Bill O'Reilly compared murdered abortion provider George Tiller to Hitler, vowed to stop him

[Bjorn Against]

Sorry to post trash from Bill O'Reilly's website on here but the hate speech of these people needs to be exposed before someone else is killed.

Confronting Dr. George Tiller
November 22, 2006

The Factor has been investigating a late-term abortion clinic run by Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas. Dr. Tiller, known to his detractors as "Tiller the Baby Killer," stonewalled us when we asked over the last year if he'd performed illegal abortions and covered up child rape at his clinic. But recently the Factor learned that Tiller terminated late-term pregnancies by citing temporary "depression" on the part of the mother, and performed these abortions on girls as young as ten, never informing police these girls were victims of rape or incest.

"In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000 if the mother is depressed. And there are rapists impregnating 10-year-olds who are being protected by abortion clinics. It doesn't get worse than that. This is the absolute shame of America."

snip

By the time of the show that night, challenger Paul Morrison had defeated Phill Kline by 16 points, throwing the criminal investigation of Dr. George Tiller into uncertainty. But O'Reilly promised, "We're going to try to stop ... we're not going to let up... believe me, we will stay on this story. This is horrendous."

Bill summarized in a heartfelt Talking Points Memo on Friday, November 10th: "If we as a society allow an undefined mental health exception in late-term abortions, then babies can be killed for almost any reason... This is the kind of stuff that happened in Mao's China and Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union... If we allow this, America will no longer be a noble nation... If we allow Dr. George Tiller and his acolytes to continue, we can no longer pass judgment on any behavior by anybody."

http://www.billoreilly.com/blog?action=viewBlog&blogID=-115522592623938900

Do you think the person who murdered Tiller may have been an O'Reilly fan?

[Seen the light]

1. Probably. Remember that the Knoxville Unitarian church shooter was a fan of O'Reilly/Hannity/Savage

They breed hate and apparently they breed domestic terrorism.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Tiller's acquital in March of 19 misdemeanor charges probably has more to do with today

than this 2006 article, but this article plays its part in the whole tragedy. Kline was never, ever charged with this crimes. Bill should be ashamed of himself.

[47of74]

3. Probably

I would hope that O'Reilly would have a bit of shame and realize that his words were at least in part responsible for the murder of a human being. That being said though, I'm not holding my breath.

[mmonk]

4. Hitler made abortion illegal for German women.

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/steinem.html

[havocmom]

5. time to round up hate talk pundits for questioning

And do it any time violence against a prominent liberal is attacked or murdered. Nothing will stick to these clowns, but maybe if they were inconvenienced enough, they would learn some self-monitoring, or have its value explained by their lawyers.

[skooooo]

6. kick

[paulsby]

7. not in this country . ever.

it;s called free speech . deal with it.

oreilly fwiw, has said more than once "it's not free speech, it's hate speech" when referring to others.

he is as wrong as you.

we don't violate the constitution, even to inconvenience morans.

fwiw, i listen to malloy quite frequently, and much of what he says could also be classified as hate speech

so what?

it's LEGAL in this country.

which makes us DIFFERENT from most of europe, etc. and that's a good thing.

it's the first amendment.

[Mrs. Overall]

9. Are you actually saying that people in Europe do not have "free speech"

and that's what makes us DIFFERENT (your caps, not mine)?

[paulsby]

11. absolutely

not when it comes to hate speech.

england has the race relations act. canada (fwiw, although not in europe) also does not have hate speech, and criminalizes speech denigrating people because of their membership in various groups.

in france, bardot was fined for criticizing islam, "denigrating religion" etc.

nobody who studies comparative speech law doubts this. ask any knowledgeable member of the ACLU or CCLA etc.

in many countries it is also illegal to claim the holocaust never happened, for example.

i am a nationally trained "train the trainer" in hate crimes investigation.

i've attended training with both london metro cops and RCMP's

they are AMAZED at how much freedom we have vis a vis speech.

the 1st amendment was DESIGNED to protect controversial speech. we are an exception, in that we do.

read the case law. the bardot case is very telling in this regards.

[Mrs. Overall]

17. I stand corrected. Thanks for the information.

[paulsby]

28. yw

the bardot case is a particularly egregious example.

i also find it amusing that in france, it is a crime to "insult a police officer"

lol

if we had that law in this country, man could i make a lot of arrests!

[paulsby]

12. absolutely

not when it comes to hate speech.

england has the race relations act. canada (fwiw, although not in europe) also does not have hate speech, and criminalizes speech denigrating people because of their membership in various groups.

in france, bardot was fined for criticizing islam, "denigrating religion" etc.

i've attended training with both london metro cops and RCMP's

they are AMAZED at how much freedom we have vis a vis speech.

the 1st amendment was DESIGNED to protect controversial speech. we are an exception, in that we do.

read the case law. the bardot case is very telling in this regards.

