore the value of the free market and the ineffectiveness of many of their big government programs? Why do they hold nearly religious beliefs in the tenants of environmentalism and promote the rights of animals at the expense of humans?

    Liberal propaganda taken in the sense of "classical liberal" propaganda is a contradiction in terms, but I don't think any intelligent person could believe that those politicians who in America today are referred to as "liberals" bear much resemblance to the classical sort. That's one of the reasons the term libertarian was invented.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Mad Max,

    I'm afraid that *you're* doing some conflation yourself. It doesn't say 'domestic violence;' it says 'men who killed their pregnant wives and girlfriends.'

    There is quite a difference between a cad who smacks his wife around - hopefully earning himself a few nights in prison to cool off - and someone who murders a woman who is carrying his child - someone who, if convicted, probably shouldn't get out of prison again for a *long* time.


    Yes, yes there is.
    However, to call his crime "pro-abortion violence" is a bit silly.

    As suggested above, the methods of the HLI seem to indicate that it is "pro-abortion violence" if the crime was committed by an individual who held pro-choice views...no matter whether that was related to the crime or not. The equivalent count of anti-choice violence was based on politically motivated killings that targeted organizations and individuals because they engage in family planning and/or provide abortion services.

    Domestic violence by those with pro-life views amounts to how many deaths a year? Is that a relevant number to know in this debate?

    I mean, come on...let's a least have the discussion be about numbers that mean something.

  • Neu Mejican||

    The dead...sucked.

    An objective fact.
    Dullest. band. ever.

  • Rex Rhino||

    Rex Rhino - yelling "Fire" where there is no fire, with the intent of inciting a panic, is a crime. you could look it up.



    Except that you will have no luck at all proving that a person did indeed yell fire, that there was no fire, that they did not believe there to be a fire, and with the intent of inciting a panic. The whole "yelling fire in the theater" argument is an incredibly unrealistic argument, with no real basis in reality, and the analogy itself was thought up by people engaging in the worst kinds of oppression.

    The "yelling fire in the theater" argument is that tired cliche brought out by every would-be totalitarian to explain why the form of censorship you support is OK. When you have to make the "fire in the theater" argument, just give up. You have lost.

  • alan||

    Good luck with that. It's no coincidence that the pro-choice movement's heyday came in the 60s and early 70s when very little was known about prenatal development.

    You are right, actually, and you don't eleborate what I believe to be a fallicious argument that is usually unfolded from the point you make here, so I'm going to turn this into a bit of a straw man, even though you avoided the fallacy.

    Usually, when this argument is made, it is accompanied by, 'people realize how human the fetus appears during development'. This is entirely wrong, but the fetuses appearance during development is the reason more people are pro-life today. It is not that the fetus appears more human, as you can see here, but the fact that it looks like some alternative dimension creature with telepathic powers which it is able to use to render your mind a gibbering wreck if you so much as entertain the thought of killing it that has made more people pro-life. No getting around it, fetuses are creepy, and in our times, the most reassuring thing about a baby when it pops out is that it looks like a baby and not a fetus.

  • alan||

    The dead...sucked.

    An objective fact.
    Dullest. band. ever.


    Okay, so they were terrible, and you needed speed or coke during their shows to stay awake, esp. during Dark Star. I can't contest that.

  • Leonidas||

    "More than the Romans have left infants to die. It's not uncommon in civilizations."

    "So you're okay with that?"

    Only the hard and the strong may call themselves Spartan. Only the hard. Only the strong.

  • Mike||

    Oswald was a Communist, not a right-winger.

  • alan||

    Mike | June 2, 2009, 12:05am | #
    Oswald was a Communist, not a right-winger.


    I recall a professor of mine who was a student and hip deep in Leftist politics in the early sixties who told me when JFK was killed everyone he knew assumed it was those 'Goddamned Birchers', and that when Oswald's background was revealed over the following weeks, it was the shock of his young life.

  • Tim||

    I don't want to be a purist here opposed to all forms of government intervention in the economy because even F.A. Hayek wasn't against that. But just try talking to an American liberal about school choice, private accounts for ss, repealing sin taxes, private health care, letting businesses fail, or drug policy and see how far their "rational inquiry" goes. Jeez, Tony I defended you on another post from the purists but give me a break here.

    Also if anyone carries out the various death threats made against AIG execs Obama and the Dems are responsible for railing against wall street. Gotta love the logic, anyone who disagrees with you that could conceivably have a radical supporter is guilty of said supporter's crimes. Wonderful!!!

  • ||

    Oswald was an informant for the FBI and CIA. He was set up to take the fall. CIA organized the hit, CIA and FBI covered it up.

