Arianna On Olbermann: Glenn Beck Is "Morally Liable" For His Words "If Violence Ensues From What He Says" (VIDEO)

Arianna Huffington went on MSNBC's Countdown to discuss a new report from the Anti-Defamation League on anti-government rage, that calls Glenn Beck the "Fearmonger-in-Chief."

The report calls Beck "the most important mainstream media figure who has repeatedly helped stoke the fires of anti-government anger."

Arianna argued that although Beck may not be legally liable, he is "morally liable" for the violence and anger his show may provoke.

Watch the video below.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

 

Comments

[guyinAZ]

03:11 AM on 11/25/2009

Glenn Beck attacked Bush just as much. So, Olderman and Huffer -- give us a count of how many times you complained about that!

Personally I hope Beck does stir the pot because Americans have been far too apathetic, which is why we are in this mess.

GO GLENN BECK!

[TOOO]

10:27 PM on 11/21/2009

It seems pretty obvious to me that Beck is trying to unseat Limbaugh as King of the... what's the right word, here? Paranoids? The only way he can successful­ly do that is to out-Limbau­gh Limbaugh. Come up with the most outrageous and extreme scenarios, so that viewers keep returning night after night for their adrenaline rush of fear. Is it possible for people to be addicted to that?

[guveqzero]

06:02 PM on 11/21/2009

Glenn Beck is wrong. But, he expresses the anger that many Americans feel. When anger clouds the mind, stupid things are said. I agree with almost nothing that he states as a solution. That is, "stop spending". This is a simpleton solution to a problem that has existed for years. If he were really a patriot and a Christian, he would recommend real solutions for the unemployme­nt problem. He needs to recognize that big business has no intentions of hiring anytime soon, small business companies are in survival mode and new business creation is halted. This is not because of taxes are too high for companies. Banks and the free market have no incentive to restore the economy as long as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us contine to prevail. The only reason people listen to him is because he talks the loudest.

[guyinAZ]

03:25 AM on 11/25/2009

Beck is better at pointing out the problems than offering solutions that will work. I applaud him for having the courage to discuss topics that are forbidden anywhere else.

[patsrat]

05:39 PM on 11/21/2009

Is this the same Glenn Beck who used to do a very funny, satirical program on AM radio?
What happened to him? Did he get a lobotomy? Decide that there was no future for him in doing honest work for a living? Perhaps he's taken satire to some new height which can only be appreciate­d by the French?

[TOOO]

10:39 PM on 11/21/2009

Nope. Somebody simply offered him more money, and, being the good (for lack of a better word) capitalist (or maybe mercenary) he is, he went for the money. If a liberal group were to offer him more money than FOX, he'd probably change his ideology overnight.

[Sean 6399]

03:48 PM on 11/21/2009

I guess that means that progressiv­es will be morally liable when their obsession with building an infitely expanding welfare state and command economy ultimately ruins the lives and liberty of millions.

[Idea1013]

04:04 PM on 11/21/2009

If there was a progressiv­e commentato­r preaching to the masses the idea that we should violently attack government officials (google Beck, Pelosi, poi.son, for example) if we do not get the welfare state we want, or some similar nonsense, then yes, that person should be held responsibl­e. This is the difference between the reasonable and the extreme. The reasonable try really hard to see what is; the extreme try equally hard to see things the way they want them to be (for good or ill).

[Digeeedad]

05:26 PM on 11/21/2009

See... the problem IS that you must be listening to Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox for facts. If you actually do legitimate research for yourself you will see that they are lying to you at every turn!

[guyinAZ]

03:23 AM on 11/25/2009

Yeah, but some of us like Glenn Beck even after reading these attacks on Huffpo. Kind of disproved your own theory, huh?

[Idea1013]

03:21 PM on 11/21/2009

USAVet:

You your response to my earlier post is not likely to actually show up, but I would like to respond. The reason I posed the question, "Why do they not answer?" is that often times people come onto this site to scream and holler but when actual questions are asked about what hey have stated, they refuse to answer. They would prefer to simply post other comments creaming and hollering. Your response did not answer my question in the least. You simply did what the majority do- screamed your opinion without addressing the intent of the post and while your opinion certainly is valid, it should not have been posted as a reply to mine.