[havocmom]

14. And I bet police in those nations still investigate people who advocate killing others

when those others turn up dead.

It is legitimate police work. Not same as police state.

[paulsby]

23. two points

1) we have free speech. they have much less limited speech

that's already been explained

2) show me where oreilly advocated KILLING tiller.

show me.

a transcript.

i have not seen one.

advocating stopping somebody is NOT killing him.

i have heard any # of leftwing pundits advocating stopping bush and/or plenty of other people.

oreilly's speech is only illegal if it constitutes (the legal termis) "true threats"

just because some wacko can take one's criticism (assuming tiller's murderer did) of somebody and make a decision to kill that person DOES NOT = true threats.

we don't do results based analysis.

[havocmom]

24. show me where in this thread I said O'Whatshisname adovcated killing

What is your real problem with what I posted originally? I said nada about the man you keep defending.

[paulsby]

27. my bad

if i was confusing you with the other poster who said that.

my point is simple. oreilly's speech (all examples i have seen) are clearly protected first amendment speech

whether or not they are hate speech is IRRELEVANT to legality, because they US, ***Unlike*** most of europe, canada, etc. does not have laws against hate speech because we have MORE free speech and a 1st amendment

good for us.

if somebody can post a transcript of something oreilly said that is not first amendment protected speech, go for it.

that's a general call, not to you specificallly.

[havocmom]

31. weeel then, thanks for fessing up to confusing me with god knows who

now, get off my back about it

[paulsby]

33. quit yer whinging

i apologized for confusing you with another poster. way to accept an apology gracefully!

[havocmom]

36. As I am still being attacked for what I never said....

Way to duck and cover :rofl:

[havocmom]

10. First Ammendment would not prevent ME from being taken in for questioning

if I got on TV, radio, press and advocated killing certain groups or individuals within certain groups and somebody followed my recommendations. I fail to see how bringing in winger pundits who have said and/or published the same things would be any different.

And I am a fan of the Bill of Rights, but it is still illegal to incite violence.

Edited to add: Questioning people who advocate violence which is then committed is not a violation of the First Amendment, nor any other right. It is called investigating a crime and it is done all the time. Hells bells, how many liberals had visits from cops and Secret Service for voicing a lot less than Coulter, rush, Malkin, and the rest of the 'kill a liberal' crowd?

[paulsby]

18. you misstate the case facts

show me where oreilly advocated KILLING tiller.

he DIDN'T

he advocated "stopping" him. there is a huge difference.

if you want me to get into the case law surrounding incitement i'll do so. i have yet to see anything that comes REMOTELY close to that standard from oreilly.

assume that the guy who killed tiller hung on every word of oreilly and then went out and killed tiller (which is an assumption not in evidence, but assume it), that would NOT make oreilly criminally culpable unless his speech was a clear incitement to kill the guy, which it is not. we don't do "results based analysis" of free speech issues.

this is a free society and i see no law oreilly broke. as a law enforcement officer myself i uphold the constitution. and i damn well know free speech law.

i understand this area of speech law. i have been involved in dozens of investigations involving terroristic threatening, and other forms of ILLEGAL speech.

i have yet to see one clip or transcript of oreilly that crosses the line.

study the case law and get back to me.

[havocmom]

21. Bill also threatens to have people arrested by his or FAUX security

Many RW pundits HAVE called for beating and killing. Sorry, you are cherry-picking to make your weak case that free speech does not have limits when it surely does.

[paulsby]

25. nice intellectual dishonesty

we were talking about oreilly here.

you made the claim he advocated KILLING tiller.

and when i called you on it and said "cite it" , you go off on a tangent.

you are also making a strawman. i didn't claim free speech didn't have limits. i said, in fact, it does have limits, such as "true threats"

so, that's two blatant errors you made.

a false accusation of what i said, and a weasely running away.

cite where oreilly advocated KILLING TILLER:

you can't, it's a lie, and you will slink away.

intelllectual dishonesty. it's what's for dinner.

like i siad, i frequently listen to malloy. malloy has also advocated stopping rw idjits, holding them accountable, etc.

but never advocated KILLING them either.

which is why both enjoy the constittuional protections our founders envisioned.

the 1st amendment is important.

[havocmom]

32. we isn't me and I didn't specify O'whatshisname

the problem of RW pundits advocating violence goes much further than one slipping middle ages guy on his way down.

Want a loofah?

[paulsby]

34. the points are simple

1) nobody has presented evidence of criminal wrongdoing by ANY rightwing pundit vis a vis tiller, and certainly not oreilly who is facing most of the ire in this thread.

