Rush Limbaugh had more of an effect on the TN killer than Marilyn Manson on the guys at Columbine

There was nothing in Marilyn Manson's lyrics that fostered hate for any particular group the way that Limbaugh riles people up to go after liberals. He's got at least as much of an effect on his listenership as some of these lyricists do on our teens.

Seems to me that this attack is clearly the fruit of his labor.

He and some of the other RWN radio guys have suggested murder. Now that one of their followers has committed the suggested act, they are complicit in it IMO.

and yes I know it was 8 but it known as the Chicago 7

It does seem that rush and many of his copycats have said
things that we liberals could never get away with saying .

I don't have the links but watching the last 8 years from
the brooks brother's riot in Florida to being told to my
face by a RW cook discussing my bumper stickers that I "should
be hung by a tree as a traitor".

It seems they have incited a feeling of it's okay to threaten
Liberals' lives , but it's not okay for us to complain about
the resident in chief .

:P

:hi:

for columbine, just as it's stupid to blame rightwing radio for this incident.

Do we have to equal the stupidity of the MSM etc. who played up the MManson angle?

Just thought I'd point out WHY it was stupid to blame MM...

So... no, we don't have to equal the stupidity of anyone. We just have to open our eyes and see reality.

and morans on radio who spew hate (regardless of ideology) are not to blame.

amazing concept: blame murderers for the murder

Read up on Rwanda. (I really don't expect you to...)

and the kneejerkers who EVERY SINGLE TIME THERE IS A TRAGEDY seek to blame speech, and then seek to limit our rights.

it wasn't right when bushco did it. it isn't right when we did it.

rush et al are NOT to blame.

period

liberty matters. scumbag criminals are not an excuse to throw away free speech

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3689951&mesg_id=3690120

Read the statements in those links, and tell me that's "free speech". That's incitement to violence.

It's really that simple.

It wasn't incitement to violence when randi did it, either.

It's not "free speech" (scare quotes)

it's FREE SPEECH.

Ever listened to a angela davis speech? "kill the rich"

how about bell hooks?

etc.

political speech is often provocative.

deal with it.

Call me a fascist if you will, but words carry with them responsibility. Limbaugh, Hannity, etc, may not be guilty of murder, but their words inspired these acts, if nothing else this must be thrown back in their face. Hatred cannot be preached indiscriminately for decades without bearing the bitter fruit of violence and murder. And while the harvester of this fruit deserves ultimate responsibility, they who sowed the seeds and tended the tree should have some responsibility as well.

It takes a lot of time being a psychologist/cop/professional athlete/McDonald's #1 customer. Add in internet flaming, and there's not even time to sleep.

The media was an accomplice to these genocides. With free speech comes responsibility, and hate radio bears some responsibility when these kinds of hate crimes are committed.

It's obvious that you don't like to read, so maybe rent 'Hotel Rwanda' instead.

I suggest this document called the Constitution.

Then, if the big words aren't too troublesome, try some case law

And I actually understand it!

I'm lucky to have a sister who is a constitutional lawyer, vs. a sad sack who plays one on the internets. Enjoy your stay! :hi:

In how to understand the constitution.

And lord knows I don't play a lawyer on the internets. THAT is an insult. Never claimed ot be one, and I aint one.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that it comes with restrictions imposed by the government, which is what those advocating litigation are advocating.

As the Supreme Court has stated: "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and, like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated."

I live here. We have only right-wing radio. Period. No liberal or moderate radio to off-set the hate. To calm down the masses. The only way to get liberal radio is to pay for it via satellite or stream it via the Internet. Those aren't options for some people.

Free speech allows all parties a plate at the table - but when my plate, as a liberal is only a doll's size because I don't have 50,000 mhz, while all the conservatives have Paul Bunyon's plate, then there's not much free speech.

You are aware that there's a precise difference between direct guilt and indirect culpability, yet both have degrees of blood on their hands, yes?

"amazing concept: blame murderers for the murder"

Wow. You took your Clever Pills this morning...

"throwaway the constitution pills" if you think that what this guy did makes yer average rightwing radio moran legally culpable.

yet, that's exactly the type of anti-constitutional posts I have seen about alleged criminal incitement.

I did not mention *legal* culpability. But read things into it if it validates the sense of your own cleverness better.

yer-- that exactly the type of brain-dead reading comprehension and a presumptive lack of critical thought and analysis I see from a lot of alleged posters...

Here's a hint... "CHARGING" implies CRIMINAL charges.

I've been involved in civil and criminal cases. People are not "CHARGED" civilly fwiw.

"Incitement of riot" was the recommendation by anabanana.
"Incitement to violence" was the recommendation by redqueen

Neither understands the constitution, free speech, or case law... obviously.

and post after post BLAMES rightwing morans for this murderer's behavior.

That's stupid. It's also typical how when there is a tragedy, that authoritarians will try to use it (whether left or right wing) to justify encroaching on constitutional rights.

I have yet to see any evidence that anybody EXCEPT THE ACTUAL MURDERER is 100% responsible for his actions.

If you have EVIDENCE< present it.

All I have seen is rhetoric, and cries to CHARGE people with incitement.

amazing concept:

blame people who incite murder with inciting murder

EVIDENCE that anybody incited murder, provide it here...

Here's a hint. We have constitutional protections in the US such that incendiary "hateful" speech whether by rush, angela davis, hannity, savage, malloy etc. are not INCITEMENT to murder.

So, again... provide the specific quote that equals INCITEMENT to murder

Ignoring that constitution again? After all, it's just a piece of paper.

people whose views you disapprove of shouldn't have constitutional protection, apparently.

30 minutes or it's free....

respecting the constitutional rights of those I disagree with?

Yes. I'd like to be known for that record. It's the REAL american way. it is MORE than a piece of paper, bush.

It's a way of life, a system of governance -...

for suicide?

same idiocy. different day

I'm going to assume goodwill here and that you're honestly confused.

Yes, your constitution gives you the right to freedom of speech but that isn't an absolute right. The courts have affirmed many, many times that there are limits to the excercise thereof. The most obvious example is shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre but the courts have also affirmed that speech which amounts to incitement to violence is not protected.

Now, if you'd like to argue the case for or against those limits, that could be an intersting discussion but that's the law as it stands.

I'm not "confused".

I'm familiar with case law, and the constitution. AS well as the model penal code, and the penal codes of 3 states, quite well.

So spare me.

If you have an example where rush et al (or any leftwinger such as Malloy, etc.) has engaged in speech that is CRIMINALLY ACTIONABLE then CITE IT.

Again, every authoritarian nimrod thinks that because some dipshit murdering prick went off and murdered some people AND he listened to rightwing radio , that all of a sudden there is some sort of criminal case.

I can cite you SCORES of cases that protect political speech.

I have also listened to speeches from speakers as diverse as angela davis, bell hooks, etc. all of which are quite hateful and incendiary and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.

it never ceases to amaze me that people whose knowledge of const. law could fit in a thimble think they are some sort of const. law scholar.

please. cite an example of criminally actionable speech by rush, malloy, or whomever...

here:

I was talking about the limits to free speech generally, not those dipshits in particular and my degreee is in British Law, not American.

One said the radio morans should be charged with incitement to riot

another said incitement to violence

THOSE were what I referred to.

fwiw, england has MUCH more restrictive speech rights than the US.

The cops also have more latitude in search and seizure I might add.

I have no extensively studied british law. I have a fair amount of knowledge of canadian law, not so much british.

I have mentioned britain has no blanket exclusionary rule, your decision to remain silent CAN be used against you, etc. Less constitutional protections of speech and privacy in general.

Also, looser understanding of what is "hate speech". there is no such thing as criminal hate speech in the US. There is in England.

Yep, our laws regarding speech are, afaik, more restrictive and we have plenty of criminal hate speech laws (most controversially, the Incitement to Religious Hatred Act) and we have no blanket exclusionary rule although several groups (some of which I am a member of) are campaigning for them.

I'm not familiar with US search & seizure laws so I can't speak on that.

As far as privacy is concerned, that's complicated. In English law in itself, there is no right to privacy. However, we're also covered by the European Convention on Human Rights which does grant us a right to privacy.

Of course, that's general criminal law. In the specific case of terrorism suspects, being captured in britain gives you more rights.

also allows broader understanding of what is civilly actionable as far as suing the tabloids, etc.

