Well, Bill O'Reilly defends free speech, and back-handed-ly defends Schultz's right to it in his "Talking Points Memo" segment
What's a little O'Reilly without a heaping helping of hyperbole? He starts by saying:
An American Witch Hunt, focusing on the media...
And with not a hint of irony, the first point that is displayed in the margin of the monitor says"
Freedom of speech is a delicate thing because it protects irresponsible people who use word to hurt other people
I'll let that one sink in...there you go.
But wait! It appears that O'Reilly indeed was coming to the defense of Ed Schultz when he mentions that MRC is calling for Ed's job! His reponse:
Now, we sympathize
...followed by this little gem...
For years, guttersnipes on that network have been abusing freedom of speech intentionally trying to harm folks with whom they disagree...
This is less than a defense of Ed Schultz than more of a defense of himself. But that is where my snark ends.
It is expected, and I suppose, in a twisted way, he is defending free speech (directly) and MSNBC and Ed Schultz (indirectly). What really struck me was him taking issue with Boycotts and:
The marketplace should dictate these controversies, and it usually does
followed shortly thereafter by:
The entire boycott movement is garbage. The far-left threatening sponsors they don't like is un-American
There you go. I can't say I agree. In a free-market society, the one power a consumer has is to
not spend their money on a product or service. Boycotting is simply encouraging others to not spend their money for reasons of morality or otherwise.
It is all so ridiculous. O'Reilly is dripping with hypocrisy throughout this piece, but it is worth pointing out that we can still hold sway over corporations and news agencies by boycotting...and it is one of the only things that is effective in a system completely controlled by money. It certainly merited O'Reilly's showcasing it in his Talking Points Memo segment, which is saying something.