# Do you believe Glenn Beck has any liability in the Poplawski murders? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450 "2009-04-08T23:28:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/81 "2009-04-09T22:30:24Z")
We saw the same sort of wild-eyed scare-mongering when Clinton was president, and it culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. That was a wake-up call, and the overheated rhetoric about jack-booted thugs taking away our guns ebbed afterwards. I hope the dumb-ass militia movements aren’t aren’t about to crank up again. And hell yes, the rabble-rousing jackasses on the right bear some moral responsibility, just as they did for Oklahoma City. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/82 "2009-04-09T22:57:02Z")
Still, you have to look at all the people who _haven’t_ gone on a shooting spree. But it’s still early. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/83 "2009-04-09T23:18:32Z")
Well, we saw the same sort of wild-eyed scare-mongering when Bush was president, and that led the nation into a pointless and expensive war which we will be paying for for decades. I’m not seeing an upside to giving such fearmongering yet _another_ pass. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/84 "2009-04-09T23:21:38Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > But at least _consistent_ stupidity has the virtue of looking like there’s a thought process, which means you can engage the person in debate. _Inconsistent_ stupidity just looks like hypocrisy. There’s no virtuous thought process behind what Clinton and Lieberman (among others) do. It’s the opposite: an unthinking, reflexive reaction. But yes, I guess it _looks_ like the result of a thought process, if that matters. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think it is more how much of a role did Beck play in this guy’s going off the deep end? I don’t think that’s the important question. It’s true that something did set this guy off after years of showing obvious problems. But if we start censoring things because they could inflame someone with problems, there’s no obvious stopping point and we lose more than we gain. Are Beck’s words intended to inflame? Yes. I think that’s reprehensible. I think he and a lot of people like him are peddling poison disguised as entertainment. Part of their audience does sincerely believe this paranoid absurdity. In theory, Beck might believe it too, but I don’t think Rush Limbaugh does, for example. I do think these kinds of people are playing with fire and then saying “hey, I’m not the guy who burned the house down.” Nonetheless, even guys like that deserve protection from censorship. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/85 "2009-04-09T23:33:38Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > Well, I don’t buy it when people blame Beavis and Butthead when they burned something down. I don’t buy it when people blame video games for violent behavior. As much as I loathe Mr. Beck, I don’t blame him for something a different nutjob actually did. I’m about as vigorous advocate of free speech as one can be, but this analogy is garbage. My issue with Glenn Beck and the likes is that their crazy and false rantings are aired on a New Broadcast. It’s one thing to say a musician or a game colored your world in one way or another, to imply that it somehow might make a disturbed person more likely to act out. It’s entertainment and everyone knows that. However, it’s a whole different thing when this is in the context of a News Broadcast. For better or worse, TV news is the primary way in which most people, especially the dumb, get their information about what’s real in this world. The things Beck says carry much more weight and are much closer to yelling “fire” in the proverbial crowded theater because of the venue and packaging than something portrayed in pixels and free prose. Perhaps Beck, as an entertainer, has plenty of latitude and can be allowed to be a satirist. But, when a News organization packages him as a purveyor of news and fact they are doing something more insidious and maybe culpable. Many of the things being said on Fox News these days by the usual suspects is patently false and intentionally radicalizing. I won’t argue that we should take away the right of people to do this, but I think we should prevent it from happening in a way in which people could legitimately come to see it as reasoned fact. “Fox _News_” needs to be held to a certain standard as do all news companies. They need to have a civic duty and responsibility beyond just getting ratings. > [@Bosstone](#): > > That’s the thing, though: allow people to call the President a tyrant on air and chance people coming to think he’s a tyrant, despite the fact that such dissent would never be allowed under a true dictator (which nobody ever seems to realize), or quash the slander and have that used as “proof” of tyranny. > > Truthfully, Obama, or whoever the regulatory agency is that would crack down on the stations, would hurt his image far worse by doing something about it than if they allow it to continue. No one is saying that the government should get involved. No one is asking for censorship. Free speech is free speech. But some framework must be created to differentiate “news” from “entertainment”. A news paper or broadcast isn’t allowed to lie and fear monger for ratings. There are already laws in place to prevent libel and slander, perhaps they need to be used more frequently where news organizations are concerned. I mean, calling the president a “tyrant” isn’t wrong because it’s “un-American” or and “image” issue. It’s simply a lie. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/86 "2009-04-09T23:51:11Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > It seems like this killer was pretty far gone to begin with, and was just pushed over the edge by Beck’s stuff but was already clearly _crazy._ It could have been anything that pushed him over the edge. So I’m not sure Beck is to blame any more than Jodie Foster is for inspiring John Hinckley to shoot Ronald Reagan. Was Jodie Foster saying that Reagan should be assassinated ? The analogy doesn’t work. This is an old tactic of the Right; they push and push, spew out hate filled rhetoric, and when someone on the edge puts that rhetoric into practice they claim no responsibility. Like the right wingers who rant about abortion being murder or genocide and disclaim responsibility when one of their followers kills a doctor for them. I strongly suspect that Beck and those like him are hoping that one of their more rabid followers will kill President Obama, and that’s why they put out rhetoric designed to inflame this kind of nut. > [@SteveG1](#): > > The shooter is respnsible for the shooting. We can’t get away from that. However, people like Beck, who plant these ideas, or somehow “legitimize” them, are guilty as hell too. Exactly. It’s not an either or, where either Back is innocent and Beck is guilty, or the other way around. Both can be, and in my opinion are, to blame. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/87 "2009-04-09T23:55:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Was Jodie Foster saying that Reagan should be assassinated ? The analogy doesn’t work. And did Glenn Beck say that anybody should be killed? For the record, I’m not making apologies for Glenn Beck; I have never listened to his show or seen him on television; I knew next to nothing about him before reading this thread. I just think it’s bullshit to blame him for this when the shooter was clearly nuts. I mean, if you were worried about losing your gun rights, you would have to be nuts to think that _shooting police officers_ would be a good way of preserving those rights. He was CRAZY. Blaming Beck for this is like blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine. It’s bullshit. This just looks to me like a case of people who hate Glenn Beck trying to find something to be angry at him for. As I said before, I don’t know or care about Glenn Beck and I am neither condemning nor defending him. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/88 "2009-04-10T00:05:59Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > And did Glenn Beck say that anybody should be killed? Assuming he didn’t, did he need to ? You don’t need to outright say “Kill them !” to get people to commit murder; just whip them up with enough hatred and they’ll come up with that idea all by themselves. And you can say “Well, I never TOLD them to kill anyone !” afterwords. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/89 "2009-04-10T00:10:37Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > What does it mean to hold someone morally accountable for the actions of someone else? I think it means absolutely nothing. Therefore, the debate about whether he should be held morally accountable means absolutely nothing. It is like the proverbial debate over how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Flipping a coin to decide the outcome has as much content and as much consequence as a debate on the subject. > > I fully concede that this post may be a threadshit, but I want people to start thinking about what terms like “morally accountable” really mean, and I think it’s better to discuss it in context instead of in a separate thread in the abstract. It means that you shun them. It’s not legal liability, but social liability. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > If Poplawski is the lunatic that he seems to be, then it seems hard to hold anyone liable for the unpredictable consequences of his mental disorder. We don’t blame the Beatles for Charles Manson, after all. Notably the song Helter Skelter is about children using a slide, not igniting a race war by random murders. Video game makers are not legally liable for violence or bad driving inspired by their video games. But it does not mean that we cannot socially condemn those activities. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/90 "2009-04-10T00:25:23Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > … A news paper or broadcast isn’t allowed to lie and fear monger for ratings. … Surely your not unaware of the [ancient](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism) and [bloody](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish_American_War) tradition of exactly that in American journalism? CMC fnord! 'Course that Glenn Beck is no [Ambrose](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#After_the_war) [Bierce](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_Bierce#McKinley_accusation) should go without saying! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/91 "2009-04-10T01:18:53Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > The problem with this viewpoint is that it often ends with music and video games being banned because they cause school massacres. Even if video games really were banned, that’s a non sequitur: neither the OP, nor anyone that I saw in this thread, is advocating banning Beck. As **Second Stone** said, folks are calling for shunning. Or boycotting, or speaking out against, or other nongovernmental behavior. Beck should be ashamed of himself. And yes: the Democratic Party shares the responsibility for this shooting as well, by my thinking. Their responsibility is absolutely miniscule, but it’s there. Far smaller than Beck’s. If this shooting were the only foreseeable result of their platform, they ought not have it. If they reasonably foresee that their platform will prevent more harm than it causes, then they’re clear. Beck has no such excuse: I do not believe there is a reasonable argument that his rants will do enough good to offset their (small amount of) responsibility for this shooting. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/92 "2009-04-10T01:59:29Z")
