Tiller, faux news, hate speech and the SCOTUS: Just so you know.

In 1942 the SCOTUS ruled that hate speech is akin to fighting words. It is a category of expression that does not receive First Amendment protection. In its 1942 decision Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Court wrote that fighting words are those that incite an immediate violent response. According to the Court, they “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to the truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

ie: It is not legal to use your show (TV or Radio) to arouse people's violent, emotional impulses when it comes to sensitive issues,... like late term abortion.

Those that want to challenge this ruling will do so based on arguments that Speech Codes set up by colleges in an effort to subvert potential campus violence (Like codes banning neo-nazi rallies) have been struck down repeatedly in the 1980's and 90's.

but it seems there must be some legal (civil, criminal, whatever) argument for the public interest and the airwaves as it pertains to labeling something as news when it's merely a person's opinion -- a person who is not a lawyer or journalist.

People watch news -- and channels with "news" in the title -- assuming they're receiving facts, or opinions at least based on facts. So many older people can't grasp the reality that there is no more truth in advertising.

When "commentators" on TV and radio can write and say things such as (paraphrasing) "don't kill all liberals, leave a few to remind us" -- how is that NOT hate speech?

How can blatant lies not be challenged and allowed to stand?

Hate radio (and what is turning into hate TV) has a history of discussing and even advocating violence, though it's cloaked in the "entertainment" excuse when called on the carpet about it, yet they present themselves as purveyors of truth, not entertainment, to their gullible audience who WANT a target for their frustration, hate and fear.

It's maddening.

Of a civil rather than criminal nature.

The church and family of the good doctor may have grounds to sue the shit out of these scumbags. Or even faux news.

:mad:

If O'Reilly had intended to incite violence, why did only one person in an audience of several million respond?

I tend to believe that people are responsible for their own actions.

O'Reilly is morally repugnant, but he has no complicity in the murder of this doctor.

In looking at the bigger picture, what I'm seeing is hate radio/TV/books (Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coulter) which appeal to the fringe aspect of the right wing (I can't even think of the correct name).

The left has fringe elements, too, of course.

And, maybe I'm wrong -- and it's what I'm trying to wrap my brain around -- but the right-wing crazies are very PRO gun in an aggressive way, they are racist, they are bigots, they feel they have moral righteousness.

We've seen this in several groups, especially since the Palin mobs of the summer and heightened since 11/4, which comprise the right wing on the political and social spectrum.

To me, bottom line, inflaming the right-wing crazies is MUCH more dangerous to our society as a whole than inflaming left-wing crazies...as there are simply more of them because people are afraid and easily led. The Rush Republicans and "pundits" know this and court these crazies.

I'm trying to think of a similar existing situation on the left, but I just can't.

The Faux News/Limbaugh figures who are in the public (and, shit, the media is giving them even MORE exposure since Obama took office) have a MUCH stronger voice than any more progressive commentators.

I know this isn't very coherent...sorry...but there does seem to be a very dangerous imbalance of influence occurring, targeting a very dangerous segment of our population, IMHO.

Where "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is the standard, this argument would not hold up.
BUT in a Civil Court, where the standard is "By preponderance of the evidence" all I would need to do is convince over half the jury that O'Liely and crew inspired violence. Video clip after video clip should do it.

considers hate speech to be a crime against humanity and a crime against the peace.
Someday,hopefully,those that spew such shit will be prosecuted for their crimes.

Chaplinsky is not a "hate speech" case. It is a fighting words case. And a very narrow one. As the decision makes clear, under the statute being reviewed, "no words 'forbidden except such as have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.'" Or,as the decision indicates elsewhere: "The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee."

In other words, Chaplinsky addresses the the situation when you say to someone "You're a fascist" not the situation where you say to others, "He's a fascist".

Subsequent cases have largely deprived Chaplinsky of any significant force. And the issue of inciting other to violence is the subject of a different line of cases, led by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The distinction between speech that incites others to violence and "fighting words" is quite evident from the fact that the court's opinion in Brandenburg doesn't refer, even once, to the Chaplinsky decision.