2) hate speech is perfectly legal in the US, unlike most other countries. i am proud of that. it rests more power with the people, not the state

[havocmom]

37. SIMPLE: I never mentioned the half assed bully you keep defending

And advocating violence IS illegal. Since it was pundits who advocate violence I suggested questioning, why are you yapping at me?

[Bjorn Against]

15. I agree with you, the first ammendment even protects hate speech

I do think however that hate speech needs to be exposed and those who speak it need to face consequences, not legal consequences but social consequences. In other words we need to protest against this kind of shit, we can stand up to O'Reilly ourselves and we do not need or want the government to stand up to him for us. That is what free speech is about, sure assholes like O'Reilly have the right to spew this kind of venom but we have just as much right to stand up to O'Reilly.

[havocmom]

19. But it doesn't protect advocating violence

Or it didn't back when the man was infiltrating left wing groups and doing the agent provocateur stung so they could arrest others in such groups.

Edited to add: my post that you started flaming about didn't mention O'whatshisname anyway so why are you harping on me about him? Bill O? Is that you? or one of the FAUX enforcers? :wtf:

[Bjorn Against]

26. It doesn't protect inciting violence, but here is the problem...

As loathsome and disgusting as what O'Reilly said is it doesn't meet the legal standards of incitement to violence that would be required to prosecute. He never directly called for violence, he used some very inflammatory words that could incite people to violence but it would be impossible to prove that was his intent.

This is not a case the government could prosecute on, and it is a good thing that they can't prosecute on this sort of case because if they could we would have had all kinds of prosecutions of people who said "Stop Bush". The standards for prosecuting on incitement to violence need to be very high or else we will have even more cases like the ones you cite of agent provocateurs arresting people from leftist groups on trumped up charges.

That being said the type of hate speech that O'Reilly spews does need to be confronted, and it needs to be confronted strongly. We just can't expect the government to confront it for us, it is our job to stand up to people like O'Reilly and expose them for their hateful rhetoric. We need people protesting outside the FOX news offices every day, we need people writing blogs, we need people to create art which exposes O'Reilly for who he is. There are all kinds of ways we can confront hate speech without the government getting involved.

[paulsby]

30. correct

excellent analysis.

and to go a little further, even in cases of incitement, the threat has to be imminent, and it;'s a pretty high standard.

i attended a speech by angela davis, where she advocated "killing the rich". that is NOT an incitement to violence under the law.

also, h rap brown went pretty far in his advocacy w/o running afoul of the law.

but again, excellent analysis. i am glad there is somebody here who stands up for the constitution, which protects ALL of us, even those we disagree with

[havocmom]

35. AGAIN: I never named who, I said hate talk pundits who advocate violence

Jesus Christ on a Marmite lid, take it up with someone who specifically said O'Whatshisname.

There are problems with reading I guess

[Bjorn Against]

39. What you said was "time to round up hate talk pundits for questioning"

I disagree very strongly with that opinion whether you are talking about Bill O'Reilly or anyone else, unless they call for a specific act of violence then I don't feel that the government should be taking political commentators in for questioning. I am not trying to pick on you or attack you though, I completely understand why you are so upset about what these people say and I am upset as well (if I wasn't upset I wouldn't have posted the OP in the first place). I simply think that it is important that we stand up for the first amendment even when it means defending the rights of those who we find revolting. Rounding up the hate talk pundits for questioning is not allowed under the first amendment unless they make a specific threat, which in the case of Bill O'Reilly who was the entire basis of this thread whether you specifically mentioned his name or not, there was no specific threat. Please I am not trying to attack you, I am just trying to state my disagreement. I read your words accurately and I disagree with them, no need for personal attacks accusing me of having problems with reading.

[paulsby]

46. thank you

it never ceases to amaze me the way some people will just kneejerk and propose unconstitutional (not to mention misguided); responses to a tragedy.

i don't like it any more when it comes from the left. actually, i like it less because i expect MORE.

[Bjorn Against]

40. You are accusing me of being Bill O'Reilly when I was the one who posted the OP attacking him?

Please don't stoop to personal attacks, O'Reilly would hate me for calling him out in my OP, and just because I don't agree with what you said doesn't make me the equivilant of Bill O'Reilly. I have not attacked you at all in this thread, I merely stated why I disagree with what you said (and I disagree with what you said regardless of whether you were specifically referring to O'Reilly or not). Am I not allowed to disagree with you without being compared with Bill O'Reilly? Please let's be a bit more civil.

[havocmom]

43. Making a point not personal attacks. If you feel otherwise, alert on me

Pretty comfy most mods would see it as a scold not an accusation.

Amazing how you and pundits are have protected free speech, but I don't. Did anyone call TN on his suggestion of waterboarding? LOL you guys are a hoot.

