So Blow O'Lielly was just on my teevee with 2 local wingnuts

[AlCzervik]

these 2 guys Armstrong and Getty have a radio talkshow that is also televised, he came to defend himself against the SF chronicle for his somments about blowing up the Coit tower---"Do you stand by your remarks?" "Yes i do, SF is hurting america" and thats the end of that story.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. This San Francisco would LOVE...

to be hurting Mr. O'Reilly! :mad:

[AlCzervik]

2. as a fellow northern californian who visits San Francisco on a regular

basis and considers it my favorite city in the world i think "the folks" will think Blow's comments are ranting from a mad man.

[mshasta]

3. I hate those two assholes

:grr: :grr:

[FreedomAngel82]

10. And we all know

that if it was democrats they would be railing around trying to get them off the air. Ugh. How can these people get away with this shit? :mad: Shouldn't the FCC be on their asses? And Pat Robertson's for calling for the asssination of a president.

[AlCzervik]

11. yup, thank goodness we now have 2, yes 2 liberal radio stations!

i bet armstrong and Getty live in the red state of Placer county.

[Loonman]

4. If there is not a massive piling on of O'Reilly by San Fran

I'll be very disappointed.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. I can't believe he won't be indicted, at the very least,

by the San Fran district atty.

Is it legal to advocate terrorist attacks in the US post 9-11?

And what of the broadcast licenses of the stations that carry this fool?

[onenote]

7. what would he be indicted for?

He didn't incite anything. He offered his stupid, asshat opinion, which the Constitution allows him to do. Sure he's an idiot, but the Constitution protects idiots.

onenote

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. "You want to blow up Coit Tower? Go ahead". Sorry...

... that's advocacy. I can't believe it's legal... post 9-11.

If a leftist or anti-war critic said it about say... the Pentagon, do you think they'd be back on TV the next day?

C'mon. San Franciscans have rights too.

[onenote]

9. that's not advocacy, its hyperbole.

And if someone on the left or an anti-war critic said something similar it would be just as wrong for someone to want to indict them.
Just because the wingnuts don't respect the First Amendment doesn't mean I'm going to adopt their position.

onenote

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. Nope. I say hammer him. Also, he has a history saying ...

stuff like this.

Witness the Sex-harassment suit wherein there was sworn testimony that he was aware of the fact ( and party to the information) that Al Franken would some day " get a knock on the door and his life will never be the same again"... because you "don't cross" guys like O's boss Roger Ailes. You can minimize it by calling it hyperbole but I see at least the suggestion of a criminal conspiracy. Only way to find out for sure is to get someone with subpoena power to investigate.

Also, to speak to the legalism brought up by your post, every SCOTUS as far as I know , has rejected the notion that the first amendment is absolute . O'Reilly and the media monopolists who foist him on the general public, have to realize there are consequences to their recklessness.

[onenote]

13. oh please...if you want to get legal

Find me a SCOTUS case -- or any other level of court for that matter -- where someone has been found guilty of a criminal act for something like this. Yes the First Amendment isn't absolute, but O'Reilly acting like a jackass isn't crying fire in a crowded theater.

It bothers me when progressives decide that the best way to fight back against idiotic speech is to suppress it. Frankly, I'm glad that O'Reilly said what he said since its more likely to cause people to question other crap he spouts. Just like Pat Robertson -- the more he runs off at the mouth, the bigger joke he becomes.

onenote

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. What an optimist you are. If it were true that....

the stupidity and outrageousness of O'Reilly's rantings ( and the rantings of Hannity, Limbaugh etc. etc. etc. ) were working *against * them , this kind of political/entertainment demagoguery wouldn't have proliferated like wildfire over the last twenty years.

Your plan: let them burn themselves out. My observation: this ain't happening any time soon and may never happen at all. And in the meantime look at all the damage they've done.

No; bad plan. Doesn't work. Won't work. Progressive elements have to be more aggressive about countering this phenomenon *tactically*. Refuting them is not enough since they own the media and we don't get the chance to "refute" on an equal basis..

Constraints against their "freedom of expression" are *exactly* what's needed. I recommend legal action wherever necessary... as in this case... and economic leverage ( consumer boycotts) where that is feasible.

[hasbro]

15. Would he be elligible for the same fines the FCC tosses out for

Obscenity? I think all you have to do is complain to the FCC. Not that I'd think they'd do anything, he's talking about mass slaughter not sex.

[seemunkee]

6. If he stands by his remarks why were they not in the archived

version of the show.
"Adding to the buzz was the archived version of O'Reilly's Tuesday show, which omitted the incendiary comments, according to Bay Area TV station KNTV."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10004302/

[FredScuttle]

16. Let the blowhard bloviate

He's just digging his own grave. This San Franciscan could give a shit what that idiot thinks of the greatest city in the world.