Make the GOP apologize for O'Reilly.

Pressuring O'Reilly's sponsers is all well and good but where is the demand for accountability from the ruling Ratbastards. We need to demand that they distance themselves from one of their own that invites terrorists to attack a U.S. city.

about Chelsea Clinton when she was 13. But, we let it slide. I don't know why we don;t. especially since the pukes use these guys to sell their message.

Dear (Ratbastard) <Senator, Representative, Operative, RNC Fascist>,

Wildly popular Ratbastard (ok... Republican), radio personality Bill O'Reilly has invited a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Do you agree?

With regards,

Not a Ratbastard.

so it's a rather moot point, really...

That doesn't stop the Ratbastards from using him in an attempt to demonize Democrats.

I don't give a shit how O'Reilly defines himself. He waddles like a Ratbastard and he quacks like a Ratbastard. And he's advocated a destruction of a U.S. city in order to support a Ratbastard war.

Another fine example of how Conservatives "support the troops". Inviting the very enemy that the troops are allegedly fighting, to come attack an American city. I'm impressed.

He's probably a card carrying fascist -

these guys are the meesage bearers to guys like timothy mcveigh -- the republicans are responsible the bombing in ok city and should be held so.

just my 2 cents.

any sane politico would steer a mile wide of him & his clones but it just goes to show how WHACKED the neoCONs really are :scared:

peace

I wont watch him, and cant stand him. The best thing we can do is to hit him where it hurts and simply not watch. Than our letters to faux would have more merit and weight behind them.

so, if the press does respond, we can point out a clear pattern of abusive language and unAmerican hate speech.

What was said about Chelsea? I remember the flap but not the content. (My ears have been programmed not to listen to these @ssholes and we never ever watch FromOldXfiles.)

And as far as I'm concerned, that right is absolute, including so-called "hate speech" and the proverbial yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Yes, he is a blithering idiot, and yes he has in fact called for a terrorist attack on an American city. But the fact that the right and FOX has done nothing to disuade him from spewing his tripe is just more proof that this whole terrorism thing is a right-wing fabrication.

On the other hand, IF there is now an attack, he better be the FIRST sonofabitch in jail for it.

I take the view that while even this sinkscum has First Amendment rights, he has no right to abuse the public using the public airwaves -- any more than slapping a spouse is free speech. For some reason, that's the comparison that keeps coming to mind.

People pay to have access to the FOX News channel(AFAIK he did say that on the teevee, not the radio) and as soon as we open the door to allowing the FCC--or anyone else--to censor cable, that's a very slippery slope.

I am in no way defending Bill Reilly, but he should not be censored anymore than Bill Maher.

I look at this more like drunk driving: In and of itself, it shouldn't be illegal. If you can get your ass home ok, well good on you, but if you do some damage or hurt or kill someone, then there is hell to pay.

I understand you're not defending O'Reilly.

The drunk driving analogy is an interesting one that I will have to think about.

:)

That is a totally different situation. The FCC should do their standard thing of fining the fuck out of FOX and all the affiliates who carried it.

But, I point out that if I were a sponsor getting emails, I'd probably call my guy at the FCC to check if people were really complaining. Because if they care that much, I'm in trouble.

Thanks to Tom Joad's great OP on his FCC thread, it takes about 2 minutes to file a complaint. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5346941&mesg_id=5346941

edited to add link

I don't think they include yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and the law backs me up on this. But what does it include when it comes to pundits and talking heads?

Should they be allowed to advocate violence when we know some numbskull may take them up on it and act? That's the big question. I need to think about this a bit further, myself, but I think Robertson and O'Reilly have crossed some kind of line. I'm not sure what the proper consequences should be because a precedent will affect all 1st amendment rights.

I do. My living depends on our 1st Amendment rights -- we write political comedy and Doug performs it!

A line has been crossed and that needs to be confronted, immediately and directly. And, we'll have these discussions, too. That's as it should be, good for us, useful in many ways.

that is consistent with our beliefs and yet doesn't allow for the O'Reillys and Pat Robertsons of this world to call for violence while sitting safely behind their microphones. If a left winger calls for violence, the penalty should be the same. I'm just not sure how to balance the need for freedom with the need for justice. It's the same old conundrum.

in a crowded theatre. The SCOTUS has made clear that speech that advocates violence is nonetheless protected speech. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444(1969) the Court held that the First Amendment protects speech that encourages others to commit violence except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. It doesn't matter if the speech makes future violence more likely; advocating "illegal action at some indefinite future time" is protected. Also take a look at the NAACP v. Clairborne Hardware case to see another example of an attempt to suppress speech that was claimed to incite violence and how the SCOTUS's narrow view of what constitutes an exception to the First Amendment served progressive goals.

onenote

You don't necessarily have to do any damage. You just have to be caught doing it. And yes, it should be illegal because the damage you could inflict is real. This is coming from someone who GOT CAUGHT the first time she ever drove under the influence. Despite the fact that there were mitigating circumstances (which I won't go into), what I did was an incredibly callous, irresponsible and stupid thing to do and I'm lucky as hell no charges were pressed. Legally, the book could have been thrown at me and I would have had no cause to complain.

I suggest you try another analogy. :)

I know the law and the reasoning behind it, I was using it as analogy against prior restraint and that's what I was trying to get across.

I would love to try to find one that works better for you but I have to go spend the next seven hours on an airplane. :)

Maybe that's a signal I should refrain from posting...maybe I'm posting under the influence. ;)

Okay, perhaps someone did but I'm not asking for O'Reilly to be censored. I'm asking that those who he supports (i.e., Ratbastards) be called upon to publicly repudiate O'Reilly's call to terrorist action against a major U.S. city.

They have successfully shamed democrats into owning and apologizing for statements from some on the left, it is time to force them to distance themselves from the Robertsons, Phelps, O'Reillys, and etc.

Screw that - hang the son of a bitch for treason.

FOX is a cable channel, and the last thing we need is to give the FCC an opening to start dicking with cable. In fact it could be that is exactly the trap they are setting up.
please see post 13

He's an "independent".

And I'm George fucking Clooney.

..and point to HIMSELF as proof that liberals want an Al-Qaeda attack on their soil.

Would that tactic really surprise anyone? ;)