  • Rex Rhino||

    've studied propaganda and Bill O and basically his entire network fit the definition to a T. Not the most sophisticated propaganda ever devised, but propaganda nonetheless, and it works on simple people.



    You haven't studied propaganda. If you had, you would know the difference between political propaganda and yellow journalism.

    Fox News is to the world of journalism what professional wrestling is to the world of sports. Loud, cheap, over the top, and extremely popular. Extreme nationalism, paranoia, and panic has always sell very well.

    You force yourself to believe that Fox news is some sophisticated right-wing manipulation. If you admitted to yourself the truth, that Fox News is simply cashing in on a large under-represented demographic of paranoid nationalists, your dream of utopian democratic socialism goes up in smoke.

    No one would want state-controlled economy, state-controlled media, state-controlled education, state-controlled science, in a place where the Fox News devotees represented even a significant minority of the voting public. So you are forced by your ideology to believe that Fox News is controlling the people, and not that Fox News is simply echoing back what many American's want to hear.

    Well I only call myself a liberal if liberal means devoted to free speech and rational inquiry. That's why I think the slur "liberal media" is actually a compliment.



    Liberalism is dead. What used to be "Liberal" is now called "Libertarian" to distinguish itself from the term hijacked by socialists. When someone complains that you are 'Liberal', they aren't calling you open-minded or implying that you are for small government or civil liberties... they are implying that you are a closet Stalinist. While it might be a bit ironic for authoritarians like Bill O'Reilly to be criticizing the left for its own authoritarianism, that doesn't mean that the left aren't hardcore authoritarians. It simply means that Bill O'Reilly is a hypocrite. Bill O'Reilly being a closed minded authoritarian, and you being a closed minded authoritarian, are not mutually exclusive.

  • Jimbo||

    Jill Fullashiit wrote:
    How many, over the course of 36 years? Ten? Twenty? You people make it sound like the hospitals are overflowing with the victims of pro-life protesters.

    In North America, at least 10 murders, 17 attempted murders, 406 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery and four kidnappings. 642 bomb threats. 659 anthrax threats. 1400 acts of vandalism. 41 bombings. 175 arsons. 151 burglaries. 525 stalkings. 100 Butyric acid attacks.

    When do we concede that these are organized and ongoing attacks?
    ___________________________
    Jill, I think you have your facts a little mixed up...the stats you quote above are actually from that lefty group ELF.
    (that would make it ok, it your book)

  • Rex Rhino||

    Oswald was an informant for the FBI and CIA. He was set up to take the fall. CIA organized the hit, CIA and FBI covered it up.



    Anyone who has actually read up on the history of the CIA and FBI knows that they didn't conspire on anything. The CIA and FBI where hardcore enemies. J Edgar Hoover was extremely anti-CIA, because he wanted the FBI to handle domestic law enforcement as well as foreign intelligence. The CIA was a bunch of stuck up rich Yale kids who considered the FBI a bunch of undereducated working class buffoons.

    Not only that, but neither had any problem with Kennedy, as he was a hardcore anti-Communist willing to engage in some extreme brinkmanship with the Soviet Union, as well as give the military industrial complex with whatever they wanted. Kennedy would have been somewhere to the Right of Ronald Reagan, and only became a left-wing hero after his death.

  • ||

    I suspect that about 80% of Americans agree with O'Reilly that a) Dr. Tiller was a dirtball, b) that the man who murdered Dr. Tiller should be tried for first-degree murder, convicted and punished.

    By the way O'Reilly is far from being nasty and hateful. He frequently dissents from conservative guests who make overly personal attacks on the liberal culprit under discussion. He has never advocate extremism, much less violence. Most of the time he just affirms common sense against the loony left.

    O'Reilly's mixture of libertarianism and populism isn't entirely consistent, but it's much more wholesome that the dominant ideology on the left, which Jonah Goldberg has aptly named "liberal fascism".

  • ||

    Many libertairans, to the extent they believe government has any positive purpose, agree that THE function of government is to prevent the initiation of the use of force or violence. So I accept that Dr. Tiller, engaging in a vile but legal activity, is to be protected from violence, and his murderer should be punished accordingly. While I consider abortion as violence against the unborn to be wrong, as practical matter it should not and cannot be illeagel. Americans have reached as much of a consensus on abortion as on just about anything: roughly 70% believe abourtion should be legal, but subject to some restrictions. This result would occur if left to the states, as constitutionally required under our federal system. Roe made abortion a federal issue, which has created a political storm ever since. The left has taken the rediculous position that killing the unborn is the ONLY thing that cannot be regulated, even as they want to control every other aspect of our existence. The right has taken an unpractical position that all abortion can be criminalized. If we just overturn Roe and leave it to the political processes in each state, we can end the violence and create reasonable policies. In any event, O'Reilly did not kill this guy, who had no constitutional right to be free from critisism.

