I ask the question in the title for one reason:
As long as the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity and Limbaugh are allowed to abuse their right to free speech, instead using speech as a weapon of hate that incites criminal actions, then we cannot seriously say that free speech is duly honored in this country.
When one allows a precious right to be twisted into hate crime provocation, one is no lover of freedom of speech. He/she who would abdicate such a solemn duty is at best a sheep, perhaps a whore, but certainly no less than an accessory to a crime.
In this case, we're all an accessory to the crime of murder.
Not because we failed to prevent it.
But because we allow incitement to violence by these hate-spewing lawyered-up mouthpieces.
This is no honor for free speech. It is the degradation of free speech.
And yet we allow it, sitting silent as MLK warned was also a betrayal.
I apologize if this diary fails to meet the rules.
I apologize more for sharing the same genus and species with O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, & company.
But I had to ask for someone to try to explain to me how Mr. O'Reilly is not guilty of incitement to committing acts of violence by calling this murdered doctor "Tiller the baby killer", a person who has "blood on his hands as does Governor Sebelius", and one who commits "nazi stuff", etc.
I ask on principle. I ask for the future of our country. I ask, thinking of the victims' families. And I ask, because it is hard to ignore how Limbaugh is attempting a similar approach re: our current President.
These people are making millions, hiding under the first amendment, provoking and threatening. When they make pointed statements on a person's character, public person or no, it is not "protected speech", or at least it should not be. It is an unfounded attack or accusation.
When they make such statements repeatedly, daily, hourly, for weeks, months, years... it becomes an instigation to act.
They even say as much, if/when they admit and say plainly that they want people to act - with the "disclaimer" that they want them to act lawfully, such as voting.
But how is this enough to qualify the level of venom and violence they cultivate?
I say it can't be. There has to be a definable line.
Where is it? Is it appropriately drawn in today's world?