Freedom, Speech, and Consequences: O'Reilly and Accountability

Let's start with a thought experiment: Let's say you denounced someone in your neighborhood as a a corrupt and terrible person - a killer, even. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you believe your words to be true. Then let's say that somebody who might have heard your words shot that person down in cold blood.

Wouldn't it give you pause? Wouldn't you want to know if that person heard your harsh words before firing those shots? Wouldn't you spend a sleepless night wondering if you might - just might - bear some portion of the blame for the death of another human being?

Assuming the answer is "yes," you have now learned the difference between you and Bill O'Reilly. Or Sean Hannity. Or Bernard Goldberg. Or any of a number of other commentators who use violent and hateful speech to characterize those with whom they disagree. I've used thought experiments like this one before, and the result is always the same: I and those around me would express regret, then attempt to turn down the rhetorical heat. These guys just keep cranking it up.

I criticized Dick Cheney quite a bit back in the day. But if someone had shot him (instead of vice versa) and my writings were on the shooter's shelf, I would express a great deal of remorse. Then I'd search my writings (and my soul) to see whether I might have crossed a moral line.

It's possible that Dr. Tiller's murderer never heard anything Bill O'Reilly said about the Kansas obstetrician/gynecologist. It's possible that he was completely unaffected by O'Reilly's description of Dr. Tiller as a "baby killer," as someone guilty of "Nazi stuff" who ""destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." It's possible that he has never even heard of Bill O'Reilly.

It's not likely. But it's possible.

James Lee Adkisson had heard of O'Reilly, however. He's the man who shot down a roomful of peaceful Unitarians in Knoxville. He had an O'Reilly book on his bookshelf. This is the same Bill O'Reilly who encouraged Al Qaeda to attack San Francisco because of its liberal views, the same Bill O'Reilly who routinely characterizes those with whom he disagrees as "Nazis" and "traitors."

What do movie heroes do to Nazis and traitors? They kill them. So what do you do if you're mentally unbalanced and want to be a hero and all you read is Hannity and O'Reilly and Goldberg?

Adkisson was specific about his goals after his capture. "Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media." Those sentences openly cite one of Goldberg's misleading and overheated books, The 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken's #37)." But they could also have been inspired by two others: "Bias" and "Arrogance," which refer to the mainstream media. "But those people were inaccessible to me," Adkisson added, "... so I went after the foot soldiers." He also said:

"Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them.... "

The rhetoric about a vast left-wing conspiracy is straight out of Fox News, or Ann Coulter's book that says "the only way to talk to a liberal is with a baseball bat" or Dick Morris' books about liberals entitled "Traitor" and "Off With Their Heads."

(Wait -- cutting people's heads off ... isn't that what we condemn Middle Eastern terrorists for doing?)

Adkisson's manifesto fits right in with this crowd: "Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation." He only parts company with his highly-paid leadership when he addresses the solution: "The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just kill yourself. do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals."

How explicit a link do we need before it becomes reasonable to at least suspect that there might be a connection between violent rhetoric (traitors, Nazis, baseball bats, decapitation) and violent deeds? Why are media critics like Howard Kurtz so ready to exonerate O'Reilly and his cohort from even the possibility that their angry words might be a contributing factor?

********************

Which is not to say that I, or anyone I know, would consider abridging or limiting Bill O'Reilly's freedom of speech. The way to fight the hateful aspects of their speech, and the ugly atmosphere it creates, is with our speech. That form of engagement isn't just a right. It's a duty.

That's a point that seemed lost on Air America radio host Ron Kuby when I appeared on his show after the Knoxville shooting. He insisted that I was arguing for suppression of speech, even though I hadn't said or implied any such thing. It seems reasonable to hold the following set of positions simultaneously:

1) that freedom of speech is an inviolable right;
2) that some speech can encourage harmful actions;
3) that we should point that out and criticize such speech where appropriate.

Some people are concerned that certain types of speech will be suppressed if we suggest that they foster or encourage acts of violence. But if a causal link seems apparent, why should we be reluctant to point that out? Remember, the Left appeared to be growing its own violent wing in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But mainstream liberals were quick to condemn acts by groups like the Weather Underground. Those movements died out. Yet Rachel Maddow provided a litany of right-wing violence last night, with no corresponding violence from the left. Is that a coincidence? Or does part of the difference stem from the lack of violent and angry imagery from mainstream liberals?