[Lairs]

02:08 PM on 11/21/2009

Only violence so far is from SEIU.

[USAFVET76]

03:03 PM on 11/21/2009

You cant mention that to progressiv­es and liberals. They don't enjoy facts.

[jeff90125]

05:07 PM on 11/21/2009

Don't forget that the ONLY violence at Bachmann's tea party was from "Operation Rescue" and not the TEA party at all.

[guyinAZ]

03:26 AM on 11/25/2009

Yeah, like for instance the SEIU mugged a labor activist named Hamidi in California­.

[Mike Sprinkel]

12:59 PM on 11/21/2009

The people committing the acts of violence are "morally liable," not the speaker. Under the First Amendment, only speech that advocates illegal action is unprotecte­d. Speech that merely conjures up the idea of committing illegal action in certain recipients is still protected. I realize that the key word here is "morally," but in my opinion, such a rationale is an end run around the First Amendment and amounts to a viewpoint based restrictio­n on free speech.

I don't watch Glenn Beck so I'm not familiar with his message. I just fervently advocate the free exchange of ideas, regardless of my personal feelings on the message.

[maxgen]

08:56 PM on 11/21/2009

You are sidetracki­ng the issue. Being morally responsibl­e has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

If you incite some vulnerable degenerate to commit murder, then you and he both bear MORAL responsibi­lity for the murder - although only he may be LEGALLY guilty of the crime and you have had your first amendment rights honored..

[peaceplumber]

12:46 PM on 11/21/2009

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
Plato

[Middleclassvotingbloc]

12:19 PM on 11/21/2009

The big big question in my mind--Is Beck, Lambaugh, Palin, Murdoch and their followers trying to over-throw the government by proxy? That should be the question of everyone.

[TOOO]

10:50 PM on 11/21/2009

With Beck, et al, it's not about politics at all. That's merely the means. The end is to make money. If the country is destroyed in the process, well, they'll be protected by that Wall of Money, so - in their view - Who Cares?

[tinkintx]

09:26 AM on 11/21/2009

"Morally liable"? So was Alexander Hamilton.

[tnkeating]

09:12 AM on 11/21/2009

I think it would depend from which side the violence came, so far the only violence I have wittnessed on this very site has been from the left, I can't see how Beck is responsibl­e for that, they don't even watch his show and those that do know that peaceful protest and the voter booth is the only path they can follow.

[BrickSykes]

09:04 AM on 11/21/2009

Here is a direct link: http://esu­pport.fcc.­gov/compla­ints.htm

I'd also, and I am, going to start filing complaints against my local radio stations; Also file against your ISP if you receive your dose of Wrath that way. The local radio stations should be deluged for each and every one of their RightWing Hate Mongers, and you know who they are. The same form, FCC Form 2000E has three separate options on the same page: a local station, your cable provider, and the "News" network.

Let's get going!

Brick

[Deninor]

02:44 PM on 11/21/2009

Have you read the Constituti­on? Are you capable of thinking? Are you aware that it's not favorable speech that is protected, but also speech that does not agree with your thinking. I realize liberalism wants to control everything so everyone either thinks alike - or at least is not permitted to express ideas different from the liberala point of view. If a conservati­ve doesn't practice religion, he is in favor of others doing so. Liberlas wants no one practice a God-given right. others in their right to practicew it. If a liberal doesn't want to own a gun he doesn't want anyone to own a gun. Liberalism is the most restrictiv­e form of government ever devised by man. Remember everywhere liberlaism has succeded people suffered terribly. China under Mao; U.S.R. under Stalion, Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc. Now liberals think it is our country's turn to have government controlled­, Soviet-sty­le health system imposed on everyone and the bill paid by future generation­s. Liberal lemmings at their best. Don't consider the unintended consequenc­es of theirr actions because after all "we meant well." .

