When Shock Jocks Become Terrorists or Limbaugh Steps Over the Line

[mrhnau]

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

Seen Here, on ABC news

...sounds like that fits the definition of "incitement" cited above to me, denials aftertward notwithstanding.

It's on Youtube, now.

Make sure what happens? Riots or not electing a Democrat? Can be read in drastically different manners. I occasionally listen when I can, and I seriously doubt he is inciting anyone to riot, unless done in a humorous manner (humor often does not translate well to print, especially when certain parts are omitted).

 

[CoryKS]

So if Limbaugh is inciting terror by the things he said, may we assume that those who engage in any riots are, in fact, terrorists and gun them down accordingly? Or are they going to miraculously turn into brave dissenters speaking truth to power at the last moment?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

From a legalistic perspective, no, Limbaugh's comments weren't inciting, at least not from the approach of whether the government could shut him up if they wanted to. For speech to be inciting, there has to be no time lapse between the speech and the reaction, and the speech has to be almost vehemently driving the listener to do an illegal act. In this case, he's urging people to riot in the future, plenty of time for them to think it over. So no, he isn't a terrorist, although i wouldn't give him any personality medals.

I find it ironic that posters are citing (inciting?) certain nutjob groups who fly liberal or conservative banners as proof that that particular political group as a whole are irresponsible/terrorists/unpatriotic/your-insult-of-choice. Can't we just agree that there's nutjobs willing to incite riots/blow up buildings/commit crime on all sides of the fence and admit that they don't represent anyone as a whole? But then of course, that would mean we'd actually have to discuss the ACTUAL merits of liberalism/conservatism instead of the much easier task of tallying how many crazies each side has.

Cheerio.

 

[Twin Fist]

Imams preaching jihad, to people who might actually do it, THATS inciting.


When the government starts going after those guys, then I might worry about Limbaugh telling repubs thats dems might riot.......

 

[Big Don]

Found an interesting article

One of Obama's top backers, former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder, seconded Schumer, saying that if party insiders pick the nominee, the convention will face more "chaos" than in 1968, when pro- and anti-Vietnam War forces clashed violently.

"If you think 1968 was bad, you watch; in 2008, it will be worse," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Should this:

to Gitmo or a Syrian jail where he can be undergo "harsh interrogation" like anyone else who incites terrorism.

apply to Doug Wilder?

**Bolding mine**

 

[Empty Hands]

Should this: apply to Doug Wilder?

**Bolding mine**

Well, he didn't say he was "dreaming of" riots...

 

[Big Don]

Well, he didn't say he was "dreaming of" riots...

No, he predicted them in a threatening manner.

 

[Gordon Nore]

I've always found Limbaugh remarkably immature -- he delights in making outrageous comments, then quickly retreats and dismisses his detractors as PC. If the heat stays on for a couple of days, he can use his platform to talk about how America has gone to Hell in hand basket. What I find interesting about a man who paints himself as the great patriot is that I have seldom seen him actually debate anyone. He is remarkably absent from so-called liberal news media, limiting himself to venues where his opinion is largely unchallenged.

I haven't heard his radio broadcast in many years, but I catch snippets of it when he makes the news. Am I correct in assuming that he still talks for two or three hours, takes phone calls, and seldom has live guests?

America has plenty of smart, mature conservatives who are interesting raconteurs and debaters. They also have something to offer because they can actually articulate what it is they aspire to for themselves and their country. Limbaugh has devoted his career to talking about what he is against. He has no vision. He is pessimistic and bitter. He is a shock jock. Period.

 

[Makalakumu]

America has plenty of smart, mature conservatives who are interesting raconteurs and debaters.

This is very true, and here we are, we only talk about the dumbasses. Me, a reformed Liberal, now liberal, I'd rather talk about Milton Friedman.