  • ||

    "Does O'Reilly have blood on his hands?"

    Close. The right question is: "Does O'Reilly have blood on his falafel?"

  • Tim||

    Rex Rhino you are absolutely correct that Fox leans heavily on the sensationalism, tabloid style news, and the conservative, nationalist, and populist tendency of many of the American people. However despite the fact that I disagree vigorously with Beck, Bill, and Hannity on many issues; I would and do still watch them over the left wing progressive propaganda and drivel on MSNBC, and the drawling, monotonous, and politically correct progressive advocacy of CNN. CNN may be more down to earth and professional than Fox, but is no less biased. Journalism has always been biased, but at least Fox and especially Bill does go out of his way to get opposing viewpoints on. Bill may get angry at times and does interrupt guests who rant, but I have yet to see a CNN or MSBNC correspondent who challenged Barney Frank on the role the congress played in encouraging the subprime bubble, and in case anyone accuses me of conservative bias, the same thing was pointed out by the libertarians at CATO.

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9684

    Fox is the only network, despite all its flaws, that will expose the left wing in this country to any semblance of media scrutiny before some corruption, sex, or other scandal makes it politically indefensible not to do so. That is why I watch it, and use intelligent websites like Reason's, Cato's, and even the occasional CNN to make sure Fox is on the up and up and that I get all sides of the issue.

    I ask fellow libertarians if they watch any network news and don't watch Fox what do they watch? Olbermann? Maddow? Cambell Brown? Larry King? As has been pointed out in the many liberaltarian posts, at least the right speaks our language so it is possible but tough to convince them of our view, but trying to convince a liberal of the value of individual liberty and free choice beyond gay rights and abortion is like trying to speak to a Mandarin speaker in English.

    They think that most people don't know what is in their best interests, and that government is better able to know of and provide for people's projects and desires than individuals are themselves. There is a role for government in the economy during the times that markets are not competitive and fail (why we have government in the first place in order to provide public goods like national defense and law and order), and some of those times government intervention is less costly than doing nothing. However, those times are the exception and not the rule, and the terms market failure, social cost, and public good all have defined economic meanings and can't just be thrown around colloquially to justify big government policies.

  • ||

    Fuck U2, especially Bono; Root Boy Slim was the man.

    Also PETE,
    A buddy had the song "She's No Lady She's My Wife" by Lyle Lovett played at his reception. And unbelievably they are no divorced.

  • ||

    now divored

  • We all wise Latinas now||

    they are no divorced

    Lucy, you syn tax got some splainin to do.

  • Mad Max||

    '(whatever that would be, it's hard to analogize something other than maybe the USSR politboro, to the centralized hiearchial clusterfuck that is the Catholic Church)'

    As opposed to the public schools, which are models of organizational excellence.

    'Number two is a firmer foundation. When an employer for example knows about shenanigans going on in his workplace and does not take the correct steps to address it, or worse acts to cover it up and sweep it under the rug, then their responsibility grows, and it's less "a couple of bad apples" and more "a bad organization."

    Which is why sex abuse in the public schools is so problematic - their improper supervision of their employees, and reassignment of abusive employees to new teaching positions.

  • MNG||

    "reassignment of abusive employees to new teaching positions"

    They had knowledge the teachers were molesting and reassigned them, like Catholic Church officials did?

  • ||

    MNG,

    Since you didn't comment on it, you might not have read this classic thread. Ignore the actual post subject (threadjacked early) and revel in the rare alliance of me, Epi, Fluffy and joe...

  • ||

    Interesting how fast personal responsibility gets tossed under the bus when yappers have an opportunity to make an ideological point. O'Reilly's responsible for this murder the way your Mom is responsible for your inability to get a date.

  • Mad Max||

    SugarFree,

    Don't forget this line by BakedPenguin:

    'Mad Max still thinks that the worst thing about what's gone on in the Catholic church these past few years is that there was a cover up.'

    Yes, that is true. The cover ups *were* the worst part of the scandals.

    So it seems that I *have* been critical of the Church scandals. Indeed, I compared the coverups to Watergate.

    'They had knowledge the teachers were molesting and reassigned them, like Catholic Church officials did?'

    Well, it's been known to happen. There was a story in the Oregonian last year - link is down, but a blogger copied it:

    'Schools let sex abuse cases slide
    Predatory teachers - Records show a pattern of missed red flags and ignored complaints from students

    '. . . An examination of those cases by The Oregonian, combined with hundreds of interviews and thousands of pages of documents obtained under state public records law, shows that state and local officials repeatedly missed opportunities to protect students. The Oregonian tracked a 10-year period -- 1997 to 2007 -- because such cases take years to wind through the state's teacher discipline system.

