didn’t he go on to say that he considered them to be “enemies of the state”, which admittedly is not the same level of a charge, but by implication, suggests that the speaker wishes it were to be.
at any rate, being called a ‘bad American’ for speaking one’s mind IMHO, is being a “bad American” for we (rightfully) are proud of our Bill of Rights (and yes, I do indeed understand that the BoR protects us from government restriction of speech, not necessarily promising that no one will think ill of you for speaking your mind, however, the ability to critize our government is yet another aspect of our FoS that we, as Americans rightfully are proud. So it strikes me as bizarre that some one should be considered “unAmerican” for critizing our leaders)
So which is the bigger threat to America? The big companies or the criminals at the computer? Interesting question.**
You interpret it your way, but suggest that me interpreting it differently is spin? I must call bullshit on that. It seems that many just do use the term spin to describe anyone who disagrees with them.
O’Reilly talks about internet posters only once during the memo. The piece is not about posters.
The piece is about the internet in general.
O’Reilly talks about:
O’Reilly minimizes the online postings himself. Clearly the focus of the article is more serious internet crimes.
Slander and libel are crimes. Rape and murder are crimes.
When he says “Criminals at the computer” why do you make the assumption that he is talking about “internet posters”? It’s obvious he is referring to the criminal actions he was just describing, not posters on the internet which he never even mentioned in the entire talking points.
In fact, the term “internet posters” or even “posters” doesn’t even appear in the article once.
Don’t bother to lie about what the article says. It’s right there for me to read.
You interpret it your way, but suggest that me interpreting it differently is spin? I must call bullshit on that. It seems that many just do use the term spin to describe anyone who disagrees with them.
O’Reilly talks about internet posters only once during the memo. The piece is not about posters.
The piece is about the internet in general.
O’Reilly talks about:
O’Reilly minimizes the online postings himself. Clearly the focus of the article is more serious internet crimes.
Slander and libel are crimes. Rape and murder are crimes.
When he says “Criminals at the computer” why do you make the assumption that he is talking about “internet posters”? It’s obvious he is referring to the criminal actions he was just describing, not posters on the internet which he never even mentioned in the entire talking points.
In fact, the term “internet posters” or even “posters” doesn’t even appear in the article once.
Don’t bother to lie about what the article says. It’s right there for me to read.
O’Reilly calls those who are actively working against the military during a time of war of being “enemy of the state”. The two examples he uses are foriegn powers and celebs like Barbara Streisand.
IMO, he then realized what people here are accusing him of: That if taken literally and out of context some of his statements could be interpreted to mean that he called regular folks who are against the war “enemies of the state”.
Don’t you find it ironic that he’s pointing out his right to criticize other people in public life for expressing their opinion of people in the public life?
I’d suggest that either it’s “OK” in his eye for some one in the public life (which would include politicians, celebrities and quasi intellectual commentators) to publically air their critique of other people in that same public life, or it’s “not OK”. Seems to me that he wants to be able to criticize these others for doing the same thing that he is doing.
No they aren’t. No one gets sent to jail over slander and libel.
Slander and libel are torts, actions for which a private plaintiff can seek monetary recompense.
O’Reilly’s an idiot. Just look at the section you quote. He complains about “slander and libel” and then starts his next sentence with “for example” – indicating to the the reader that this will be an example of truly terrible slander and libel. But that isn’t what follows. What follows is an example of murder and rape, and notions that the NAMBLA website led to the commission of those crimes. Nowhere in that example is there a single instance of slander or libel. One wonders if O’Reilly is just a bad writer, or if he really doesn’t understand the difference.
The rapist and murderer is an example of how the internet has become “an unpatrolled polluted waterway, where just about anything goes.”
You are reading too much into his statements. O’Reilly didn’t say that the rapist and murderer is an example of slander and libel, unless you twist his words to make it so.
You are correct. I retract this. In my defense “slander libel crime” produces 15,700 hits in google. “slander libel tort” produces 14,200. I don’t feel quite so foolish now.
However, rape and murder are crimes. Those that rape and murder are criminals. The example O’Reilly used was someone who claimed to get the idea of raping and murdering a child from the computer. It makes sense to asssume that when he says “criminals at the computer” he means these people.
He certainly isn’t referring to “internet posters” because never in the entire memo does he mention “internet posters”.
Actually, it probably isn’t. It certainly isn’t slander – the words were printed, not spoken – and it’s doubtful that it’s even libel. Literal truth is a defense. O’Reilly is no longer with the San Franscisco station. Reportage of that fact is accurate. Bill just doesn’t like the characterization that he was “dropped.” But that characterization can be deemed true even if everything O’Reilly says is correct – even if O’Relly decided station A wasn’t giving him the best deal and thus decided to bolt to station B, station A could still be fairly described as “dropping” O’Reilly because they consciously made the decision to not meet his demands.
But I digress. My point wasn’t that O’Reilly hadn’t mentioned libel or slander anywhere in the article, it was that the argument he set up in that paragraph did not make sense as he wrote it. The second sentence is supposed to be an example of that which is described in the first. **
Yes, I did. It doesn’t make that argument any better. At best, O’Reilly is a shitty writer; at worst, a total moron. **
I’m not twisting a damned thing. I’m just reading what O’Reilly actually wrote. You’re just willing to be a hell of a lot more charitable in your reading than I am. **
Google returns 30,300 hits for “bill o’reilly crime.” Thus, a lot of people must believe being Bill O’Reilly is a crime. :rolleyes: **
Actually, since his TPM is about content produced on the Internet, he’s actually referring to NAMBLA, assuming we adopt your charitable reading of his screed. **
You’ve GOT to be kidding me. He complains that “[n]early everyday, there’s something written on the Internet about me that’s flat out untrue,” complains about “web sites” that picked up the Chronicle story, and describes his targets as those “net people.” Are you seriously suggesting that because he never used the exact words “internet posters” that he isn’t referring to those who post to blogs and message boards? That deserves a rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So, it seems that a case can be made that O’Reilly made an example of libel in the article. It’s debatable what merit it has, but it is in fact there. Your original statement that “nowhere” is there a “single instance” was a little to strong for my liking, and I called you on it.
But, I agree this is off subject and not really important. It’s just annoying to me that we have the TPM linked to right here in the OP, and most of the memo has been quoted already and still people completely distort O’Reilly’s words.
If he is such a bad guy, and against the first ammendment and whatever else people would like to accuse him of then you should be able to find some examples of him actually saying these things. Not just use contorted logic to twist his statements into ways that fit your meaning.
I admitted I was wrong and retracted. You give me a rolleyes for that? Dick. I was just pointing out that it seems to be a common mistake.
This isn’t being charitable with the reading. It’s just being reasonable. If you gave the memo to someone who hadn’t read this thread and asked what O’Reilly meant at the end when he said “criminals at the computer” you would get NAMBLA, or “Child molesters” as the answer every time.
Yes, he mentions “web sites” and “net people”. Not message boards. Nope, not even once. If he were talking about message boards and posters on them he would have said so. But he didn’t. Because he wasn’t.
elf6c, after being corrected by Dewey about slander and libel being torts not crimes, I did a little research to find out more. You know, fighting ignorance and all that.
While poking around the internet with google, I couldn’t help but notice that I am certainly not alone in making that mistake. I pointed this out, and simply mentioned it made me feel less foolish for having made the mistake.
elf6c, if you think that O’Reilly is both a shitty writing and a moron then it is you who are lacking in intelligence. Just because you disagree with O’Reilly doesn’t make him a moron. Only a fool would say these things of someone with O’Reilly’s obvious talent just because of ideological differences.
Do you think that this “moron” just stumbled into his long held position as the highest rated program on all of cable news?
( Just to clear things up for the 1st ammendment impared that seem to be drawn to this thread: I am in no way denying or suggesting that the federal government should deny elf6c his or her right to free speech. )
Since it was the express intent of the United States to remove Saddam from power, it seems to be that by taking him out of the country and into exile, France would be working FOR the U.S. military. The dude can’t run the country from an apartment in Paris.
I don’t think Bill O’Reilly is a moron, although I do think he’s dishonest and manipulative.
But your thesis that stupid peo0ple cannot stumble into high positions is ridicualous. Behold Geroge W. Bush. Behold any number of popular movie stars. It’s possible to be stupid AND popular.
Quick note: I am off for the weekend, when I usually don’t post. Hopefully a SDMB weekend warrior who is also an O’Reilly fan will come along and pick up his defense.
Don’t worry, it’s easy. The liberals’ hatred of O’Reilly make them irrational and unbalanced. One just needs to refute the incorrect claims that are made of him. Eventually, it will boil down to a simple fact: many don’t like O’Reilly’s politics and style. However, the millions who do have made him the most watched program of it’s kind. His radio show is similarly successful. The fact is, most of “the folks” as O’Reilly calls them, agree with his mainly conservative worldview. That’s why they watch. And that’s what drives others crazy about him.
It’s actually quite amusing watching a gaggle of liberals try and defend a december OP. It’s completely wrong, yet they clamor over eachother trying to prove it true. This goes a long way towards showing that decembers’ problems on the board are based in ideology rather than personality.
I meant this to mean taking Saddam from Iraq during the war when we were trying to find him. This, of course, would be working against the US military. Unless the handed him over to us or something, which wasn’t what I was meaning. You’re the second person to question this, so I guess it was a bad example. I just meant it to illustrate a foreign power working against the US military during a time of war. Instead replace it with supplying the Iraqi’s with weapons.
Alternatively, since those who have favored the OP come from both sides of the political spectrum, it might indicate that the “problems” some people have with december are clearly not the result of ideology, but presentation.
(Not that either the opponents or defenders of december’s presence will ever agree on that subject.)
)