I would never suppress the anti-abortion magazine that suggested killing doctors like Dr. Tiller was "justifiable homicide." But I won't hesitate to say that talk like that could get somebody killed. Scott Roeder subscribed to that magazine. Who can say that couldn't have inspired him to kill? The same is true of other violent rhetoric - rhetoric beamed night after night from every cable-ready television in the country.

Once - just once - I'd like to see Bill O'Reilly or Bernard Goldberg express regret for the possibility, however remote, that they contributed to an act of violence. But apparently O'Reilly would rather blame his critics than search his soul.

RJ Eskow blogs when he can at:

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog

Comments

[grooveygrover]

when I was young I used to go to planned parenthood for my birthcontrol pills. on a few occasionsI drove a tiny fiat spider with the top down.
the funniest thing was when I drove into the driveway and the anti-choice people tried to converge my 110 pound chesapeake bay retriever would sit up. you never saw people move so fast. thank goodness they didn't know how friendly he was.

[alwqb]

Bill O'Reilly doesn't care if he "reports" untruths. He is catering to his audience with fear and they are too ignorant to change the channel. Look at the "apology" he gave to CNN for lying about their credibility in reporting the news.

Bill O'Reilly is a smug entertainer. It's frightening to think of the amount of people who believe this guy. He baits the wing nut faction in our country and then takes no responsibility in it. What if a commentator egged on a radical group to get rid of him? Think about it Bill. Does that feel good to you?

[discourse jockey]

There's a small chance he's not gonna read your comment.

[djkrlsn]

It has been demonstrated that CNN has lied to support gun control--they demonstrated a fullauto and a semiautot AK in the same caliber--the full auto shattered a cinderblock wall and not a scratch from the semiauto using the same ammo--turns out the guy shooting the guns shot the semiauto into the freaking dirt DELIBERATELY

[grooveygrover]

wierd how you know so much

[beanie]

I agree with the author's comments but am still confused about the "freedom of speech" issue. On one hand I support the principle of freedom of speech. On the other hand, from a practical point of view there have been and always will be, demagogues like O'Reilly that take advantage of situations/issues like the abortion debate. I think he should have been censored (how?) for his past outrageous comments about baby killers and the like. In my mind, he clearly has incited violence against pro-choice people and health care workers. He and poeple like Randall Terry are clearly responsible for inciting violence on the abortion issue. In my mind, they are clearly cowards and hiding behind their first amendment rights.

[djkrlsn]

There are quite a few people that see aborting a healthy, viable fetus as unethical--first term (especially when the fetus has a genetic disorder) or in any case involving rape (forcible or statutory)­--abortion makes sense, but for a healthy woman to abort a third trimester healthy fetus (which if born premature would have a could chance of growing up healthy)--there have got to be better alternatives than abortion (including birth control)

[grooveygrover]

do you REALLY think a woman would abort a "healthy" third trimester fetus?
you must hate women

[CynAnne]

Thank you, RJ. You delivered a perfect summation of the collectively corrosive affect of repeated rhetoric, especially when it's combined with indirect (and rather direct) references to violence against all pro-choice in general, and the late Dr. Tiller in specific. The disingenuous tone that O'Really and his like-minded cohorts take now, in light of their bitter fruit come to harvest, just adds insult to injury, and hubris to hurt already caused. I hope that the public outcry against this cold-blooded murder incited by yellow, hateful rhetoric goes straight to where it hurts these mouthpieces the most..their wallets.

[Democrab]

You can't criminally prosecute free speech, but you can take someone you suspect to civil court and let a jury decide whether or not their rhetoric caused personal damage or stress. You can sue anybody for anything at anytime in America. (Not saying you'll win) But I'm sure there are some gunslinging lawyers out there who would love to tackle a media celebrity and notch up their guns with a civil win against them, or garner enough publcity to get a slot on Larry King. A few publicized law suits might go a long way to curb hate mongering media worms. There is a new website called WhoCanISue.com created by a Florida attorney. It helps victims gain knowledge about their civil rights against people who have violated them.

[inaisle8]

Fox News hurls its hateful and dismal comments daily.
They refer to themselves as fair and balanced and not part of the "mainstream media". Sounds like they really mean they are not part of the popular media. FOX VS THEM

Every time Fox News refers to the "main stream media" it indicates a child like jealousy for all the other decent news channels and newspapers who do report the facts and who do show a little respect for our current president.

I believe most of us are tired of the hateful gloom and doom and what if's the Fox News channel manufactures.