    'Records show that school leaders missed red flags or ignored complaints from parents, students and staff, allowing some educators to engage in years of sexual misconduct, ranging from inappropriate touching to rape.

    'The documents reveal that many school administrators concealed alleged sexual misconduct from hiring districts, allowing educators to resign and move on to jobs elsewhere working with children...

    http://albanymediabias.blogspot.com/2008/02/public-school-sex-scandal-to-be-next.html

  • ||

    The cover ups *were* the worst part of the scandals.

    You are fucking insane. The worst part was THAT PRIESTS WERE RAPING LITTLE KIDS.

  • ||

    You know what, never mind. There's a reason why you don't argue with the guy who thinks telepathic cats are urging him to masturbate in public: nothing will penetrate his web of delusion.

  • EllisWyatt||

    "But to compare it to the reach and influence of rightwing propaganda machine in this country is simply to draw a false equivalency."

    Let's see, liberals have NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, most newspapers and most of the entertainment industry spreading their propaganda. Conservatives and Libertarians have Fox News and talk radio. It took a wealthy Australian (Rupert Murdoch) and the repeal of a terrible policy (the Fairness Doctrine) for us to finally have a voice in the media. Wow, quite a reach we have!

    I think of what happened to Carrie Prejean. I support gay marriage, but the way she is being treated for her comments on gay marriage is shameful. She did not make disparaging remarks about gay people. She didn't say they should burn in hell or that they are digusting, or anything like that. She simply gave her honest opinion about a policy relating to gay people. And she was vilified for it.

    The campaign against her is propaganda "straight up" as Jeanine Garafalo would say. It confirms what conservatives have said for years: if you want to work in entertainment, you cannot express certain viewpoints. Perez Hilton said openly that Miss USA should be politically correct. This is laughable behavior from an industry that loves to complain about "McCarthyism" and "blacklisting:".

  • Neu Mejican||

    Jill, I think you have your facts a little mixed up...the stats you quote above are actually from that lefty group ELF.

    The numbers are , actually, from Wikipedia.

    As for ELF, ELF has never caused a death (iirc...although they have certainly endangered fire fighters and others).

    Mad Max,
    I see you are not going to pretend to defend the bullshit HLI numbers you posted.

    I've done a little more digging on HLI.
    An odd organization, but certainly relevant to the original concept to this posting. Many of the shooters in anti-abortion violence have been found to have their literature...to pass out their literature...to use their literature and misinformation as an excuse for their violence...to reference HLI numbers and misinformation in their defense.

    The catholic church has been highly critical or their opinions and methods.

  • ||

    Even though Bill O'Reilly has a formidable reputation for stirring the blood. I am convinced that the man responsible for killing Tiller already had his mind made up. With or without Bill O'Reilly, he would have done the act because THAT man was convinced that God ordained the action. I understand the logic behind this article, but this article just proves that society can not place full responsibility on the individual who committed the act. We have to blame a third party. Let's place responsibility and concentrate on the man who actually pulled the trigger. His thinking is more dangerous than O'Reilly's because he thinks that God told him to do it; O'Reilly's comments are driven from scholarly research and combined with moral conviction--he does not believe God speaks to him (even though I would argue he thinks he is God sometimes, but that is for another debate).

  • IceTrey||

    O'Reilly isn't legally responsible but he does have some moral responsibility.

    "To seek to restrict a broadcaster's speech on the basis that it might inflame viewers to do something awful is an insult to all of us"

    Actually it is legal to restrict inflammatory speech. Haven't you ever heard of "inciting to riot"?

  • By Any Means Necessary||

    "Margaret Sanger | June 1, 2009, 10:15pm | #
    I'd like to see the racial stats on this rich white male's third-term abortion practice."

    Is there anyway to find this out?

  • Tim||

    This is all about making an ideological and partisan point, not just people ignoring personal responsibility. The left is exploiting the tragedy of a man's death to attack their political opponents. As a prominent conservative whose show's ratings consistently destroy those of his left wing competitors at CNN and MSNBC, Oreilly is a threat to their ideology and their pocketbooks.

    The left doesn't want an open debate and rational inquiry about the issues, they want their opponents if not regulated by the government through campaign finance laws and the "fairness" doctrine to be too scared to oppose any of their policies out of fear of being labeled racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe/greedy or responsible for the actions of truly crazy rightwingers (because there are no crazy leftwingers) merely for disagreeing with them or believing that things like hate crime laws, affirmative action, welfare, and various stimulus plans, government interventions in the economy, and economic regulations either do not actually help the groups they are supposed to help and/or are blatantly unjust and unconstitutional. We've gotten to a state in society where the New Black Panthers can stand outside a polling place with billy clubs and charges against them will be dropped by political appointees at the justice department, but if you go to a protest dressed up like Thomas Jefferson advocating lower taxes, the constitution, and federalism you might just be a domestic terrorist. That is what "liberalism", "freedom", "equality", and "progress" means to many on the modern left.

