The more I learn about this, the more astounded I get.
All politics aside, this type of cold blooded rhetoric, should be subject to some kind of criminal charges, or at least social accountability.
How in the world, can specific and clear "Death Threats" on the Public Airways be considered "Protected Speech"? What is the Political aspect of this again? Killing is killing.
Moore: Beck and O’Reilly called for violence against me
By David Edwards, rawstory -- Oct 29, 2010
Moore also noted that Beck had once fantasized about killing him and that "Bill O'Reilly one night said he didn't believe in the death penalty except for Michael Moore."
The specific quote from Beck came in May of 2005, when he said:
Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? [...]
[Glenn Beck continues his threatening screed ...]
I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.
"You can become successful preaching violence and preaching hate," Moore summarized. "We're going to enter a very scary time."
So the only thing Stopping Beck's Murderous impulses, is a thin strip of elastic clothe? That's reassuring -- NOT!
What is the definition of crazy again? I think Mr. Beck must have wrote the book.
Perhaps Glenn was just "jesting" with his "warnings" to Moore? (as if that is a valid excuse).
Listen to his words yourself, for any hints of satire or comical hyperbole. You be the judge.
Glenn Beck Threatens to Kill Michael Moore (VIDEO)
By Chris Monty on Jan 10, 2011
http://crooksandliars.com/...
Granted, Micheal Moore is a "Public Figure" -- and so would have to prove Actual Malice in Beck's heart er, "state of mind" in order to sue for Defamation.
But this threatening Political Rhetoric by Beck, goes way beyond "satirical political statements" or Defamation of Character -- this little speech seems to have gone clear around the bend, directly into the Right-wing Scary Zone.
Surely there must be some legal standards, upon which Beck's direct threats against Michael Moore were treading upon? If you happened to say something like this to your neighbor -- "I'm thinking about killing you, or hiring someone to kill you." -- How long to you think it would be, before the Police were paying you a visit and hauling you off to Jail?
Normal people do not talk this way. But Beck does. And he is not alone. (as that clip shows.)
Perhaps there is another legal standard -- besides "Free Speech" at play here. A type of speech that constitutes "True Threats" -- a type of speech NOT automatically protected by the First Amendment.
When is a Threat "Truly" a Threat Lacking First Amendment Protection?
A Proposed True Threats Test to Safeguard Free Speech Rights in the Age of the Internet
The UCLA Online Institute for Cyberspace Law and Policy
Anna S. Andrews, May 1999
PART II: Current True Threats Doctrine
True threats are a category of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. Currently, there is no one test to determine when speech crosses the boundary from protected expression to a "true" threat. The United States Supreme Court has not definitively answered the question and the Circuit Courts of Appeal have formulated different tests, though the majority favor some form of objective test.
[...]
A. Elements of True Threats Tests
Courts over the years have included various elements in their formulations of threats tests. The majority of courts use an "objective" construction. Essentially, an objective test asks whether a reasonable person would construe the defendant's speech or statement as a threat, given the context in which it was made.
The point at which courts differ is in deciding who that reasonable person should be. There are three possibilities.
-- The first is to ask whether a reasonable hearer of the statement who was not the intended target would interpret the statement as a threat.
-- The second is to ask whether a reasonable speaker should have foreseen that his statement would be interpreted as a threat.
-- The third is to ask whether a reasonable recipient of the statement would interpret it as a threat.
It should be noted that the reasonable hearer and reasonable recipient standards may be confused, as the hearer is often but not necessarily the recipient.
Additionally, the reasonable recipient standard is problematic because it invites a jury to consider the unique sensitivities of the particular recipient, whether or not they are supposed to do so; if this happens and the recipient is unusually sensitive, a defendant's speech may be prohibited in that instance, while it would not have been prohibited if it had been directed at a less sensitive recipient.(17)
A few courts have required both an "objective" and a "subjective" element. A subjective element essentially looks at the speaker's intent in making the statement. Some courts ask whether the speaker intended to threaten, regardless of intent to carry out the threat.
Another approach is to ask whether the speaker intended to execute the threat, though this is rarely done as part of the threats test. Confusion over an intent inquiry is amplified by the fact that many statutes include language requiring the speaker to "willfully" or "knowingly" or "intentionally" threaten. This language seems to require specific intent but is ambiguous.(18)
The majority of courts do not interpret this as requiring specific intent to actually threaten, but instead view it objectively, asking only whether the speaker voluntarily uttered his speech and whether the speaker knew the meaning of his words.(19)
Well that clears it up -- well not really. Intent is often the most difficult "element" to proof -- but Intent of Harm is not always required, only the Intent of being Threatening. (Funny that sounds like Beck was up to, doesn't it?)
The key element of a "True Threat" crime, revolves around whether or not the utterance can be "interpreted as a statement of threat". Hmmmm? Could what Beck said towards Moore be interpreted as a threat? What say you, ad-hoc jury?
Of course if this were ever to go to court, Beck would probably argue that: "considering 'the recipient', my humorous language 'was directed at a less sensitive recipient', Mr. Moore ... (yuk, yuk.)"
But Moore could easily counter, that "while Beck was enthusiastically describing 'the choking the life out of me' it did seem to me that 'his language had a specific intent' of being threatening, and that was anything 'but ambiguous' to me. (he kind of scares the hell out of me, considering how well armed he is.)"
Case Closed! Say, Mr. Beck perhaps you want to bunk with Tom Delay, maybe?
The various Rulings on "True Threats" in electronic speech, are still 'unsettled law', at least in what I could easily find in researching the topic. But in the main "True Threat" case that made it to the Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor perhaps summed up the "issue of threatening intent" about as clearly and unambiguously as we can expect at this point:
"TRUE THREATS" AND THE ISSUE OF INTENT (pdf)
Paul T. Crane, Virginia Law Review
"True threats" encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat.1
-- Justice O’Connor’s opinion of the Court in Virginia v. Black
Mr. Beck consider yourself warned. No Action is required, for your language be considered a serious expression of a "True Threat".
And Glenn, Ignorance of the Law, is No Excuse. And in your case, don't expect anyone to make an exception. Spreading Fear using Violent Threatening Rhetoric -- is simply Wrong -- since you asked.
I repeat Yes.it.is.Wrong. Any compassionate or sane human being would know that.