Reason Magazine on the rush to find oreilly culpable

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133836.html

excerpt:
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.

which explains a lot

i disagree with them on many economic issues.

but on speech issues, they are spot on.

...not one, not even speech as we live in a society, not a vacuum.

they don't.

NOBODY does.

espionage can involve speech. doesn't mean you can reveal state secrets. reason doesn't make that argument

true threats (see case law) are illegal. reason doesn't claim they should be legal

etc.

reason is correctly explaining that this hysteria and rush to blame oreilly or even argue he should be prosecuted is typical of unconstitional censors.

it is not supported by law, the constitution, or the principles of a free democracy.

also, fwiw, ask any civil rights attorney. none will claim oreilly broke the law.

maybe this writer could focus his line of reasoning in that direction FIRST, before finding fault and a target for his fingerwagging-skills in those who are reacting to, rather than the source of, dangerously anti free speech behavior themselves in the first place.

More double-think reasoning (of the kind we're already so familir with from the RW)... and from "Reason" magazine - how exquisitely ironic, just the titling of it.

There's no rush to find O'Reilly culpable, or his friends, the other violence promotors in the media. It's called "common sense cause and effect". It doesn't need an elaborate argument in classical logic to get it.

"Fire" in a crowded theater, or "string him up", (for similar examples) is NOT protected speech, and it has nothing to do with civil liberties or discourse. It's very simple really. And if anyone was arguing before this that the hate promotors have no effect - THIS INCIDENT, on its face (the simple fact of it) should be enough reason to give them pause and MAYBE consider that they might just be wrong about that. (YA THINK? DUH.)

A thinking person might want to reconsider that stance after this has happened, instead of determinedly going ahead and directly arguing to reinforce it - without stopping to doubt that position in any way. THAT, in light of this event, is absurd. Not to mention extremely dishonest, reckless and irresponsible, to say the least.

"Good job, there, Brownie" - Reason article writer.