  • Drew||

    I think you're too easily conflating calls for criticism and SELF-censorship with censorship.

    Having and defending free speech means doing so no matter what harm it causes.

    But it doesn't mean that you just pretend it can't cause harm, or lead directly to really awful things. Speech CAN do that. We don't defend speech because its harmless, but because we think it's important to have IN SPITE of the harm it can do.

    And telling O'Reily to shut up and be ashamed of himself is not censorship. If he feels remorse and moderates his rhetoric that's not a victory for censorship, that IS a victory for free speech convincing someone to change their own speech and opinion.

  • Mad Max||

    'Many of the shooters in anti-abortion violence have been found to have their literature'

    And Timothy McVeigh was found with a Thomas Jefferson T-shirt.

    We should look into this Jefferson fellow. Sounds suspicious.

  • ||

    Sex between public high school teachers and the students was a topic of discussion at my 20 year reunion. There were at least 3 ongoing cases of it at my school that virtually all the students knew about (and this is a school with a graduating class sixe of under 200). Our collective opinion is there is no way that at least half of the teachers were not aware of this, even if they perceived it to only be rumor (it wasn't). I guess teachers are people too - just like cops.

  • ||

    Let's see, liberals have NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, most newspapers and most of the entertainment industry spreading their propaganda.



    Hahaha. Don't forget almost all of academia! I wonder where you got the idea that all sources of information outside the sphere of American right-wing media are controlled by an evil liberal cabal and can't be trusted (only Rush and FOX know the truth--don't listen to anyone else, it's bad for you!)

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Did Fox News host Bill O'Reilly kill abortion provider Dr. George Tiller?


    Did Keith Olbermann or Fred Phelps kill William Long ?

  • Mad Max||

    Concerning the Jefferson T-shirt: It had a quote from TJ about the tree of liberty being watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    So we have a case of terrorists invoking the U.S. Founding Fathers in justification of their crimes.

    I suggest we take a close look at these so-called Founding Fathers.

  • Borat||

    a graduating class sixe

    I like sixe class!

  • Mad Max||

    More people with moral responsibility for terrorism:

    'As a critique of technological society, the [Unabomber's] manifesto echoed contemporary critics of technology and industrialization, such as John Zerzan, Herbert Marcuse, Max Weber, Fredy Perlman, Jacques Ellul (whose book The Technological Society was referenced in an unnamed Kaczynski essay, written in 1971). Lewis Mumford, Neil Postman, and Derrick Jensen. Its idea of the "disruption of the power process" similarly echoed social critics emphasizing the lack of meaningful work as a primary cause of social problems, including Mumford, Paul Goodman, and Eric Hoffer (whom Kaczynski explicitly references).[46][47] The general theme was also addressed by Aldous Huxley in his dystopian novel Brave New World, which Kaczynski references. The ideas of "oversocialization" and "surrogate activities" recall Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents and his theories of rationalization and sublimation (the latter term being used three times in the manifesto, twice in quotes, to describe surrogate activities).'

    Aldous Huxley and Max Weber! Say it isn't so!

  • anarch||

    I have it on good authority that he also relied heavily on Noah Webster's work.

  • ||

    There are 3 utterly repulsive components to this story. The first is the death of a doctor as much as his livlihood might disgust us, the second is the intentional skirting of the Kansas State statue that requires the health of the mother to be in danger to necessitate the procedure of a late term abortion, and perhaps the most repulsive one is the fact that somehow we're not suppose to discuss either the procedure, the intent of the Kansas Law, or those that perform late term abortions. ( yet since the medical records are between a woman and her doctor...how is one ever to know if the severe medical condition to the mother was a reality?) What the hell does that say about us as a society that we not only allow this, but smear anyone who dares discuss it openly and accurately. These Nazi's on the left want abortion on demand, anytime any place any circumstance. The vast majority of American's aren't down with that !! Finally...I know a mans sins are between him and his maker, but what the hell is the Luthern Church letting this guy Tiller have such a prominent position in it? That may be a little more "reform" than Martin Luther had invisioned !!

  • ||

    Every reader of Resaon will instantly agree that the anti-abortion folks shouln't be censored. The service the article provides is to alert us that the national debate seems to be moving in that direction.

    The most important argument the article makes is that speach does not lead to action. People don't kill because a TV comentator said that person was bad, or they saw it in a video game. This is your best argument when having the debate with friends, and it's true... to a point.

