An Open Letter:
Dear Bill O’Reilly,
On last night's show, you began with your usual Talking Points Memo segment, during which you referenced a Direct Action that #occupybaltimore participated in on Tuesday, November 15th. What follows is a transcript of our action and your response:
"And now the "Occupiers" are starting to target individual Americans, people like Karl Rove.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mic check.
PEOPLE: Mic check.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Karl Rove.
PEOPLE: Karl Rove.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is the architect.
PEOPLE: Is the architect.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The architect of Occupy Iraq.
PEOPLE: The architect of Occupy Iraq.
KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: If you believe in free speech, then you have a chance to show it. If you believe in the right of the First Amendment of free speech, then you demonstrate it by shutting up and waiting until the Q and A session.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Once protesters begin to infringe on the rights of individual people, then the courts absolutely have to step in. The Judge McIntyres of the world must realize that public safety and the safety of people the "Occupiers" don't like trumps any theory.
Every American city is giving the "Occupiers" plenty of time and space to get their message across, but that's not good enough for them. They want chaos. So here's another prediction: More people will die.
And that's 'The Memo.'"
Mr. O’Reilly, you have taken your cue from Karl Rove, claiming that Occupy Baltimore is infringing on his constitutional rights because a number of protesters disrupted his speech. This is either a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment protects, or intellectual dishonesty on your part. In either case, due to this information being broadcast, I am challenging you to discuss this issue with me on your program, as I believe your audience deserves a more accurate understanding of what the First Amendment does and does not protect, and what the action during Karl Rove’s speech actually represented.
I pose this challenge to you, I will debate this issue with you in any format you choose, and as long as we discuss the First Amendment issue, you are free to engage in discussion on any other issue. You have done a disservice to your viewers and I would like to help correct it, and frankly I think anything short of directly addressing the issue is an act of willful dishonesty and disrespect to the viewing public on your part. If you are up to the challenge of the debate, I can be reached through my email address, which your Producer has. If you choose not to engage on this, I can only conclude that you were intentionally misleading your viewers.
Sincerely,
Ian Logsdon