What Speech Should Be Acceptable to Restrict?

[Foxfyre]

From what I understand, this guy didn't threaten her. He shot her. There already are laws that cover that.

Yep. Also laws covering explicit threats directed at another person. Shoot, a personally directed threat on USMB toward any member or member's family merits banning does it not?

The question here is whether putting crosshairs or a target over a congressional district or seat or using such metaphors in political rhetoric constitutes a 'threat' or incites violence given that such imagery and language is and has always been commonplace.

We've given numerous examples now of non-violent use of such imagery and language, all of which have been religiously ignored by our friends who insist that ANY use of such graphics or language is directly responsible for violence committed.

Using metaphors such as putting crosshairs on congressmen or it's time to lock and load are intended to rally supporters to take decisive peaceful actions but these are metaphors that clearly have double meanings. Most people will not take this as a call for violence but rather a call for peaceful political action. However,the emotionally unstable, and there are plenty of those that are political junkies, may well draw a different conclusion. I question why is it necessary to use such inflammatory language. There are plenty of other good arguments and slogans available.

I'm not meaning to intentionally rag on you specifically, Flopper, because you have been debating competently and respectfully and I appreciate that very much. Kudos despite the flaws in your argument that I think I see.

The point I am making and that you so far have not addressed is that there is no evidence of ANY kind that use of any graphics or the political commentary found in conservative or liberal media has ever incited or encouraged anybody, mentally unbalanced or otherwise, to violence.

Invariably such violence, if it can be traced to anything other than mental imbalance, seems to be triggered by specific government action (McVeigh protesting Koresh's Mt. Carmel and Ruby Ridge) or some seemingly innocuous trigger--Reagan's attempted assassin wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Shall we outlaw movies because some nut was infatuated with a movie star to that extent?

Squeaky Fromme targeted President Ford because she wanted a new trial for Charles Manson. The Unabomber defended his bombings as extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies. We to this day do not know why Oswald shot Kennedy, but there was no talk radio and very little political commentary on television at that time. As he apparentlly isn't cooperating, we don't know why the Arizona shooter committed that tragic act, but he was not affiliated with a political party, he didn't watch any news on television, didn't listen to any talk radio, and embraced delusions that had nothing to do with any of that.

Looking back over history Booth shot Lincoln over grief of the Confederacy losing the Civil War.

Guiteau after killing President Garfield wrote: "Washington June 16, 1881. To the American People: I conceived the idea of removing the President four weeks ago. Not a soul knew of my purpose. I conceived the idea myself and kept it to myself. I read the newspapers carefully, for and against the Administration, and gradually the convictions settled on me that the President's removal was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men that made him, and thereby imperiled the life of the Republic."

Schrank said he was instructed by a ghost in a dream to kill Teddy Roosevelt. Seven years later, Roosevelt went to his grave with the bulllet Schrank put in him.

It is believed that an attempted assassination of FDR was an organized crime project and was not specifically targeted at the President.

An assassination attempt targeting Harry Truman was committed by Puerto Rican activists.

Nixon's would be assassin was prompted by a thwarted plane hijack attempt.

Where do we find a specific pattern in all of this? There isn't one. Where can you point to any violent act committed by somebody who took his cues from radio, television, or Tea Party events? You can't.

So again. You obviously hold radio and news commentators in high disregard and refer to what they do in strong negative language. Are you responsible for hateful people or nuts launching death threats at them? Should YOUR speech be restricted lest somebody wig out and actually carry out those threats?

Or do we take the realistic and reasonable view that such bad acts are committed by bad or mentally ill people and only the most extreme believe that restricting the freedoms of the rest of the world will have any good effect to prevent such bad acts?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

If that were the case then we would have bodies everywhere.

Your premise is bs in my opinion.

However. Your more than welcome to try again.

I'm not saying there is a lot of politically inspired violence.

If what you say is true, and even a tiny percentage - say 0.1% - of Limbaugh/beck's audiences drink the water you claim they have led them to, then there WOULD be lots of pilitically inspired violence. Your own admission defeats your argument.

 

[Talismen]

Can anyone do a quick calculation on the amount of violence that comes out of Hollywood?
Can anyone tell me why violent movies tend to make more money at the box office?

And does that mean that we're all walking around, ticking time bombs?
I mean...If the whole "violent imagry" thing is true?