    It's hard to miss how polarized the debate has become, and I take issue with the author's point that more inflamatory rhetoric is desireable. That kind of rhetoric, which has dominated the media, dehumanizes both sides. Even the labels do this. How can you get something positive out of any discussion which begins with the assumption that one side is anti-life while the other is anti-freedom?

    If you like watching a good fight, this is great for you. But if you care strongly about the issue, then viewing the other side as inhuman monsters is personally destructive. It also creates an "all or nothing" scenario, where there is no space for alternative opinions. One such opinion is the (very libertarian) viewpoint that abortion is wrong but outlawing it will only make the problem worse. Try getting elected on that platform!

    Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that individuals we should reject and criticize this kind of speach. But as a group it's very important that we do nothing to censor it.

  • asdf||

    What, you can't point out that O'Reilly is an asshole anymore?

    Isn't Reason doing the same thing to the 'liberals' that the liberals are doing to O'Reilly?

  • asdf||

    And if 'Speech doesn't lead to action...' then why are you worried about some liberals 'speech'? It won't lead to any action...

  • Tim||

    You can call Oreilly an asshole as often as your little heart desires and liberals can pontificate all day about how "Bill O" is responsible for this guys murder, but you would be 100% wrong for sure on the latter charge while the former is a matter of opinion. Oreilly gets death threats as do many prominent pundits, so by your logic if someone carries them out are you responsible for it? Should you not engage in "self censorship"? The point that I made about free speech and rational inquiry also had little to do with criticism of Oreilly, but with the policies like campaign finance, the fairness doctrine, and the lefts irrational opposition to things like free markets and school choice.

  • MaterialMonkee||

    OI BRENDAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Why no discussion board on Spiked articles?!!?

    Not very libertarian methinks

  • Mad Max||

    'You know what, never mind. There's a reason why you don't argue with the guy who thinks telepathic cats are urging him to masturbate in public: nothing will penetrate his web of delusion.'

    That shows how much *you* know about Catholic doctrine.

    They aren't cats, they're flying monkeys. They don't have telepathy, they have psychkinetic powers.

    And they don't tell people to masturbate in public, the tell people to post on blogs.

    Wait . . .

    OK, I guess you got that last one right.

  • ||

    Then I would suggest that the Anti-war people and main stream press in particular, along with President Obama are at fault for Carlos Bledsoe killing the young reservist in Little Rock.

    Perhaps they should be charged????

    Come on, if it isn't too late, someone needs to grow a brain. The idiot who pulled the trigger is the idiot at fault.

    Personally I think that all persons of the press, (Liberal and Right wing idiotic whackos) should be put in prison for being lying assholes and misinforming the public, but I do not condone killing any of them. I'd rather watch em suffer.

  • Mad Max||

    psychokinetic

  • zoltan||

    ( yet since the medical records are between a woman and her doctor...how is one ever to know if the severe medical condition to the mother was a reality?) What the hell does that say about us as a society that we not only allow this,

    This says that "as a society" whatever the fuck that means, "we" respect doctor-patient-confidentiality over the law. Take that as you will.

  • ||

    I think we should arrest all those 9/11 "truther" conspiracy theorists who claim the government staged the events of that day on a charge of shouting "theater" in a crowded fire.

  • zoltan||

    Oh so clever!

    Truthers suck. So do lame jokes.

  • ||

    O'Reilley has expressed his view that ejecting a near full term baby from a whom and killing it by drilling a hole into its skull is wrong. I would add it is barbaric, and unconscionable. I am surprised that more Libertarians do not see these babies as victims.

  • ||

    Blaming O'Reily is a ploy for the liberals (or "Statist" I should say) to try and "ban" speech in another social areana. Fact is this guy Tiller was doing some very provocative procedures that some might compare to actions that would take place in a Nazi Death camp. Performing abortions on woman 6,7,8,(8.5?) months pregnant, the women might as well be giving premature birth. A premature birth in which the doctor (Tiller) then kills the Baby. I think it was just a matter of time.

  • ||

    If a woman gives birth and then a week later she leaves the baby in a dumpster is it murder? If a woman gives birth and two weeks later drowns the child in a toilet is it murder? Did you answer YES? Ok if a woman is going to have a baby in a week and pays someone to pull it out of her body and kill it is it murder? If a woman is a month away from giving birth and pays someone to force the baby from the womb and then kills it, is it murder? YES/ NO? If you said yes then at what point do Federal Buearacrats decide that it is not? This should be a state issue. Roe vs. Wade rulling was completely illogical and the constitutional argument contained no REASON what so ever.

  • ||

    "in case you weren't aware, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. "

    wrong. FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater.

    that's a significant difference.

    note also that the case where the fire in a theater analogy was made (by holmes) was schenck. it was used to justify PROSECUTION OF A WAR PROTESTER. how frigging ironic, alanis.

    note : it was also OVERTURNED. by brandenburg iirc.

