Bill O'Reilly's 'Tiller the Baby Killer' Gunned Down in Wichita Church

[BradBlog]

Bill O'Reilly's 'Tiller the Baby Killer' Gunned Down in Wichita Church
Fox 'News' host had long charged KS physician with 'operating a death mill', 'executing babies', carrying out 'slaughter'...

A manhunt is underway at this hour for the murderer of Kansas physician GeorgeTiller who was shot and killed this morning when he entered his church in Wichita.

Tiller was better known to Fox "News" viewers as "Tiller the Baby Killer", as he's long been described by Bill O'Reilly who has spent years targeting Tiller on the most-watched show in cable news. O'Reilly has long demonized him with allegations of performing illegal late-term abortions, characterized as murder by O'Reilly and his guests.

In March of this year, after Tiller had been acquitted of charges alleging that he'd performed late-term abortions in violation of Kansas state law, O'Reilly continued his series of programs focusing on the Kansas physician, charging him with "operating a death mill", and alleging that he was "executing babies".

O'Reilly had previously been highly critical of the state's Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, charging, during his Talking Points commentary in 2007, that she was "allowing to continue the slaughter."

Of course, it's no more O'Reilly's fault when a lunatic takes action to murder someone the Fox host has targeted for years on his popular television show, than it was when another lunatic gunned down church-goers in Tennessee last year claiming in his pre-murder "manifesto" that it was "a symbolic killing", and that he had "wanted to kill...every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book." Goldberg is a regular featured guest on O'Reilly's show, and the author of 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37)...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7192

[dem629]

1. Here's another link with other O'Reilly-related sources/quotes on Tiller

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/05/31/oreillys_targeted_abortion_doctor_murdered_at_church.php

[BradBlog]

15. Thanks for that...

Have added link to Ellen's item as an update to my full article.

[aquart]

2. Bet he says they shouldn't have done it in church.

[AlCzervik]

3. "We here at The Factor will ignore this story, it never happened"

that's my guess.

[pattmarty]

32. Yup. They're really good at that.

[uppityperson]

4. Hate TV, like Hate radio, is also responsible.

As in Rwanda, Hate Media is wrong and should not be allowed. Being a strong protector of free speech, I do not know how to regulate it, fearing that whatever regulations are put in place can be used wrongly. But Hate Media is different.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

5. O'LILLY IS AN ACCESSORY TO THE MURDER

WORDS KILL, RIGHT WING GHOULS

[gulfcoastliberal]

6. O'Reilly has blood on his hands. I hope he's pleased. Fucking psychopath.

I feel sick.

[Justitia]

12. I was just thinking about Rwanda too - mainstreaming the hate, debasement of the target. -eom

[paulsby]

17. what a bunch of crap

i have never seen a more oxymoronic statement than

"As in Rwanda, Hate Media is wrong and should not be allowed. Being a strong protector of free speech,"

fortunately, we have a 1st amendment, so "hate media" *is* allowed.

but saying you are a "strong protector of free speech" and saying that "hate media" should not be allowed are about as inconsistent and absurd as you can get.

the free speech protects hate speech, period.

for the left , the right, and whomever else.

ask the ACLU. they defended the frigging NAZIs for marching in skokie.

and they were right to do so.

note that the nazis cannot even legally exist, let alone march in most european countries.

that's because we protect free speech

[uppityperson]

19. Thank you for your kind words. Does "free speech" protect yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

No.

Does "free speech" mean I can write a threat against the President on DU?
No.

FYI, you might also like to reread this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[paulsby]

20. that's not even remotely relevant

note also that the "fire in a crowded theatre" case was overturned, but that's anotehr discussion

you also don't realize that the crowded theatre case involved prosecuting people involved in a WAR PROTEST

"Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:"


if you can show that oreilly violated the law, then feel free to show me where

you have no respect for civil rights.

free speech does mean you can do what oreilly (or malloy or rhodes) do.

period.

show me something oreilly did that was illegal.

i believe in the constitution

it is sad that so many people throw it out whenever a tragedy occurs

[uppityperson]

22. I appreciate your civility. I am not talking about any particular "fire" case, as you seem to assum

I do not know which case you are talking about, war protest in a theater, since I am talking about not being free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater in general.

"Free speech" is not relevant in not being free to threaten a President? Odd.

[paulsby]

23. "true threats" have never been protected speech

in US jurisprudence.

i have been a police officer over 20 yrs. i have investigated and testifed in MANY case involving threats.

there is a huge difference between making (what the law considers) a TRUE threat and doing what oreilly , malloy et al do.

fwiw, rhodes once said that bush should be taken out like fredo, then made a gunshot sound.

that was a lot closer to a true threat (and on a president no less) than what oreilly did. but it was still legal

oreilly has said that tiller is a baby killer, a murderer, etc.

that is about as perfect an example of politically protected speech as you can get.

also, read bell hooks essays for other examples where she talks about wanting to kill the person sitting next to her ina plane. that's not a true threat either fwiw.

h rap brown, angela davis, etc. also made numerous exhortations. i was at a rally where angela davis said "we should kill the rich". that is not a true threat either

etc.

as to the "fire in a crowded theater "thang, the case law said FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater was not protected.

of course it's not. it creates an imminent risk of a stampede (especially in the days when the buildings were completely wood and there were no sprinklers).

that's not protected.


from wkikipedia

"The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious."

[uppityperson]

25. So there are limitations to "free speech". Gotcha. Thanks!

also from wiki

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. <...> The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

From your quote, free speech is limited. Thanks for the clarification.

[paulsby]

26. of course

nobody argues there are no limits to speech.

or gun rights

or privacy

[uppityperson]

27. Bunch of crap.Absurd.Oxymoronic.No respect for civil rights.no different than bushco

No, you just posted all that towards me when I said what you now agree with.

Tata

[paulsby]

28. not at all

but nice try.

[tiny elvis]

40. paulsby wins

since you want to make a game of it. The argument was whether O'Reilly committed a crime. You morphed it into whether any speech is illegal. All is fair in the game of chat, but pretending the argument was about something else is a concession.

[noiretextatique]

42. uppity person won

there are limits to "free speech." uppityperson and i agree that hate radio is crossing the line between free speech and hate speech.

[clear eye]

45. TV and radio stations, being on the limited public airwaves

have never had their speech as free of regulation as private citizens do, since taken to its logical conclusion that would mean that the person who owned the station would be allowed to amplify their opinions in a way no other citizen could. Until not so long ago there was the Fairness Doctrine, and since it was revoked under Reagan, the stations are still supposedly required to broadcast "in the public interest", which is usually taken to mean that they should help inform their citizen/listeners, and that they should not intentionally create dangerous situations.

As for the transgressions of the left, there was unopposed right wing hate speech for years before there were any outlets for left of center opinion. This led to real world political consequences damaging to the well-being of the majority of citizens, and enormous frustration for a major segment of the population. If, in the few minor outlets that eventually arose, the left of center responded with hate speech of their own, doesn't mean it should be allowed. But I would not advocate shutting it off for the left and permitting it for the right just for the sake of "taking the high road", would you?

Anyhow, I'd advise calming down and thinking about the distinction between free speech in the public square, and the contractual agreement broadcasters have with the public not to monopolize our airwaves with one-sided partisan advocacy or material consistently damaging to our well-being. In that light, most stations today are in breach of contract.

[pattmarty]

34. So far ............................

[certainot]

36. hate speech per se isn't the problem. the problem is uncontested hate speech

from the biggest soapbox the country has ever seen, a monopoly of 1000 radio stations used for coordinated one-party propaganda , often repeating the same one liners and talking points.

and unlike the normal hate speech from a soapbox on the corner these guys have call screeners so they don't have to take real calls.

it wouldn't be limiting free speech if a condition for using the public airwaves is to require they take real calls, would it? especially if they're using monopoly power to exclude competition.

[clear eye]

44. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would help a lot.

Under the Fairness Doctrine every time a TV or radio station broadcast an opinion on one side of an issue, they were required to air a representation of the opinions on the other side as lengthy as the original opinion. Can you imagine what kind of turmoil that would throw Fox and the hate radio stations into? When the Fairness Doctrine was in force, most corporate stations didn't do much editorializing on the air at all, and tried to slant coverage only by selectively reporting facts. People weren't as inflamed and polarized by those sorts of broadcasts.

[progressoid]

7. Terrorists

[GaYellowDawg]

24. EXACTLY. Killing for fundamentalist religious reasons. How is this NOT terrorism?

I really wish Keith, Rachel, etc. would start calling this domestic terrorism.

[malaise]

8. CNN has coverage on now

Apparently they've arrested the person of interest in East Kansas.
There will be a press conference later.

[mmonk]

9. Good one Brad. May as well call them out on it.

[diane in sf]

10. O'Reilly should be named as an accessory.

[leftstreet]

11. Charles Manson was convicted of conspiracy, why not O'Reilly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is an American criminal who led what became known as the Manson Family, a quasi-commune that arose in California in the late 1960s.<1><2><3> He was convicted of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, carried out by members of the group at his instruction. He was found guilty of the murders themselves through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object.

[paulsby]

18. because it's not concpiracy

it's free speech

it is sad that you cannot grok the difference.

amazes the way so many people ignore the constitution given a tragedy

makes you no different than bushco and patriot act enablers.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

13. Looks like Janet Napolitano was right

Homeland Security is completely justified in looking in to rightwing terrorism

Do concervatives still think it's only a harmless joke when Glenn beck urges his audience to stock up on guns and declares a "second American Revolution" is coming, or when Ann Coulter advocated blowing up the New York Times?

I'm sure those two advocates of domestic terrorism will be front and center at CPAC once again next year.

[AspenRose]

14. He has blood on his hands.

I don't care how many people try to deny it, anyone with two brain cells can connect the dots.

[dana_b]

16. sick, sick bastards

where the hell is their humanity? Obviously not for the family of this man nor for the thousands of women who have had to face a crisis in their lives like having an abortion. They don't get it and I don't think they ever will.

[Cleita]

21. I really hope Tiller's family goes after these hate mongers with as many

lawsuits as they can muster including against any of the churches who have stirred up those hate sentiments that make nut cases take the law into their own hands.

[HughMoran]

29. Who's going to take him to task for his involvement in this murder?

Seriously, talk is cheap - who's going to take this criminal down?

[BradBlog]

30. ORIGINAL LINK NOW UPDATED with quotes from...

...Wingnut FreeRepublic commenters celebrating murder of Tiller...

See "FURTHER UPDATE" at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7192

[Raine]

31. Blood on O'Reilly's hands

this is the end result of hate speech when you incite the unbalanced hate mongers amongst you, duh.

[FloridaJudy]

33. My obstetrician was murdered by an Anti-Choice zealot

Nice guy. While he didn't deliver my son, he supervised the midwife who did, and I met with him several times during my pregnancy.

"Culture of life" hell.

:cry:

[Wednesdays]

35. K&R

:kick:

[BradBlog]

37. Thanks, Wed (n/t)

[chat_noir]

38. Brad, call it what it really was: an assassination

definition of assassinate per the Merriam Webster dictionary:

to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons

[brettdale]

39. kick

inciting???

[brettdale]

41. kick

kick

[Anakin Skywalker]

43. Bill-O The Clown is a Hateful Sack of Sh*t!

I watch Keith Olbermann every night now just to hear Keith making fun of this bitter, angry clown.