O'reilly, Hannity, Beck etc. are paid very well at Fox News to say what the their company supports. It makes me wonder how many of them actually believe what they are saying or are they all just selling out??? What would you say for 11 million a year?

[Senzasord]

The biggest problem is the fact that Hannity, O'Reily, Limbaugh et al. have a bully broadcast pulpit from which to project their venom. The broadcast industry has a special obbligation to serve first and foremost in the public interest because they are licensed to use the public airwaves.
While hate speech may be protected under the first amendment ( I am not sure that is universally so, but that is a different issue), broadcasting hate speech is not. The proliferation of hate speech is against the public interest and must be curbed. One way to do this is to deny the renewal applications of any boradcast media outlet where hate speech abounds. We have already determined that pornography and profanity is unacceptable and do not tolerate it. Hate speech falls into the same category with far more dire results.

[Jeff Bland]

How long do we, as left-leaning rationalists, allow this behavior to go unchallenged?

[ICanHasDemocracy]

Kind of amusing, because when you look at it objectively, the more Nazi and Fascist attributes they list seem to be self-identifying.

Sort of like the "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on tv", mentality.

[grooveygrover]

yes, it's called projection...

[carpdd]

Never again will I ever consider the possibility of a "compassionate Conservative" Bill O , Bernie and the rest of these hateful people have made an art form out of hate speech and all out attacks of anyone who would challenge them or their positions. I too am a believer of freedom of speech and never want the Fox network to dissolve due to the fact that we need to keep them in the light of day. We do have mechanisms in place to combat such behavior. The FCC needs to not only monitor but also chastise abusers in the public arena.

[djkrlsn]

Sorry--Billyboy never claimed to be a compassionate conservative

[cmdrgmh]

Billo crossed the legal line once he proclaimed that Dr. Tiller was performing illegal abortions. Dr. Tiller did not break any laws. This places some blame to Billo and Fox News. The charge would fit conspiracy. He acted with full knowledge that the possibility of an illegal act would ensue. If you keep reciting "killer" and "There's a special Place In Hell For Him", and "Murderer", on a national TV show Day in and Day Out, you have to expect your incitement will cause harm.

[noneIn2008]

You mean like when there are copycat killings for the news reporting a killing? If the news would not report the first, the second and third would not happen. So, should the news not report the first?

[ICanHasDemocracy]

Bill O waged a clear and villifying campaign against Tiller, there are dozens of excerpts from his spin cycle zone.

[djkrlsn]

I would say arguing that a third trimester healthy fetus is unethical and should be illegal unless there are major complications for the mother (and not wanting a baby is not a major complication--if you don't want a baby either use seriously redudant birth control (the PIll/Depoprovera + IUD+condom (you get the idea) or don't have sex. The reason I am arguing this way is that in the third trimester, preemies have a good chance of surviving out of the womb and at that point you are starting to look at 2 individuals

[balrog221]

Tell the truth now. How many Christian posters here have rolled their eyes when the Josph Smith /Mormon myth was explained? How many when the Islamic Jihad promises vigins to their murdering Martyrs?

How many think that those are just fairy tales and dangerous ones at that? Should we tolerate these when they subrogate our liberty? When they threaten our way of life? Are Mullahs entitled to free speech when they enable and encourage followers to demean women?

Now when it is extremist and violent rhetoric from Fundementalist Christians and their proxies, we are told that we must tolerate. their right to free speech. Curiously their myth is exactly as credible as the mormom one...perhaps less so because Joseph was verifiably alive. Allow them to speak with a giant eye roll .

[djkrlsn]

How about all the "liberals" and "progressives" here on Huffpo that support violating the 2nd amendment==per Heller, it protects an individual RKBA--which tells me that laws banning semiauto carbines (ala Clinton faux "assault weapon ban"), Chicago and DC style gun bans, dumbgun tech, bans on both open AND concealed carry etc are all unConstitutional.

[grooveygrover]

only cowards own guns
people who are afraid
what are you afraid of?

[cynicalgirl]

You neglected to mention the 5 cops (2 in FL and 3 in PA) who were killed in domestic disputes because "Obama is going to take my guns". I'm sure there are plenty of examples of Glenn Beck promoting that lie.

[LMPE]

I think that we'll see Billo and his ilk apologize at about the time when the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

[kristin1030]

While we can be sure that we'll never see the day when O'Reilly apologizes for anything, I, at least, feel certain that he will rot in hell. It's one of the strongest hopes I have for the accuracy of the Bible--so people like Bill O'Reilly will reap what he sows, because he certainly gets away with too much here on Earth.