In regards to today's discussion on media's freedom of speech, this example may be a relevant to the topic. George Tiller, an abortion doctor was murdered. Could the murderer possibly be influenced by Bill O'Reilly and his years long view against Tiller using names like "Tiller the Baby Killer"?
CNN Story on the murder
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/31/kansas.doctor.killed/index.html
O'reilly's views against George Tiller
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/bill-oreilly-crusaded-aga_n_209665.html
O'reilly's Response
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524344,00.html
You decide.
I found this to be a fair explanation of why Bill O'reilly is not responsible for influencing George Tiller's death.
ReplyDelete"People like O’Reilly are passionately opposed to abortion, yet while their views are undoubtedly repugnant to those of us who believe in a woman’s right to choose, a sharp distinction should be made between their words and the shooter’s actions in Kansas on Sunday.
Bloggers like Jill Filipovic (UK Feminist) are quite wrong to make an analogy between O’Reilly’s rhetoric and the shouting of ‘Fire!’ in a croweded theatre. The point about the overused ‘Fire!’ example is that in a crowded theatre there is no time to think: if someone shouts, everyone runs, as there’s no time for debate or reasoned inquiry into the nature of the fire or the truth of the claim. The link between words and actions becomes blurred in this one, exceptionally rare instance.
In contrast, when O’Reilly says stuff on his show, there is every opportunity to question and challenge his claims. TV is not a panicked atmosphere but a media outlet, where the audience hears things, weighs them up, and decides whether to agree or disagree. Far from calling for anti-abortion activists to ‘mind their language’, their often crass remarks should be seen as an opportunity to meet fire with fire, to counter their claims with more compelling arguments and opinions. Far from needing less talk about abortion, we need more. Things might have turned out differently if O’Reilly’s arguments had provoked a robust public debate about why women need people like Dr Tiller and access to late-term abortions."
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6976/
Thought this was a very interesting view-point...what do you guys think?
This is a very interesting point. I agree that TV is a media outlet where people are exposed to all kinds of information and it is their choice to agree or disagree with what they hear. I don’t believe that solely hearing a TV host’s negative viewpoint on an issue will make a person commit a crime such as murder.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with that view-point. I think there is a major difference between yelling "fire" and sending a message out on TV. I think the main argument here is that there is an opportunity to criticize and deconstruct O'Reilly's message which essentially gives people the chance to fully understand where his argument is coming from. Just by reading about things he has said, it just seems like he is extremely pro-life. I do not think it is bad that he is expressing his opinion because that's what the first amendment is all about. If he were to offer an award to murder him as a joke or something along those lines, then I think there might be more gray territory. Since that is not the case, this type of outburst in the media does fall in compliance with the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Bill O'Reilly is at all at fault here. I think it is good and necessary for people to voice their opinions, unfortunately we are limited to hearing the view points from people who hold power over the media sources. What I find to be more concerning than O'Reilly's expressed views is that it took a murder to open people's eyes to the issue.
ReplyDeleteNow that the abortion doctor is dead, the debate of abortion has been brought forward and I think that there does need to be more discussion, lots of discussion in fact about this topic of women's rights, the fetal life, where law comes into play, and given that society can't agree on the issue, we do need to deal with how to find a common ground that we can live on.
In contrast to Casey's very well made point, though Bill O'Reilly is operating through a media outlet as opposed to a panicked setting like a theater, what if the repetition of over-the-line comments absorbed over a long period was what essentially brainwashed an already eccentric individual into such action?
ReplyDelete