Must We Draw a Line on Free Speech?
In response to the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller, the Houston Chronicle’s editors asked a pertinent question today – “When does anti-abortion rhetoric cross the line from free speech?”
Before I begin, a question in return: from free speech into what, exactly?
Presumedly the editors mean a criminal act. Fair enough – speech is either free or prohibited by force of law or the threat of same. The boundary of our protected First Amendment rights is circumscribed by the jagged, piecemeal line of preceding incitement rulings.
The law, imperfect as it is, draws the final line in the sand at the end of free speech. As such, the standard ought to be heavily weighted in favor of the speaker and the burden of proof placed on those who would restrict speech. Anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.
Incitement to violence is one such legitimate prohibition of speech and radicals who call for violence are in violation of that standard. Such cases are particularly egregious when committed with premeditation; conversely, we would be wise to overlook extemporaneous utterances, even when repulsive or offensive. After all, no one can claim to control his or her tongue without fail.
Angry, even hateful speech should not be criminalized, while deliberate incitement must be, for a crime is in the action, not in the talking, and to incite is to act deliberately.
To this end, the editors rightly point out that “[Bill] O’Reilly had excoriated “Tiller the baby killer” and his “Nazi stuff” for several years, as had Operation Rescue and other abortion foes.”
Did O’Reilly act with the intent of inciting Tiller’s murder? It’s unlikely to say the least that such a case could be made, if only for the simple fact that O’Reilly’s quoted description of Tiller’s profession is, above all, accurate.
Tiller’s was one of only three centers in the United States to perform abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy.
If a hard line is to be drawn the law, fully restrained by the state’s burden of proof, must be the tool used to make the final mark separating legal speech from the illegal.
Yet the law should, in addition to being the final solution, also be the last. Is it necessary to have decades of mindless shouting over issues such as abortion? It’s obvious that neither side’s extremists can ever be satisfied and that a compromise no one likes will eventually be agreed on.
Abortions are not generally available after 16 weeks in most of the civilized world. It is inevitable that the debate in the United States eventually settle on a similar standard. The only question is how many more babies – and how many more abortionists – must die needlessly before that happens.
I generally find O’Reilly’s commentary boorish, his reasoning flawed, and his addition to any debate more distraction than contribution. His remarks on Tiller that I have heard are about what I would expect from him. That said, to accuse his of complicity in this murder based on what I have heard is ridiculous and to silence him for his rants would be a far greater crime than anything he has done.
O’Reilly reported the truth.
If you want to look at hate…Go to MSNBC and see what they are doing with O’Reilly and fox news whom they hate.
The two networks have had a war going for some time since MSNBC decided to abandon reporting and become a far left flag ship station.
I hold a lot of left of center views but I find MSNBC repugnant to the point will Not even watch NBC and in fact it, MSNBC and CNBC is blocked in my house all together.
O’Reilly shouted his opinion.
My opinions of O’Reilly and Olberman are identical.
As Fox is the flagship of the right and is also more concerned with ideology than good reporting. If find neither a useful source of anything but the opinion of one political faction and often just a fringe of that faction. I can easily get that information elsewhere without the negative externalities of cable news and so I rarely bother to watch either.
No one should silence anyone or throw around accusations of “suggesting murder” carelessly. Self-righteousness, self-appointed vanguards and a lack of sympathy is endemic to political movements of all kinds. Left-wingers claim that churches and political religion are all insidious conspirators against societal progress, neo-nazis and people with obsolete and divisive values run around and say incredibly idiotic things like “art should be wholesome and classical” or “they’re going to make it illegal for me to say that I love my country”.
All we can do is discuss and learn to the point where we have the authority to deem some views/speech as a result of sound thinking and some a result of emotional and baseless thinking.
O’Reilly never called for Tiller’s murder, did he? Here’s some clips of O’Reilly along with some opinions, see for yourself: http://www.newsy.com/videos/free_speech_or_sparking_violence
If it was O’Reilly’s doing, then I suppose he isn’t very good at incitement because he could only convince a criminal with past history of stalking the clinic to do God’s will. And not to mention it took years for the incitement to actually work? Seems like a pretty thin argument
O’Reilly shouted his opinion.
This is America. You are allowed to shout your opinion. Its done quite often on cable these days.
My opinions of O’Reilly and Olberman are identical.
MSNBC attacks FOX people personally. I have yet to hear Fox attack anyone personally at MSNBC other then the CEO of Both NBC and General Electric.
MSNBC pretends to have this high moral ground upon which they stand as they personally attack people with whom they agree.
MSNBC is a disgrace to the news business and really should put disclaimers on each show saying that the views expressed by……….
In fact it would be great if they followed the Fox format by allowing the opposition a voice but then MSNBC knows that the FAR LEFT liberal position is really indefensible. Just as the far right has learned the same of their positions.
That is certainly true and a good thing. It does not, however, mean that those shouted opinions are worth listening to.
The ad hominem flows both ways. O’Reilly is not at all averse to ad hominem (none of the screaming pundits are). The O’Reilly Olberman thing has been going back and forth for a while now. It is street theater on the TV.
and FOX does the same from the opposite side.
Yeah, maybe they could hire a retired Republican congressman and give him their prime morning slot.
“Yeah, maybe they could hire a retired Republican congressman and give him their prime morning slot.”
It should be noted that Joe is MSNBC’s only right of center host. That says nothing about Fox’s choice of hosts. Oh yeah and “prime morning slot” only applies to those on the east coast. I like Joe but getting up at 5 am is another thing. If it were a “prime slot” it would be the same time as the “Today Show”.
As far as my understanding of the history of free speech in America goes (one semester’s worth), the line has increasingly been drawn fairly close to action. It’s not saying “we should kill this guy” that’ll get you in trouble (with obvious exceptions like the President). More like, “we should kill this guy tomorrow.”