 

[boedicca]

If we place limits on individuals based upon how the Insane might interpret their words and actions, then we will be an Insane Society.

Just sayin'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can anyone do a quick calculation on the amount of violence that comes out of Hollywood?
Can anyone tell me why violent movies tend to make more money at the box office?

And does that mean that we're all walking around, ticking time bombs?
I mean...If the whole "violent imagry" thing is true?

Clearly, there needs to be more federal regulation of violent movies.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can anyone do a quick calculation on the amount of violence that comes out of Hollywood?
Can anyone tell me why violent movies tend to make more money at the box office?

And does that mean that we're all walking around, ticking time bombs?
I mean...If the whole "violent imagry" thing is true?

Also consider that the Hollywood culture is one of the most liberal/'progressive'/leftist cultures within American society. With very few exceptions, Hollywood is pro-Democrat, pro Obama, pro anything leftist or liberal and the few conservative actors, producers, directors are usually discriminated against, punished, and/or shunned by the others.

But you are right - the most graphic gratuitous violence, gratuitous sex, most vulgar and virulent language has been acceptable and common place in movies for some time and is increasingly the case on television, in music, in video games, etc.

There are immediate howls of protest from most of the left and even some on the right if anybody suggests that this has a negative effect on the American people, most especially the young or mentally disturbed.

But political commentary from radio talk show hosts or Fox News or MSNBC incites to violence?

Give me a break.

 

[Talismen]

If we place limits on individuals based upon how the Insane might interpret their words and actions, then we will be an Insane Society.

Just sayin'.

Gives me another thought....

How about we place limits on how far someone's perception can stretch?
I.E. - if someone says "boy that law they just passed...everyone who voted for it should be tarred and feathered!" -- and then if someone claims "hey, that person wants to kill all those who voted for that law"....MAKE THEM PROVE THEIR ASSERTIONS!

No one said anything about "kill".
The phrase was "tarred and feathered".

See what I'm getting at?

And before anyone suggests that those who were "tarred and feathered" automatically died, think again:

The Straight Dope: Has anyone actually ever been tarred and feathered?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can anyone do a quick calculation on the amount of violence that comes out of Hollywood?
Can anyone tell me why violent movies tend to make more money at the box office?

And does that mean that we're all walking around, ticking time bombs?
I mean...If the whole "violent imagry" thing is true?

Also consider that the Hollywood culture is one of the most liberal/'progressive'/leftist cultures within American society. With very few exceptions, Hollywood is pro-Democrat, pro Obama, pro anything leftist or liberal and the few conservative actors, producers, directors are usually discriminated against, punished, and/or shunned by the others.

This is exactly why liberals will never apply their current argument regarding the supposed relationship between political speech and violence to violence in hollywood -- there's no pilitical gan in hurting themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

If that were the case then we would have bodies everywhere.

Your premise is bs in my opinion.

However. Your more than welcome to try again.

I'm not saying there is a lot of politically inspired violence. We certainly would have a lot more if these people really wanted it but there goals are financial and not political. The Becks, Limbaughs, Obermans, and the like are making millions off the idiots who prefer to listen to propaganda as opposed to real political discussions and debates.

But you did suggest that these people inspire and promote violence with the implication that it would be proper to restrict their ability to do that. Are you now reversing your statement about that?

 

[Flopper]

Slander, libel, threats, harassment, inciting immediate violence (and I mean telling people to assault/murder people and actually mean it), false advertising, perjury ... can't think of any others at the moment, but calling the left or the right evil should definitely stay protected.

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

Please provide a specific example IN FULL CONTEXT that would support your comment here so that I won't have to think that your remarks are a) unadulterated crap or b) born out of your own irrational or programmed hatred for anybody who disagrees with you or c) intended to promote censorship by those who will make anything up in order to justify that.

Again are you responsible for the death threats directed at Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al? Please explain how your references to their remarks as 'hate speech' do not contribute to death threats directed at them.

Just listen to any Limbaugh or Beck broadcast. They never suggest that their audience commit violent acts. They leave that conclusion to their audience. If you are interested in just how effective this type of propaganda is, I refer you to "State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda" by Susan Bachrach and Steven Luckert

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just listen to any Limbaugh or Beck broadcast. They never suggest that their audience commit violent acts. They leave that conclusion to their audience.