  • ||

    "Rex Rhino - yelling "Fire" where there is no fire, with the intent of inciting a panic, "

    ACTUALLY, ... in order for the statutes against reckless endagerment to kick in, you do NOT have to have the INTENT to incite panic. you merely have to recklessly create an imminent risk thereof.

    note also that when this analogy was made, fires in theaters were NOT uncommon, many people had been killed by same, buildings were effectively made of tinder, and modern fire safety was non-existent.

    just to add some nuance.

  • ||

    "So to recap, you claim " Scott Roeder might be suspected of actually pulling the trigger, but O'Reilly-and other loudmouth, right-wing anti-abortionists-have already been found guilty of egging him on in the kangaroo court of liberal opinion."

    Then can't offer a single even obscure moonbatty person making the claim."

    a whole bunch of threads in DU RIGHT NOW making exactly that claim. numerous people saying he should be sued, should be prosecuted, that operation rescue should be disbanded and prosecuted via RICO, etc.

    just go to democraticunderground and you will find scores of examples.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Mad Max | June 2, 2009, 1:13pm | #
    'Many of the shooters in anti-abortion violence have been found to have their literature'

    And Timothy McVeigh was found with a Thomas Jefferson T-shirt.

    We should look into this Jefferson fellow. Sounds suspicious.


    You missed my point, methinks.

    HLI gets blame for deliberate misinformation.

    The issue raised in the original post about blaming speech for actions is certainly at least as relevant for groups like HLI as it is for Bill O...

    In both cases, the blame they get is for their hateful speech, not for the actions of those that listen with appreciation. The violence falls firmly on the shoulders of the violent.

  • Ellis Boyd \'Red\' Redding||

    Fact is this guy Tiller was doing some very provocative procedures that some might compare to actions that would take place in a Nazi Death camp.



    "...I wish I could tell you that Andy had a working knowledge of medicine, and that he knew about the consequences of chromosome anomalies, and severe developmental defects. I wish I could tell you that - but this is no fairy tale world..."

  • B||

    "It was only a matter of seconds before this was thrown back at me. You know there is a difference between propaganda and fact-based rational opinionmaking. I'm not saying Olbermann, who is prone to grandstanding, is a great example of the latter, though Maddow is more so. At any rate real propaganda isn't defined as partisan opinionmaking. It requires an institutional message meant to motivate action based on facts only when they're convenient. Not to mention the scope--the two liberal talking heads on MSNBC are not yet competing with the reach of talk radio (the primary source of right-wing agitprop) or, as rightwingers like to remind us, the highly popular cable network FOX news devoted to rightwing propaganda. Liberal propaganda is a contradiction in terms in a way, though I'm not saying it can't happen, or that Olbermann and Maddow and Air America don't represent some form of proto-propaganda. But to compare it to the reach and influence of rightwing propaganda machine in this country is simply to draw a false equivalency."


    Hahahahahahahahahaha, what a bunch of total bullshit. Someone calls you out about Maddow and Keith Olbermann, and what do you do? Argue the definition of propoganda and make one of the most preposterous and hilarious fucking statements of all time: "liberal propaganda is a contradiction in terms in a way". Yeah, exactly which fucking way is that asshole? It never ceases to fucking amaze how douchebags like you can only one find ONE fucking TV network at of all the other news networks on TV that leans right and then claim this ONE fucking station is such a huge threat and then fucking turn right around and totally fucking ignore the obvious fucking corollary: One network is to the right, so which fucking way are all the others leaning? You make a big fucking deal out of one network for political bias and totally fucking ignore all the others, because they share your biases. And even worse you actually try to imply that Olbermann is merely a mild-mannered opinion journalist, who can be prone to grandstanding (seriously, you are so stupid, it is hard to tell if you are serious or just sarcastic) who only forms those opinions after a dispassionate viewing of the facts. Give us all a gigantic fucking break, asshole. Anyone who has seen his show for five fucking minutes knows you are totally full of shit. I am curious, is there some arbitrary measurement of how many times a guy has to call those who disagree with him fascists, murderers and "worse than al qaeda" before he becomes a master propogandist like O'Reilly rather than a "fact-based rational" opinionmaker?



    "Not to mention the scope..." Yeah, you better not mention the scope, because if you do, it destroys an argument that was already profoundly retarded to begin with. As I mention earlier, you name ONE fucking network and allude to talk radio. Wow, that scope sure is huge in comparison to pretty much every other "news" network on TV and the opinion pages of virtually every metropolitan newspaper, isn't it? And let us not forget academia as well. But hey, they can't be engaged in propoganda, because they are liberal and that is a contradiction in terms. And they lack the reach of the right in this country. Anyone, I repeat anyone, who claims the left, you know the political ideology that dominates Hollywood, the major media outlets and pretty much all of academia, lacks the scope of the right not only should be wearing a helmet at the dinner table, he should also have his name emblazoned an a plaque that reads "Honoring the Dumbest Motherfuckers on the face of the Earth". Seriously, your argument is on the level of claiming academia in this country is dominated by the right and then mentioning Hillsdale College and Ava Marie as your proof.