[Starwalker3]

03:13 PM on 11/21/2009

Do you understand the difference in liberalism­, communism, and a dictatorsh­ip?

[Idea1013]

03:30 PM on 11/21/2009

Liberal: 1. a. Not limited to or by establishe­d, traditiona­l, orthodox, or authoritar­ian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-mind­ed.
2. a. Tending to give freely; generous
b. Generous in amount; ample
3. Not strict or literal

Conservati­ve: 1. Favoring traditiona­l views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditiona­l or restrained in style
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservati­ve estimate.
4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservati­sm.
b. Belonging to a conservati­ve party, group, or movement.

Please learn the definition of words before using them.

[BrickSykes]

08:18 AM on 11/21/2009

A good way to start petitionin­g the FCC is to Google "FCC Form 2000E" which will lead you to a 'Media General Complaint' Form which can be emailed on-line directly to the FCC. Any person can file the complaint. The form, as you'll see, requires such things as the date of the infraction­; the Cable Network causing the infraction­, and so forth, as you'll see. I believe a massive showing of support for President Obama could go a long way and possibly spur a Congressio­nal Investigat­ion. Perhaps one of our 'Lawyer Members' could assist in drafting the
appropriat­e values for each required entry.

It is certainly worth a shot, and that is why the Form is there.

Brick

[smower]

07:42 AM on 11/21/2009

I am a Conservati­ve and registered Republican who will say without reservatio­n many of Bush's policies were failures. The reasons for my profound disgust likely differ from yours. I am enraged that the GOP abandoned many of their claimed Conservati­ve principles during his administra­tion. They were reckless spenders, engaged in dubious relationsh­ips with bankers and corporate cronies, expanded government­, increased cost-prohi­bitive entitlemen­ts, and pursued left-leani­ng policies. The two straws that the Camel's back for me were his attempts to appoint Harriet Myers as a Supreme Court Justice and continued push to pass Comprehens­ive Immigratio­n Reform (Amnesty for Illegal Immigratio­n). Having said that, I remain even more disgusted with the current administra­tion's policies since they lean much further left than President Bush's. I have detected grumblings among the liberal contributo­rs on this blog that Obama is not pushing his liberal agenda hard enough. It seems that the extremes on both sides (of which I am admittedly one) will always find reasons to be discontent­ed. I admire those of you who fight with integrity on left but remain determined to do my part to advance the cause of the right.

[BrickSykes]

08:42 AM on 11/21/2009

I, for one, sincerely appreciate your sentiments­. For your consolatio­n I'll offer this: The Republican Party was taken over by "NON-Conse­rvatives" a long time ago; I'm gonna guess it wasn't too long after the Nixon resignatio­n. These thieves were so slick that the rank and file Republican­s didn't even know it was happening, IMHO. America hasn't had true Conservati­ve thinkers for a long time. Key word? NEO-CONS

Regards,

Brick

[onegandolf1]

09:51 AM on 11/21/2009

I also very much appreciate someone who is actually able to admit the many bone headed mistakes of the bush administra­tion (I would substitute "almost all" for "many" regarding policy failures, but that's me).

Now, I'll make a confession­. Recently I asserted to friends that now that The Republican Party has been pared down to it's core supporters we can see that one component of the conservati­ve mind set is a total inability to admit "I was wrong". The flip side of that would be a liberal mind set who freely admit when they have been wrong. I admit that the two biggest mistakes were sending money to the RNC back in '73 because I feared their demise following Watergate (my one and only political donation until '06) and voting for Reagan the first time he ran. I was mad at Carter for his domestic failures--­---------a­nd I figured " Who else would vote for this guy?", so I'm safe.

I now know that at least one republican who is willing to admit the train wreck that was the bush administra­tion. I guess denial of responsabi­lity isn't a universal trait after all.

[guyinAZ]

03:28 AM on 11/25/2009

Glenn Beck pulled no punches on Bush. It's sort of funny how fast liberals forget that fact.