If what you say is true, and even a tiny percentage - say 0.1% - of Limbaugh/Beck's audiences drink the water you claim they have led them to, then there would be no end to the political violence.
Where are the bodies?

 

[boedicca]

Just listen to any Limbaugh or Beck broadcast. They never suggest that their audience commit violent acts. They leave that conclusion to their audience.

If what you say is true, and even a tiny percentage - say 0.1% - of Limbaugh/Beck's audiences drink the water you claim they have led them to, then there would be no end to the political violence.
Where are the bodies?

The "Bodies" are the Dem candidates who lost the election last November.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just listen to any Limbaugh or Beck broadcast. They never suggest that their audience commit violent acts. They leave that conclusion to their audience.

If what you say is true, and even a tiny percentage - say 0.1% - of Limbaugh/Beck's audiences drink the water you claim they have led them to, then there would be no end to the political violence.
Where are the bodies?

The "Bodies" are the Dem candidates who lost the election last November.

Thus explaining the left's ongoing desire to shut them up.

 

[Talismen]

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

Please provide a specific example IN FULL CONTEXT that would support your comment here so that I won't have to think that your remarks are a) unadulterated crap or b) born out of your own irrational or programmed hatred for anybody who disagrees with you or c) intended to promote censorship by those who will make anything up in order to justify that.

Again are you responsible for the death threats directed at Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al? Please explain how your references to their remarks as 'hate speech' do not contribute to death threats directed at them.

Just listen to any Limbaugh or Beck broadcast. They never suggest that their audience commit violent acts. They leave that conclusion to their audience. If you are interested in just how effective this type of propaganda is, I refer you to "State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda" by Susan Bachrach and Steven Luckert

Yes. They leave that conclusion to their audience.

And I'll remind you once again of the post from M14 Shooter:

If what you say is true, and even a tiny percentage - say 0.1% - of Limbaugh/Beck's audiences drink the water you claim they have led them to, then there would be no end to the political violence.
Where are the bodies?

EVERYONE on all sides of politics NEEDS to pull their heads out of their backsides and remember the following:

YOU control your own mind. YOU control your own perceptions, and YOU control your own actions! No one is to blame for any misdeeds you perpetrate.

 

[Jackson]

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

Please provide a specific example IN FULL CONTEXT that would support your comment here so that I won't have to think that your remarks are a) unadulterated crap or b) born out of your own irrational or programmed hatred for anybody who disagrees with you or c) intended to promote censorship by those who will make anything up in order to justify that.

Again are you responsible for the death threats directed at Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al? Please explain how your references to their remarks as 'hate speech' do not contribute to death threats directed at them.

Just listen to any Limbaugh or Beck broadcast. They never suggest that their audience commit violent acts. They leave that conclusion to their audience. If you are interested in just how effective this type of propaganda is, I refer you to "State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda" by Susan Bachrach and Steven Luckert

I can't speak of Limbaugh but I do listen to Beck. Beck hardly speaks of violence or anything that a sane person could draw such a conclusion but quite the opposite. You speak so harshly of Beck, I hardly think you listen to him yourself.

 

[Foxfyre]

Please provide a specific example IN FULL CONTEXT that would support your comment here so that I won't have to think that your remarks are a) unadulterated crap or b) born out of your own irrational or programmed hatred for anybody who disagrees with you or c) intended to promote censorship by those who will make anything up in order to justify that.

Again are you responsible for the death threats directed at Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al? Please explain how your references to their remarks as 'hate speech' do not contribute to death threats directed at them.

Just listen to any Limbaugh or Beck broadcast. They never suggest that their audience commit violent acts. They leave that conclusion to their audience. If you are interested in just how effective this type of propaganda is, I refer you to "State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda" by Susan Bachrach and Steven Luckert

I can't speak of Limbaugh but I do listen to Beck. Beck hardly speaks of violence or anything that a sane person could draw such a conclusion but quite the opposite. You speak so harshly of Beck, I hardly think you listen to him yourself.

Of course he doesn't or he would know that what they do contains far less violent images than some used by Democratic leaders spouting off about them or even the President talking about his opponents. If Limbaugh or Hannity et al speak of violence at all, it is almost always to denounce it.

To believe they are somewhat inspiring or encouraging violence suggests one who does not check it out for himself but just swallows hook, line, and sinker what is written about them on leftwing internet sites or other leftwingers. And hey I just used another metaphor to make my point. Am I suggesting that people are literally feeding Flopper fishing gear? Am I possibly inspiring some nutcase to do so?