[Bjorn Against]

47. You do have protected speech, no one called for you to be rounded up and questioned.

Disagreeing with you is not taking away your free speech protections, and yes comparing someone to Bill O'Reilly is a personal attack. I don't think anyone should be waterboarded either, so if that person was being serious (which I don't think he or she was) then yes I disagree with that position as well.

[TahitiNut]

8. Waterboard O'Reilly for 20 seconds and he'll confess to doing it himself.

:shrug:

[havocmom]

16. Jeepers, Nut. I just wanted some of them questioned and was attacke for it

You go and suggest (I know, tongue in cheek) torture and nobody yells at you? :wtf: I must be the victim of sexism or something (tongue in my cheek this time)

[TahitiNut]

42. Maybe folks have gotten used to me being persistently facetious.

:evilgrin:

Or maybe it's because I'm on hundreds of Ignore Lists. :cry:

I try to leave little doubt that I regard waterboarding as torture and deserving of war crimes prosecution ... along with the gamut of inhumane treatment of "detainees." As such, doing it to ANYONE should be prohibited ... whether in SERE training or as a publicity stunt a la Mancow.

[havocmom]

44. Hey, I am a persistant tease and should be on lots of ignore lists by now

And I know how strongly you feel about the abuse of torture. Still, replies or lack of are interesting.

[roamer65]

13. O'Lielly... go fuck urself.

[WeDidIt]

20. O'Reilly Stands With TERRORISTS!!!

Spread the word far and wide. O'Reilly condones TERRORISM.

[chrisa]

22. O'Gasbag

said that he was also manipulating the gas prices, controlling Spanish politics, and that women shouldn't be able to tell a man to stop having sex with her during if she doesn't feel like doing it anymore. He was a joke long before this.

[sarcasmo]

29. Try Bill O as an accessory to murder.

[glinda]

41. He is guilty of hate-speech that promotes harming people no matter how subtle his wording. His over

all effect is that of anger and hatred. We need to protect free-speech but not this crap. I am sorry. Not this.

[Bjorn Against]

51. We protect the right to free speech even for O'Reilly, that don't fight back however

There are no laws against hate speech in this country, virtually all speech is protected under the first amendment and that is a good thing because once you allow the prosecution of one person's speech it is a very slippery slope. I have been in a three hour long standoff with riot police for trying to express my free speech rights, and I know people who have had their homes raided and had machine guns held to their heads for organizing protests. I am very protective of the first amendment because I have seen it violated with my own eyes, and in order for me to truly protect the first amendment I need to stand up for it even when it is used by extremely revolting people like Bill O'Reilly.

That being said however we do need to challenge O'Reilly on this, and we need to make his life extremely uncomfortable. We need to protest, and we need to protest loudly so that no matter where he goes he will have to hang his head in shame. It is up to us to challenge hate speech, it is the role of citizens to challenge things like this as this is one thing we can not ask the government to do for us.

[glinda]

54. Agreed but I draw the line at "promoting murdering someone" just because they

disagree. America has become too passive in analyzing these sort of hate speech escapades particularly from the Media in some ways. This has led to us being on the brink of another Civil War. And most certainly has contributed to the dear Doctor's murder. Am for Free Speech but at what level??????????

[jazzjunkysue]

38. Good catch, Bjorn. Hope you can erase all that putrid stench from your memory

after wading into the sesspool OReilly.

That's taking one for the board. I'll tell you.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

45. It's time to boycott any paper that carries BillO's column

FAUX will never drop him, but any so-called mainstream outlet that continues to give legitmacy to this kind of rhetoric should be shunned and shamed

[Bjorn Against]

49. FAUX should be shunned and shamed as well...

Whether or not they will drop him is not the issue, if they continue to air him then they should face the loss of credibility that comes with airing people like him and face the loss of ratings and advertising revenue that comes with that loss of credibility. Fox was considered by many to be a legitimate news source until the blogs worked to expose their misinformation, we need to continue to expose that misinformation and make them lose credibility with even more people.

[dana_b]

48. well he must be in a helluva good mood then

rapturous joy for O'Reilly. sick fuck.

[old mark]

50. email Bill-o here;

[email protected]

Don't waste your anger here - let the motherfucker know he is responsible for murder.

mark

[rvablue]

52. Bill-O you officially have blood on your hands. And I cannot wait to watch KO rake you over the

coals for your incitement to violence and worse, to cold-blooded murder.

Bill-O, you are a sad, pathetic excuse of a human being. And now your preaching of daily hate on your show has cost a wife to lose a husband. Children to lose a father. You are a pig!

[xiamiam]

53. o reilly should be held accountable for hate mongering and terrorism..this must stop..nt