Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When a 78 year old woman actually is murdered for being left wing?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/24/us-politics-fox-news

Glenn Beck has made repeated mention lately of Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old liberal academic and CUNY professor. In Beck's view, Piven's a veritable enemy of the Constitution who's responsible for a plan to intentionally "sabotage" the American economic system. Piven, pictured, actually authored The Nation story that led Beck to this conclusion 45 years ago. It's called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," and proposes "that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income." Somehow, Beck links what he termed "the Cloward-Piven Strategy" to Obama's statement during the 2008 presidential campaign that "we are days away from transforming America." Beck also accused Piven of "inciting violence" in The Nation this month by writing that unemployed people should be staging protests. Anonymous visitors to Beck's website have now called for this lady's death, and some, she said, have even contacted her directly.

So, after the extreme right pouted at accusations of incitement to violence following the Arizona shootings, what will it take to make Beck and the other wellsprings of hatefrothing shut up and be removed from the mainstream media 'news'? Will it require that this elderly lady is shot or will it require a guy with a teeshirt with I heart Glenn Beck on it gunning down a school hall or will that also be dismissed as a 'socialist, communist, muslim, neo-nazi conspiracy started by our illegal president' by that spewing twit with a blackboard?

Just why is Beck and his fellow demagogues of the church of the tinfoil hat not removed from alleged news channels.

You know what the worst part is? A lot of people actually watch his segment. And a lot of those people agree with him.

Scary thought, huh?

God only knows! i'm with you MGS.
i have a problem with the fact alot of people don't actually listen to what they hear.
way too many sheeple to hope he'll fade i'm affraid. and as bad as he walks all over the facts, you think he'd talk himself out of a job.
you'd think most people would see him for what he is.

Uh, I've always said he goes too far

Fafnir wrote:You know what the worst part is? A lot of people actually watch his segment. And a lot of those people agree with him.

Scary thought, huh?

Oh yes.

Mike Noble wrote:Uh, I've always said he goes too far

+1

Glen Beck makes Rush Limbaugh look tame.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:When a 78 year old woman actually is murdered for being left wing?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/24/us-politics-fox-news

Glenn Beck has made repeated mention lately of Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old liberal academic and CUNY professor. In Beck's view, Piven's a veritable enemy of the Constitution who's responsible for a plan to intentionally "sabotage" the American economic system. Piven, pictured, actually authored The Nation story that led Beck to this conclusion 45 years ago. It's called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," and proposes "that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income." Somehow, Beck links what he termed "the Cloward-Piven Strategy" to Obama's statement during the 2008 presidential campaign that "we are days away from transforming America." Beck also accused Piven of "inciting violence" in The Nation this month by writing that unemployed people should be staging protests. Anonymous visitors to Beck's website have now called for this lady's death, and some, she said, have even contacted her directly.

So, after the extreme right pouted at accusations of incitement to violence following the Arizona shootings, what will it take to make Beck and the other wellsprings of hatefrothing shut up and be removed from the mainstream media 'news'? Will it require that this elderly lady is shot or will it require a guy with a teeshirt with I heart Glenn Beck on it gunning down a school hall or will that also be dismissed as a 'socialist, communist, muslim, neo-nazi conspiracy started by our illegal president' by that spewing twit with a blackboard?

Just why is Beck and his fellow demagogues of the church of the tinfoil hat not removed from alleged news channels.

We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:When a 78 year old woman actually is murdered for being left wing?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/24/us-politics-fox-news

Glenn Beck has made repeated mention lately of Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old liberal academic and CUNY professor. In Beck's view, Piven's a veritable enemy of the Constitution who's responsible for a plan to intentionally "sabotage" the American economic system. Piven, pictured, actually authored The Nation story that led Beck to this conclusion 45 years ago. It's called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," and proposes "that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income." Somehow, Beck links what he termed "the Cloward-Piven Strategy" to Obama's statement during the 2008 presidential campaign that "we are days away from transforming America." Beck also accused Piven of "inciting violence" in The Nation this month by writing that unemployed people should be staging protests. Anonymous visitors to Beck's website have now called for this lady's death, and some, she said, have even contacted her directly.

So, after the extreme right pouted at accusations of incitement to violence following the Arizona shootings, what will it take to make Beck and the other wellsprings of hatefrothing shut up and be removed from the mainstream media 'news'? Will it require that this elderly lady is shot or will it require a guy with a teeshirt with I heart Glenn Beck on it gunning down a school hall or will that also be dismissed as a 'socialist, communist, muslim, neo-nazi conspiracy started by our illegal president' by that spewing twit with a blackboard?

Just why is Beck and his fellow demagogues of the church of the tinfoil hat not removed from alleged news channels.

We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.

Yeah, and the best part is you can say who you don't like and why.

Frazzled wrote:

We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.

Don't I have the free speech to question why this cretin is given prime time on an alleged 'news' channel to vent his spleen and political agenda and far fetched rhetoric?

Don't I have the free speech to question his time slot, wage and support on a channel that claims the catchphrase 'fair and balanced'?

As a permanent resident of this nation, the husband of a citizen and the potential father of little citizens of this nation, I think I might have the free speech to question the wisdom of the network in allowing this man to suggest violence against people who have a different political view. His claims and allegations have led to an elderly woman's life being threatened. His right to pronounce these theories on a bus whilst wearing his tinfoil hat or foaming at the mouth whilst typing his blog are one thing, being paid top dollar to spout this crap on a news channel is quite another.

Freedom to say it doesn't make it correct.
and as a future citizen, he can hate it all he wants when it finally happens!

So you don't have any issues with the westboro baptist church or anti usa muslim extremists then frazzled? Free speech and all.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

corpsesarefun wrote:So you don't have any issues with the westboro baptist church or anti usa muslim extremists then frazzled? Free speech and all.

I respect their right to say what they want, but I disapprove of their message. I'm sure Frazzled is the same way.

alarmingrick wrote:Freedom to say it doesn't make it correct.
and as a future citizen, he can hate it all he wants when it finally happens!

Not liking the message...good.
Making statements that he should be taken off...bad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:So you don't have any issues with the westboro baptist church or anti usa muslim extremists then frazzled? Free speech and all.

I respect their right to say what they want, but I disapprove of their message. I'm sure Frazzled is the same way.

Woops he said it better than I.

So frazzled surely as a mod your job is to censor, is this not against your free speech ideals?

corpsesarefun wrote:So frazzled surely as a mod your job is to censor, is this not against your free speech ideals?

Its ok. My free speech ideals are counterbalanced by my desired to hit things/people with large sticks all the while shouting "WATCH THE SKIES! WATCH THE SKIES!"

The problem with using 'Clear and Present Danger' to restrict free speech rights here is simple: Glenn Beck is not a clear and present danger. Under current law in the United States, you are allowed to say anything you want, and the government can not stop you UNLESS you are openly calling for people to break the law. E.g. I can say 'I HATE JEWS, AND HITLER HAD THE RIGHT IDEA!' in front of a synagogue all day long if I want, but the second I say 'KILL THE JEWS' I am going beyond my rights to free speech.

Glenn Beck, as insane and wacked out as he may be, is not calling for criminal action. He is not responsible for the types of things his viewers say, and we can not hold him to do that.

And the simple reason for why he's not fired? He makes money. People tune in to watch him, whether because they want to get pissed off at him, or whether they agree with him, people watch his show, buy his books etc. etc. And unless he stops making money, he's not going to be taken off the air by Fox.

If he was kicked off the air wouldn't that make some of his followers dead certain that he was right?

Frazzled wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Freedom to say it doesn't make it correct.
and as a future citizen, he can hate it all he wants when it finally happens!

Not liking the message...good.
Making statements that he should be taken off...bad

Why?

I have the free speech to claim this man's incitements to violence against the elderly woman are hate crimes. That his allegations and insinuations may lead to murder. That you would react adversely to me calling this out, rather than this man speaking of political ideas not in keeping with his own as 'enemies of the nation' is odd. He is given a plinths to stand on and address millions of people on a channel that claims to bring fact and news, his rhetoric is therefore being protected and supported under those auspices.

The right to free speech has exceptions. The use of falsehoods and imminent threats for example, claiming this woman is responsible for the current economic woes and alluding to her being an enemy of the state that requires dealing with could certainly be claimed to fall under those exceptions.

If this woman is shot by someone who claims to have followed Beck's instruction that she is an enemy of the nation, will you still claim that anything and everything may be transmitted over the entire nation as 'news' and 'fair and balanced', including instruction to execute? Or would you finally, after her death, accept that certain other things should be joining the Obscenities applied by the Miller Test? Freedom of Speech is not universal nor absolute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:So frazzled surely as a mod your job is to censor, is this not against your free speech ideals?

Its ok. My free speech ideals are counterbalanced by my desired to hit things/people with large sticks all the while shouting "WATCH THE SKIES! WATCH THE SKIES!"

And what about wikileaks?

Extremist views really shouldn't be made for public consumption.

Unless of course your Freedom Of Speech allowance extends to other extremist persons or groups being allowed primetime to make death threats, spit general venom etc against America? Or is there a completely arbitrary line that some can cross?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The right to free speech has exceptions. The use of falsehoods and imminent threats for example, claiming this woman is responsible for the current economic woes and alluding to her being an enemy of the state that requires dealing with could certainly be claimed to fall under those exceptions.

I'm guessing that you're glossing over some important details of what Beck said that exempt him from directly inciting violence.

You should also remember that political speech is given a lot more leeway than other forms of speech.

Yeah sorry Fraz, much as i hate to agree with left wing socialist labour chumps like MGS, I feel I have to agree with the bloke. I think when you are that much of an absolute feth head, it is entirely resonable to say "this gakker shouldnt be on TV"

I mean, who decides where the bar is? We have fox news douche bags saying "oh you cant say bad things about Jerry Falwel cos you might upset his kids" but they wouldnt say the same about Osama Bin Laden or Hitler. Is there a secret list of people we should and shouldnt care about?

I think that if someone is clearly and obviously a fething idiot then it IS acceptable to say so. And Glen Beck, as amusing as I find him, im an absolute, unmitigated, 100% fething buffoon. He is helping to feth your country up, and i think it is eminently sensible to say that he should take a permenant vacation.

Why? Surely Political Speech, given it's wider audience and greater amount of power, should be more closely policed for falsehood, and incitement?

Dunno, maybe I'll just start a site about it.

Jokes aside... who the feth cares about that clown aside from rednecks and douchebags?

I would also like to poitn out that I have drank a steady 12 pints of ale and if nothing I wrote makes sense I will gladly recitfy it in the morning.

Glen Beck is allowed to advocate shooting people in the head, but MGS is bad for suggesting Glen Beck not be given air time? Frazzled, your perspective is so seriously skewed, I'd be amazed if you can walk in a straight line.

Also, at no point did MGS suggest Glen Beck be silenced, or denied his right to free speech. He queried when mainstream media should be helping him to espouse his views. There is a very big difference between allowing someone their right to state their opinion and actually giving them a platform to reach millions. Glen Beck has a right to say things, and the mainstream media have a right to ignore him. They choose not to, and anyone, American citizen or not, has the right to question that.

Coming from someone who is quick to throw accusations at people you yourself disagree with, then turn it all into a big joke by posting pictures of weiner dogs, it is a bit rich of you to criticise MGS.

About the only good thing that's ever came out of Glenn Becks' mouth is an honest assessment of Fox news:

Glenn Beck wrote:I could give a flying crap about the political process.... We're an entertainment company.

Melissia wrote:Dunno, maybe I'll just start a site about it.

Jokes aside... who the feth cares about that clown aside from rednecks and douchebags?

In the UK, this would be like giving the BNP a weekly or whatever slot to basically make stuff up, misreport facts etc. Daily Mail is bad enough, and I'd rather see dangerous political yahoos gently sidelined, so those interested in what they say can still find it, but they aren't really capable of spewing bollocks into the minds of the masses.

Mr Mystery wrote:Why? Surely Political Speech, given it's wider audience and greater amount of power, should be more closely policed for falsehood, and incitement?

Because political speech is often highly rhetorical, and so is difficult to police for falsehood. For example, the issue of alleged "death panels" while not literally accurate, could be argued as being nothing more than derisive naming.

Note also that while commercial speech is policed for falsehood, its still fairly difficult to prove that false statements have been made due to the use of indefinite qualifiers like "best".

Frazzled wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Freedom to say it doesn't make it correct.
and as a future citizen, he can hate it all he wants when it finally happens!

Not liking the message...good.
Making statements that he should be taken off...bad

Not liking the Message.... you're correct. he delivers falsehoods.
Making statements that he should be taken off...good, if it were due to the truth of his BS causing him to go.
i'm in no way in favor of "having him removed". as much as i disagree with him, he has a right to be wrong. but
more importantly, the last thing i want to do with him is make him a Martyr for his cause!

alarmingrick wrote:
i'm in no way in favor of "having him removed". as much as i disagree with him, he has a right to be wrong. but
more importantly, the last thing i want to do with him is make him a Martyr for his cause!

That's a point that a lot of people often miss, so good on you for bringing it up.

There is a lot to be said for allowing people to speak their mind in order to prevent them from taking more drastic action. Freedom of speech is one of the most effective methods of control ever devised.