    So please spare us your Freshman Political Science 101 analysis of what constitutes propoganda vs. that which is only "proto-propoganda".

  • B||

    "whole bunch of threads in DU RIGHT NOW making exactly that claim. numerous people saying he should be sued, should be prosecuted, that operation rescue should be disbanded and prosecuted via RICO, etc."

    Christ, forget about DU. Go to the Huffington Post. Every other post on the day Tiller was murdered was about how O'REilly should be held responsible and suffer legal consequences. For crying out loud, you don't even have to look further than this fucking thread, or the article attached to it.

  • ||

    The author wrote: "His 'crime,' as his alleged killer undoubtedly sees it, was to run a clinic that provided women with perfectly legal late-term abortions."

    I don't think that's how he sees it. You don't deliberately kill people in a "clinic". And the legal point is a red herring. Killing Jews or Ukranians has been "perfectly legal" in socialist and communist countries. Last, he didn't just run the place, he did the deed himself.

  • ||

    I hate Bill O'Reilly with a passion. But I will defend his right to say whatever he wants.

    One question. Why is it that we put away "cult leaders" who may or may not have incited violence against their perceived enemies?

    If Charles Manson did not kill anybody, but just hinted that Tate or LaBianca are horrible people, why was he put in jail?

    He was found guilty of the murders themselves through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object.

    So just because Bill O'Reilly doesn't have face to face direct contact with his "conspirators" he is not jointly responsible?

    What is O'Reilly's objective other that to incite hatred or ill will towards the people he perceives as unamerican or immoral?

    However, I believe we should all have PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for our own actions.

    Let O'Reilly off the hook as well as free Charles Manson. Otherwise, you all are hypocrites.

  • Basement dweller||

    Troy, you fucktard, how is O'Reilly part of a conspiracy with Roeder? Is there any evidence that the two ever even spoke, let alone conspired to murder?

  • ||

    First of all, let's get the facts straight about Dr. Tiller and why he was performing these late term abortions. The vast majority of the women seeking these abortions did not want them. The abortions were performed on non-viable fetuses. The fetuses in question would not have survived for more than a couple hours outside of the womb. These conditions were not detectable until late in the pregnancy. So, it was not a choice between being pregnant and not being pregnant. It was a choice between aborting a flawed pregnancy, and taking it to term and delivering a non-viable fetus. Some have suggested that he performed late term abortions on women who were depressed because their boyfriend or husband had left them, and they didn't want the baby anymore (or to get back at the father). This is absolutely ridiculous. There is a very big difference between being depressed and suffering from severe clinical depression. Yes, some of the women were mentally ill. The drugs used to treat the mental illness could have seriously harmed the fetus, and conversely, a woman suffering from an untreated mental illness could have seriously harmed the fetus.

    Regarding the first Amendment:

    Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) - Justice William O. Douglas wrote:
    A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.

    However, Douglas continued That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless likely to show a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest...

    Jackson's dissent:
    There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

    Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

    You can advocate violence or breaking the law, so long as it is only advocacy and is not directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

    You can draw your own conclusions about whether O'Reilly's comments crossed the "imminent lawless action" or "clear and present danger" threshold. Without specifically knowing Mr O'Reilly's comments and the context of those comments, I can not draw a conclusion. I personally avoid people like Mr O'reilly, Hannity, Olberman, Coulter Etc, etc., etc. I find these people to be nothing more than journalistic hacks who peddle their own self-serving, self-righteous, opinionated propaganda as real news. The problem I have, is not what they say, but the way they try to dress it up, and present it as real news. That is where I feel their actions cross moral and ethical standards.

  • ||

    Comments regarding Dr. Tillers practice were taken from an interview with Dr. Frances Batzer of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and specializes Reproductive Endocrinology, and has a Masters Degree in Bioethics.

  • ||

    Bill O'Reilly's indirectly inciting violence through words isn't necessarily illegal, but it is immoral. As a Christian, his behavior is inexcusable. With rights come responsibility. O'Reilly deserves being verbally attacked as he has verbally attacked others. O'Reilly deserves being publicly shamed. The American public should be outraged at O'Reilly's behavior and that outrage should become loud enough that even Fox news doesn't want to be associated with him.

  • دردشة||

    thanks

  • Scarpe Nike Italia||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement