Are instigators of violence the same as accessories to the crime?

There are many right-wing talk radio hosts that are not real subtle whenever they are discussing the issue of abortion and the doctors that perform the abortions. They hint rather obviously to some folks that the doctors should be done away with - snuffed out. Are they not partly responsible when murders like that one today occur?

The carelessness with volatile language has reached a new low, it seems? Not only is Sotomayor a "racist" but Barack Obama is a "socialist" and doctors are "murderers". "Let's just drop a bomb on Iran - or North Korea - and show them how it is done", they say.

Do we not have to ask if this inflammatory language by talk radio hosts is in any way influencing these folks that commit these murders? Is it free speech or is it a criminal act, much like yelling fire in a crowded theater?

The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right

http://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Hate-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243806199&sr=1-1

Well worth the read in regard to your question.

but I THINK it could only be considered criminal if they actually called for people to "go kill". AFAOK they haven't gone that far.

Unfortunately a significant percentage of the right's shrinking base is unhinged, and the political troubles of the GOP are only pushing them into panic mode. Instead of acting responsibly, the talking hatemongers just rev it up for ratings. We have to find a way to deal with the consequences without trampling on free speech.

with bad speech is with good speech.

that's the only way to deal with it, w/o trampling on the constitution.

with cross hairs over the pictures? They got sued when another doctor was shot.

the nuremburg files.

The site shows films of people coming and going from clinics now. So handy for stalkers. But they aren't involved with violence....

a horror movie says when they get skewered with knitting needles.

Which is an abbreviation for "as far as i know"

and there are plenty on the left AND right who instigate hate against people who commit acts they disagree with.
that's how free speech works.

could this speech influence people? sure. does it? sure

doesn't make it criminal. i suggest people take a look at some of the EXTREMELY inflammtory publications that existed in the 1700's and 1800's.

inflammatory rhetoric is nuttin' new, and entirely protected.

as for the "fire in a crowded theater" schenck was OVERRULED and the actual issue is FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

there is an imminence to that yell, as well as reckless endangerment of parties present.

first amendment matters. period.

TV, radio and so on.

You said there's lots of it so I'm sure a few links to tv and radio shows shouldn't be a problem.

whether or not he is "mass media" i don't know.

whether something is "hate speech" is rather subjective.

it's also rather irrelevant to free speech issues, since hate speech is protected speech (in the US).

malloy for example said this

"They're worse than useless. These are terrorists. These are domestic terrorists. They want the country to fail, for God’s sake. They want exactly what anyone who attacked this country on September 11, 2001 wanted. The real internal terrorists are the Republicans, I mean, isn't that clear? Rush Limbaugh is a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden. He's a bigger threat than anybody that the CIA can invent. He's a bigger threat than any terrorist that ever leveled its sights against the United States, Limbaugh is, so why isn't he arrested and sentenced for treason"

about the repubs. is that "hate speech"?

how about when randi said that bush should be taken out like fredo and then made a gunshot sound?

any # of leftwing hosts have repeatedly called bush a "murderer". that is no more, or no less "hate speech" than calling tiller a murderer.

if you think that abortion is murder (which obviously i don't), then tiller is a murderer.

again, it's largely irrelevant to legality. thankfully, we protect hate speech. as we should

Can we make a list of left-wing murderers and right-wing murderers and compare?

is i listen to malloy when i want to hear impassioned, hate filled rhetoric. nothing wrong with that.

when i want to listen to more even rational and dispassionate commentary, i would prefer maddow .

similarly, there are those on the right like medved who are more evenhanded and there are those like savage etc. that froth at the mouths.

they all have their place

Never heard of him.

Why, he reaches 20 million people every week! Oh wait?? That's not Malloy? Who am I thinking of?

mike malloy does not have as wide an audience as an oreilly (duh).

nor does rhoedes

But what wedge issue or emotional issue does Malloy address? Or is he just mostly against our government and our leaders, primarily Republican?

oreilly doesn't address one particular wedge issue. on some he agrees with oreilly (they are both against the death penalty)on others he differs. obviously.

i was referring more to his rhetorical hateful flourishes, than the underlying causes he supports or opposes.

that's what i ENJOY about malloy. you know he's gonna get bombastic, hateful and over the top.

I'm saying the difference is in degrees and the issues that make the left angry do not seem to turn them into raving, maniacal murderers, as with this case and the Timothy McVey case, for example? Why is that or is that just my imagination?

not so much recently.

i am thinking of symbionese liberation army, black panthers, etc.

most leftist protest (ELF for example) only goes as far as attacking property, not persons.

well, apart from the occasional pie thrown.

while it is true that leftist extremists aren't as likely to resort to violence, it doesn't mean rightwing pundits have any less of a right to talk smack

No Air America "hate speech" where I live.

and you're not the only one who knows what it protects.

I live in a place where I do not receive Air America and never have.

But Limbaugh and O'Reilly are all over the airwaves.

Can't tell poster there ARE limits on free speech. LALALALA not listening plus some defense of O'whatshisname on top.

Advocating violence is a limit on free speech, but just try and get that point across. :banghead:

sometimes illegal.

but people who want oreilly questioned, etc. aren't showing where he advocated violence

like i said, h rap brown, angela davis and scores of leftwingers as well have advocated violence

"kill the rich" etc.

do you want me to post the transcripts of some h rap brown speeches?

yet I keep getting punched.

Interesting.

it's a lovetap

hth

a bit farther than free speech. It has happened and there have been legal ramifications. But we will pretend it is just speech.

Period

We do it to anti-gay advocates.

and the site got a shit load of trouble for inciting violence

I doubt you do that to anti-gay advocates, but I could understand that would be a difficult limit with some. Not the same thing at all.

But the vast majority of them don't go to such extremes.

People who post pics with cross hairs are wrong and that is almost certainly illegal. But most don't do that. They simply post information.

there is a guy not far from me who researches cop's home addresses, and other personal information

and posts it.

do i LIKE it?

no.

(last i checked my name wasn't there, but it could be)

does he have the right to do that?

yes.

and you can land in the precinct house answering a lot of questions, or in court being ordered to make some payments.

i have seen anti-cop websites claim officer X is a murderer for example, AND post his home address.

not illegal.

Thought not. There are legal limits.

if and when oreilly posts a picture of tiller, puts a cross hair on it, and exhorts his followers to kill him, we have a problem.

There speech is protected as long as it doesn't provide a direct or imminent threat against a person.

All that aside, what they said almost certainly played at least a small role in his death. Their words have fueled the hatred towards Tiller for years and years.

But I would never want to stop them from saying what they said. Policing speech should be kept to a minimum.

They got nailed, but they were costing big business big money. I doubt RW hate nor Operation Rescue type orgs will ever see charges.

That's how fair America is.

thank you

provide a rational reply other than I agree with you.