Many brit tabloids have been successfully sued for what would not be actionable in the US.

As I am sure you know, the US constitution doesn't explicitly recognize the concept of "privacy" but does recognize a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Unlike in england, we have states and any given states constitution can EXPAND rights of privacy, etc. but none can recognize less than the federal standard.

My state, for instance, has much broader privacy protections, thus local law enforcement is more restricted in what we can search and seize than what the feds are restricted by

I have heard that some in england ARE working on a blanket exclusionary rule, but you are correct that as of now - there isn't one

that you are subject to both British Law and European Law. Which one would supersede the other if they were found in contention?

Have any cases come up in Britain where that has been an issue?

Where there is a direct conflict, EU law overrules domestic law. That said, the EHRA (essentially, the EU Bill of Rights) was designed in such a way that it could simply be inserted wholesale into domestic law (which has been done in most nations, allowing for translation) so direct conflicts are rare. The most recent one was a conflict over the definition of privacy. In English law, there is no specific right to privacy but the EHRA does guarentee such a right. The plaintiff fought her case right up to the European Court of Justice and won, which forced a rewrite of our domestic laws to bring them into line with the EHRA.

The tabloids have drummed up the idea that the EHRA gives criminals huge amounts of rights which has earned the resentment of Middle England (our version of "flyover country"). In reality, the Act only guarentees the right to a fair trial and forbids the use of the death penalty (standing British law also forbids extradition to countries where the accused may be executed). There was a potential conflict avoided recently where the Blair government wanted the same indefinate detention laws that your government has for terrorism suspects. They were warned that would be a massive violation of the EHRA and were forced to back down. They tried for 90 days and were defeated. Currently, it's at 42 days maximum and has to be reviewed by a judge (who can order realease with no repercussions) at 3,7,15 and 30 days.

this conflict in law between a sovereign nation and a greater united Europe never occurred to me in all these years. It's fascinating.

It's nice to have something to do with the months I spent studying this stuff.

When I was 12, my father told me that I should go into computers. "No, no Dad" I said "I'm going to be a lawyer". So I went to college and then to uni and got my law degree. What do I do for a living now? Computing.

I hate it when my father's right.

I, for the most part, agree with your position on this matter, but your unnecessarily contentious posts on the matter are pushing me not to put my two cents in on the matter. A debate about this would be fascinating, but it doesn't need to get angry. I know you vehemently disagree, but you have a good position here.

Having said that, I would like to ask others who are asking that Rush Limbaugh be charged with Inciting violence to show what he actually said to do so. I don't listen to him (ever) because I find his positions to be detestable, but I also am really uncomfortable with the idea of punishing any political personality in such a way. What happens when the tides turn?

It's kind of a symptom... a sign, if you will. A clue, of sorts.

That's all I'd like to see. One good example of Limbaugh or Hannity et al telling people to shoot liberals, kill liberals, etc. Then I could see that they are guilty of incitement.

But nooooo...all we get from certain DUers is feebleminded accusations of being trolls.

:spray:

If you're gonna pitch a hissy fit about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3690687

Learn to use teh google already! :rofl:

1). Those are despicable and disgusting.

2). Are they inciting violence? It sounds that way, but I think it would be difficult to prove in court. It would be interesting to get them aired in public to show the level of extremist right-wing hatred.

3). Those are from lesser-known or relatively un-influential reichwingers. Are there specific quotes from the wingnut books found in the shooter's house that are incitements to violence? That would be the best hope of establishing a connection between the ideology (or the ideologue) and the murderer's actions.

Vester: You say you'd rather not talk to liberals at all?
Coulter: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days.
(FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6)

These have all been aired in public. That's the only reason they're meaningful. If they were said in private over dinner conversation, I wouldn't be posting them.

of softball with us, since she can't compete in a battle of ideas?

I'm suuuuuure that's what she meant.

She is despicable.

The first amendment protects speech, even dispicable advocacy of violence, in all but the narrowest of situations. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, the SCOTUS decision from 1969 in which a pretty progressive SCOTUS unanimously reversed the conviction of a KKKer who had, in full regalia and while brandishing weapons, urged followers to "Bury the n******rs", threatened "revengeance" on African Americans and their supporters, and added "We intend to do our part." Why? Because those statements were not viewed as presenting the kind of "clear and present" danger that must be shown in order to criminalize speech in the US.

You and have made your case... (note it was YOU who convinced me... not the shit-talker!)

And although the hateful invective they spew day in and day out may not be legally actionable, I think we liberals should STILL be making a hue and cry over it... just as anyone would over those comments by the KKK assholes. :)

I think the sponsors of programs that feature this kind of crap or that give a forum to the spewers fo this should hear from the public. That includes shows like Letterman and Leno etc that sometimes have the O'Reilly's et al as guests.

He makes them look like the fools they are on his show. :)

Dan Abrams did the same last night with some nutball who seemed to be seriously of the opinion that MoveOn was more vicious in its attacks than the rightwing noise machine. :rofl:

But I really wish that the O'Reilly's and their ilk could be ostracized.

In the US, the crime of "incitement" to the extent it exists, is very narrow, thanks to some very smart and progressive justices of the Supreme Court, including William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Hugo Black etc, all of whom participated in the unanimous decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, where the conviction of a KKK leader for "advocacy" of violence was overturned. The court made it clear that in order constitute a criminal act, speech must be directed to inciting or producing "imminent" lawless action and must be "likely" to incite or produce such action. Given that limpballs has millions of listeners, the fact that one occasionally goes off his rocker (and, by the way, the idea that the knoxville shooter is rushbot is utter speculation as far as I know) hardly is evidence that rush's ravings are directed to producing imminent lawless action or likely to have that effect.

Rush is a big fat idiot, but I'd rather put up with him than have the First Amendment eviscerated.

Exactly my point.

Fwiw, I once went to an Angela Davis speech where she said people should "kill the rich" etc.

That is also protected, and is certainly closer to "incitement" (while not BEING incitement) than anything I have heard rush say.

If she had approached an individual businessman and told the crowd "KILL THIS GUY!" - that would be incitement.

and comment about the examples there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3690687

If you have a specific example... cite it

Constitutional lawyer?



Enjoy your stay.

I've testified in court scores of times and have helped secure convictions IN criminal threats cases - to include witness intimidation, felony threats (felony harassment), etc.

But I'm not relying on my bona fides... I'm relying on the LAW

But since you asked, I have a pretty fair working knowledge of the line between free speech and criminally actionable speech.

I have also been trained by FLETC in training OTHERs in how to investigate hate crimes (gather evidence, prepare reports, etc.)

I ascribe to the views of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweights it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason. But whatever may be thought of the redundant discourse before us it had not chance of starting a present conflagration. If in the long run the beliefs expressed in porletarian dictatorship are to be accepted by the domninant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way."

Or as William O. Douglas pointed out, even a test of incitement that is based on a "clear and present danger" standard is a threat to free speech and anathema to the First AMendment.

Every fool advocating the stifling of speech as a response to unpopular views should be encouraged to read O.W.H.

OWH is kind of the oscar wilde of judicial review. He just has that clever, biting, cut to the point, way with words

I agree wholeheartedly with your posts.

It's sad to see so many self-professed progressives who apparently view constitutional protections as a one-way street.

The people who listen to rush limpballs and watch fixed news are the type who are followers.

All you have to do is hear a stupid Neo-nazi republican lie from rush or glenie beck and next thing you hear is the same crap from one of his listeners.

Again party of followers and the special interest.

there are followers on all sides of the political spectrum - from ELF to this idiot and everywhere else.

people who commit murders are to blame. NOt people who talk smack

share your opinion, I have to right to say to you

Rubbish, people who incite murder are guilty of inciting murder.

to constitute "inciting murder."

See post #35. Application of legal standard to known facts, not merely someone's "opinion."

You have jack and shit...

and jack's left town!
(name the movie)

Can't someone also say that Al Gore inspired and incited ELF dickheads to burn down mansions in the name of the environment?

Or is that different because Al Gore is correct?

I knew this story would start bringing them out of the woodwork.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Unbelievable...

Actually, no... it's quite believable... if one considers...

shoot them while they're watching Annie"?

Unbelievable is right.

The person who commits the crime is the person responsible for committing the crime, unless specifically coerced or hired to do so by another.

You're barking up the wrong tree, and it looks mighty foolish.

They have said these things and worse, yes. Maybe you should start paying attention to what you're attempting to discuss.

where Limpballs or Coulter has told people to "kill liberals."

Since you're so superior and haughty and know so much more than me.

A thousand thanks for your condescension.

Do your own research. (Riiiiight...)

on this thread.

I didn't realize this was so difficult for you.

*not biting*

The OP is not the world. This issue doesn't exist solely in this thread and is not only about the names mentioned in it.

hyperbole, hysteria, knee-jerk pogroms = acceptable DU behavior.

:eyes:

Have I tried to bait you into a flamefest?

If you could just try to limit yourself to the issue, and stop with the snide snark... maybe you wouldn't give off that overpoweringly revolting troll stench.

Maybe you should start paying attention to what you're attempting to discuss.

Aw you really are dedicated to your task of disruption

it's quite believable... if one considers...

There have been multiple threads posted in this very forum, giving more than a few examples of the stuff you're trying to pretend to be unaware of.

Good luck in your continued efforts! :hi:

They'd hate us if Bush/McSame shit on their heads and we were the only ones who offered them a hanky.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3689951&mesg_id=3690120

Those are just a few other examples.

That's what really jumped out at me about the guy. Not just that he hates liberals -- but that he was referring to the "liberal agenda" and seeing it as a conspiracy to gets jobs for liberals when he couldn't find work.

He didn't make that up himself -- somebody must be pushing the idea of a liberal conspiracy.


On edit: Actually, he was using the phrase "liberal movement," not "liberal agenda" -- though I think the meaning is the same.

I couldn't find any particular source for either. "Liberal movement" is used too often in a general political sense to be able to find a conspiratorial use of the term. "Liberal agenda" is occasionally used by people who think that all liberals are communists who want to take away your guns and your Bibles and indoctrinate your children to be tree-hunting pacifists.

I still think this guy had a particular source for his beliefs -- it just won't be that easy to pin it down.

but Rush Limbaugh and Reagan started it seriously

Was he a radio listener?

I agree that it's about the person who committed the crime, and not the influences.

I just think it's worth pointing out that when this happens, and everyone looks to find the bad influence to blame it on, that Rush Limbaugh's words are so much more inflammatory than the words of Marilyn Manson, Ozzy Osbourne, or some rapper. Maybe that's why the right is so paranoid about people putting propaganda in their lyrics--they know first hand the power of suggestion. Where would their party be without the Limbaugh's of the world riling people up on their side?

Ice-T for "Cop killer"

That's at least as hateful as anyhting I've every heard from rush et al.

Note also that whether or not speech is inflammatory is not the issue. The 1st amendment was DESIGNED to protect inflammatory, objectionable, hateful, controversial speech.

Ice-T was LEGALLY justified in making cop killer. Whether his LABEL wanted to produce it is another matter entirely.

Similarly, I have seen ZERO evidence that rush etc. broke any laws in their speech

Marilyn Manson/Rammstein/the creators of Doom/etc. do not want to incite violence, they only want to entertain and express themselves artistically. I am probably one of the biggest supporters of free speech you'll find, but it is not OK for radio and TV pundits to tell their loyal listeners over and over "kill the liberals, they are sub-human and must be exterminated, etc." That is deliberately trying to inciting violence.

See post #35.

That's a mighty big 'but' you've got there.

I love posts that go "I support free speech BUT..."

I guess beans and rice didn't miss him/her.

(Cue: Sir Mix-a-Lot)

With all this blame being put on everyone except the killers it should be a nobrainer.

Never trust a Canadian!

Please show some respect.

Catch the witness, catch the wit,
Catch the spirit, catch the fish.

"what would you have said to the columbine boys? marilyn Manson responded. "I would not have said anything to them I would have listened."

that's why they went off, No One listened to them. Only told them what to do.

people will kill cops without this song. They will do it anyway, now they have a theme song..(close)

summary's of that tragic event.

Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the Powell home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals "who are ruining the country," court records show.

-----

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/

with his Operation Chaos, and I believe also called for riots at the Democratic convention. Talk about a domestic terrorist, Limpball's is it!

One of his brain addled followers took up his challenge and tried to slaughter an entire church of those scary liberals.

Who's going to be gunned down next? Why are nazis like Limbaugh allowed to get away with their domestic terrorism???