And calling it “entertainment” kind of sticks in my craw. He makes political tv seem like its a wrestling show targeted to the prime demographic of meth-addled bikers. If the body politic were poxed, he’d be the seepage. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/93 "2009-04-10T02:14:45Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Surely your not unaware of the [ancient](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism) and [bloody](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish_American_War) tradition of exactly that in American journalism? > > CMC fnord! > 'Course that Glenn Beck is no [Ambrose](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#After_the_war) [Bierce](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_Bierce#McKinley_accusation) should go without saying! So you’re implying it’s valid and just? ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/94 "2009-04-10T03:18:41Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Assuming he didn’t, did he need to ? You don’t need to outright say “Kill them !” to get people to commit murder; just whip them up with enough hatred and they’ll come up with that idea all by themselves. And you can say “Well, I never TOLD them to kill anyone !” afterwords. Exactly. Like I said a few times, Al Sharpton and the Freddie’s Fashion Market fire seems to be a pretty direct comparison. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/95 "2009-04-10T05:15:58Z")
> [@davidw](#): > > Exactly. Like I said a few times, Al Sharpton and the Freddie’s Fashion Market fire seems to be a pretty direct comparison. Did Glen Beck set up a picket line? Sharpton did. [Link](http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2411). Second [link](http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:Ch3knDFHQ8sJ:query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html%3Fres%3D9F03E7D81F39F93AA35751C1A963958260%26pagewanted%3Dall+Freddie%27s+Fashion+Mart+fire+picket+line&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a). So the Sharpton comparison, well it really falls apart as Sharpton setup a picket line and was therefore advocating a physical response\*. Beck is a jackass but not responsible for the actions of a nutjob. Slee \*The whole point of picket lines is to intimidate people into not frequenting a certain place. When the tool you are telling people to use is intimidation, which by definition is threatening violence, then the responsibility for violence breaking out is much clearer. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/96 "2009-04-10T05:43:00Z")
I think it’s possible that people like Beck doing the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It’s more than just opinions, it’s a kind of false alarm – hysterical, lunatic warnings about things that aren’t really happening. They aren’t saying “shoot cops,” but they _are_ saying “you are in physical danger.” Is there legal responsibility? I don’t know, but they’re pulling some fire alarms. Beck might look like self-parody to normal people, but crazy people might not be able to tell. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/97 "2009-04-10T11:04:25Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > The whole point of picket lines is to intimidate people into not frequenting a certain place. I think you’re dead wrong here. By this logic doesn’t any mass demonstration threaten violence? A public, physical show of support is not the same as a threat. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/98 "2009-04-10T14:39:24Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > \*The whole point of picket lines is to intimidate people into not frequenting a certain place. When the tool you are telling people to use is intimidation, which by definition is threatening violence, then the responsibility for violence breaking out is much clearer. Does that go for people who picket abortion clinics too? ---
**Author:** ![OffByOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/45deac/32.png) [@OffByOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OffByOne)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/99 "2009-04-10T18:13:37Z")
All speech is NOT protected by the Bill of Rights. Saying, “The government is coming for YOUR guns! You have the responsibility to KILL to protect your right to bear arms!” is NOT protected speech. Yet somehow, saying “The government is coming for YOUR guns! What are YOU going to do about it?” IS protected, since the speaker is not directly advocating violence. I think that Beck (and Limbaugh and Hannity, et al.) knows his demographic well enough to know that someone, somewhere, sometime is going to think, “He’s talking to me! I have to DO something about this!” That’s like saying to a child, “Ever wonder what would happen if you stuck a screwdriver into a wall socket?” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450/100 "2009-04-10T18:56:24Z")
> [@OffByOne](#): > > Saying, “The government is coming for YOUR guns! You have the responsibility to KILL to protect your right to bear arms!” is NOT protected speech. Please demonstrate this based on precedent. I think it would protected in some cases and not others. > [@](#): > > Yet somehow, saying “The government is coming for YOUR guns! What are YOU going to do about it?” IS protected, since the speaker is not directly advocating violence. That’s not the only issue. At the moment, the interpretation is that the speech is not protected if the speaker’s word create an **[incitement to imminent lawless action](http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/444/case.html)**. > [@](#): > > Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Beck’s words are highly provocative, but whether they are directed to inciteme violence or other lawbreaking, or likely to cause it, is another question. If he was talking to an angry mob, for example, it would be a more compelling argument than a broadcast over a TV show. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-glenn-beck-has-any-liability-in-the-poplawski-murders/492450.md?page=6)