Just when will we say that Glenn Beck goes too far...?

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.

**Monster Rain**

He's doing something right.

Here's five pages of discussion of his show by people that hate him. I don't like the guy's shows so I don't watch or listen to them.

**schadenfreude**

My first thought was maybe if someone actually did beat a 78 year old lady to death with a hammer we might not have to put up with Glen Beck's insane babbling anymore, but then I realized it's Fox news we are talking about. Glen Beck would just put on some waterworks, and Fox news would just spin the whole thing to make Glen Beck the victim of a liberal media attack because some crazy psychopath beat an old lady to death with a hammer and the "liberal media" is blaming the whole thing on Glenn Beck. If it worked for Caribu Barbie wit should work for Glenn Beck. In the end it would only increase his own ratings.

**Valhallan42nd**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:That's your opinion.

In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.

But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biased, eh?

It helps that you swallow everything fox feeds you, they kinda set you up to believe that. I mean, past precedent shows you're fairly misinformed on a very wide range of politically related topics. It would make sense that you would then often times regard minor bias or the truth itself as being hugely biased towards liberal agendas. Your reality skews more conservative then the real one likely precisely because you get so much of your information through centers that filter it for the conservative taste.

“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” - Stephen Colbert.

**sebster**

Valhallan42nd wrote:“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” - Stephen Colbert.

This is from a New York Times article, the was unnamed at the time, but was later announced as Karl Rove;

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

It was incredible at the time. Infuriating really, for a group with such power to be almost hostile to the idea of discussing how the world works. Now, after all that's happened since, the quote just reads as kind of pathetic.

Reality-based community indeed.

**olympia**

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.

Hate speech is not free speech. As a future lawyer you might start thinking about that.

**mattyrm**

I don't hate GB, I think the man is a comic genius.

I don't take anything he says seriously though.

**Frazzled**

Mr Mystery wrote: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?

1. It should be. It makes the best disinfectant.
2. I don't care what you do in your country. Here we do have that freedom of speech. WE also have the freedom of speech to make fun of him, and list the top ten people we are mad at and who can suck our balls.
3. I can say" you suck!" to them. But until they are actually plotting something, inciting a mob, or revealing government secrets, its generally too bad for me. Like the Westboro wingnuts. As much as I disagree I have to respect their freedom of speech, but I can make the locality exception for where it can be done.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Frazzled wrote:
3. I can say" you suck!" to them. But until they are actually plotting something, inciting a mob, or revealing government secrets, its generally too bad for me. Like the Westboro wingnuts. As much as I disagree I have to respect their freedom of speech, but I can make the locality exception for where it can be done.

Beck can certainly, speaking from a media platform on a television channel that proports to be a 'news' channel, be accused of inciting a mob.

Beck's placement on said television channel can be argued to be a locality and we could certainly say the locality of Fox News should be considered for an exception.

And like the wikileaks guy, we can certainly claim Beck's actions are sedition in a time of war... Espousing conspiracy theories on a national network, touting claims that the current Government is lead by an enemy of the people etc etc.

Still, let's lighten the mood...

**alarmingrick**

I'm glad someone finally posted that! best expose' ever!

"It's 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except there's just 1 degree, AND KEVIN BACON IS HITLER!"

freakin' classic!

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
3. I can say" you suck!" to them. But until they are actually plotting something, inciting a mob, or revealing government secrets, its generally too bad for me. Like the Westboro wingnuts. As much as I disagree I have to respect their freedom of speech, but I can make the locality exception for where it can be done.

Beck can certainly, speaking from a media platform on a television channel that proports to be a 'news' channel, be accused of inciting a mob.

Beck's placement on said television channel can be argued to be a locality and we could certainly say the locality of Fox News should be considered for an exception.

And like the wikileaks guy, we can certainly claim Beck's actions are sedition in a time of war... Espousing conspiracy theories on a national network, touting claims that the current Government is lead by an enemy of the people etc etc.

Still, let's lighten the mood...

Its not the forum, its the content. You really have to look at the relevant case law on this but effectively its a simple - is he inciting immediate harm, and does the crowd have the realistic means to create that harm. The test is usually tested extremely narrowly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:
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.

Hate speech is not free speech. As a future lawyer you might start thinking about that.

Don't ever practice law. Disbarment is a painful thing.

**alarmingrick**

Why would olympia be disbarred?

**Frazzled**

alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?

He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.

**olympia**

Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?

He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.

Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.

**Frazzled**

olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?

He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.

Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.

Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.

**Samus_aran115**

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?

Yes, quite. I can't believe it. Every time I even read a fragment of his show, I'm metaphorically scratching my head thinking "How can people be so ridiculous and zealous over this guy?"

It's quite sad, to be honest. Some of us americans really are dumb

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?

He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.

Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.

Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.

I'm fairly certain that this doesn't extend to private commercial enterprise broadcasting on public spectrum, hate speech is protected under the same laws that govern issues of censorship and content. There is significant precedent for censorship of hate speech, derogatory terms, and visually explicit imagery. Free speech is great, except in the real world it's not particularly universal on spectrum broadcasts which are already very heavily regulated for content and have been for quite some time. Becks version of hate speech is quite difficult to legislate against since it's weasel worded through mantra like inferences and the dissemination of lies. You're allowed to lie on TV and present it as the truth (sadly) even if you aren't allowed to advocate actionable violence against a group of citizens.

Are you talking about the pain of the disbarment process from personal experience?

**olympia**

Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?

He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.

Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.

Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.

Wrong. The utterance "I think all [insert racial slur] should be shot" is or is not protected by the constitution depending on the context--who is saying it, what they're doing when they're saying it, etc.

**Frazzled**

olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?

He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.

Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.

Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.

Wrong. The utterance "I think all [insert racial slur] should be shot" is or is not protected by the constitution depending on the context--who is saying it, what they're doing when they're saying it, etc.

It actually is. You're using "depending on the context" as the stringer.

If Bob the racist walks down the street venting he can do that if he's not creating a public disturbance. If Bob the racist is saying this in front of someone about to be lynched then its evidence...

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?

He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.

Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.

Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.

Wrong. The utterance "I think all [insert racial slur] should be shot" is or is not protected by the constitution depending on the context--who is saying it, what they're doing when they're saying it, etc.

It actually is. You're using "depending on the context" as the stringer.

If Bob the racist walks down the street venting he can do that if he's not creating a public disturbance. If Bob the racist is saying this in front of someone about to be lynched then its evidence...

There is a significant difference between on the street corner and on television. One is not a fully public venue.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?

He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.

Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.

Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.

Wrong. The utterance "I think all [insert racial slur] should be shot" is or is not protected by the constitution depending on the context--who is saying it, what they're doing when they're saying it, etc.

It actually is. You're using "depending on the context" as the stringer.

If Bob the racist walks down the street venting he can do that if he's not creating a public disturbance. If Bob the racist is saying this in front of someone about to be lynched then its evidence...

There is a significant difference between on the street corner and on television. One is not a fully public venue.

1. Really, and your case law to discuss this interesting view is?
2. Again its not relevant. Neither of those matter for the real limiting factor-are they inciting violence which could be carried immediately and realistically (yes I know I'm paraphrasing in a big way).

**Gibbsey**

So now we have lawyer-lawyering

**Monster Rain**

I object!

**Gibbsey**

Monster Rain wrote:I object!

Sustained

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Why would olympia be disbarred?

He misinterprets slogans for the Constitution. Hate Speech IS Free Speech.

Hate speech is or is not protected depending on the context.

Only on college campuses is it limited. In the real world and not commie central it remains free.

Wrong. The utterance "I think all [insert racial slur] should be shot" is or is not protected by the constitution depending on the context--who is saying it, what they're doing when they're saying it, etc.

It actually is. You're using "depending on the context" as the stringer.

If Bob the racist walks down the street venting he can do that if he's not creating a public disturbance. If Bob the racist is saying this in front of someone about to be lynched then its evidence...

There is a significant difference between on the street corner and on television. One is not a fully public venue.

1. Really, and your case law to discuss this interesting view is?

I'll present precisely as many as you have. . There, done.

2. Again its not relevant. Neither of those matter for the real limiting factor-are they inciting violence which could be carried immediately and realistically (yes I know I'm paraphrasing in a big way).

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

You're both paraphrasing and incorrect about how and where constitutional free speech is unregulated and unrestricted, but then aren't you in property law or something?

**olympia**

Robert Brasillach, an anti-Semitic French writer and collaborator, was executed after the war because of his writings. Similarly three Rwandan radio station managers/mouth pieces were convicted of genocide. The Beck clip posted by the OP is too close for comfort. He's arguing that left wingers "may" have to be shot in the head. Will make me nervous the next time I'm teaching the Manifesto to 400 freshmen.

**Frazzled**

Monster Rain wrote:I object!

I got your objection right here pal!

Since we're on the subject.

**Monster Rain**

My counter-argument.

**Albatross**

Bailiff, take him down!

**Frazzled**

Robert Brasillach, an anti-Semitic French writer and collaborator, was executed after the war because of his writings.
***Was he in the USA? If no, who gives a gak?

Similarly three Rwandan radio station managers/mouth pieces were convicted of genocide.
***Again I reference the law firm of Who, and Gives a gak?

The Beck clip posted by the OP is too close for comfort. He's arguing that left wingers "may" have to be shot in the head. Will make me nervous the next time I'm teaching the Manifesto to 400 freshmen.
***Listening to Glen Beck for more than 18.7 seconds always makes me nervous. Here, this will provide a calming effect.

**Monster Rain**

I'd actually have a great deal more respect for someone who would just admit that they want Beck off the air because they disagree with him, rather than making outlandish claims to tie his show to a danger to public safety.