Flopper still hasn't answered my question whether he is in fact inspiring death threats against talk show hosts when he repeats his uncomplimentary opinion about them. Nor can he say that those talk show hosts are doing ANYTHING differently than what he himself is doing.

 

[Flopper]

Yep. Also laws covering explicit threats directed at another person. Shoot, a personally directed threat on USMB toward any member or member's family merits banning does it not?

The question here is whether putting crosshairs or a target over a congressional district or seat or using such metaphors in political rhetoric constitutes a 'threat' or incites violence given that such imagery and language is and has always been commonplace.

We've given numerous examples now of non-violent use of such imagery and language, all of which have been religiously ignored by our friends who insist that ANY use of such graphics or language is directly responsible for violence committed.

Using metaphors such as putting crosshairs on congressmen or it's time to lock and load are intended to rally supporters to take decisive peaceful actions but these are metaphors that clearly have double meanings. Most people will not take this as a call for violence but rather a call for peaceful political action. However,the emotionally unstable, and there are plenty of those that are political junkies, may well draw a different conclusion. I question why is it necessary to use such inflammatory language. There are plenty of other good arguments and slogans available.

I'm not meaning to intentionally rag on you specifically, Flopper, because you have been debating competently and respectfully and I appreciate that very much. Kudos despite the flaws in your argument that I think I see.

The point I am making and that you so far have not addressed is that there is no evidence of ANY kind that use of any graphics or the political commentary found in conservative or liberal media has ever incited or encouraged anybody, mentally unbalanced or otherwise, to violence.

Invariably such violence, if it can be traced to anything other than mental imbalance, seems to be triggered by specific government action (McVeigh protesting Koresh's Mt. Carmel and Ruby Ridge) or some seemingly innocuous trigger--Reagan's attempted assassin wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Shall we outlaw movies because some nut was infatuated with a movie star to that extent?

Squeaky Fromme targeted President Ford because she wanted a new trial for Charles Manson. The Unabomber defended his bombings as extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies. We to this day do not know why Oswald shot Kennedy, but there was no talk radio and very little political commentary on television at that time. As he apparentlly isn't cooperating, we don't know why the Arizona shooter committed that tragic act, but he was not affiliated with a political party, he didn't watch any news on television, didn't listen to any talk radio, and embraced delusions that had nothing to do with any of that.

Looking back over history Booth shot Lincoln over grief of the Confederacy losing the Civil War.

Guiteau after killing President Garfield wrote: "Washington June 16, 1881. To the American People: I conceived the idea of removing the President four weeks ago. Not a soul knew of my purpose. I conceived the idea myself and kept it to myself. I read the newspapers carefully, for and against the Administration, and gradually the convictions settled on me that the President's removal was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men that made him, and thereby imperiled the life of the Republic."

Schrank said he was instructed by a ghost in a dream to kill Teddy Roosevelt. Seven years later, Roosevelt went to his grave with the bulllet Schrank put in him.

It is believed that an attempted assassination of FDR was an organized crime project and was not specifically targeted at the President.

An assassination attempt targeting Harry Truman was committed by Puerto Rican activists.

Nixon's would be assassin was prompted by a thwarted plane hijack attempt.

Where do we find a specific pattern in all of this? There isn't one. Where can you point to any violent act committed by somebody who took his cues from radio, television, or Tea Party events? You can't.

So again. You obviously hold radio and news commentators in high disregard and refer to what they do in strong negative language. Are you responsible for hateful people or nuts launching death threats at them? Should YOUR speech be restricted lest somebody wig out and actually carry out those threats?

Or do we take the realistic and reasonable view that such bad acts are committed by bad or mentally ill people and only the most extreme believe that restricting the freedoms of the rest of the world will have any good effect to prevent such bad acts?

Good points. I believe violent political rhetoric is not directly responsible for these acts by simply adds wood to fire. This is difficult to prove but there is historical evidence.

For example, Leon Czolgosz who assinated McKinley became interested in anarchism in the years preceding the McKinley murder. He attended a number of speeches given by renowned anarchist Emma Goldman, who openly advocated the overthrow of government. In the 1960's, liberal propaganda certainly encourage the violence. Look at the book "The Moon is Down" by Steinbeck. It certainly led to increased violence in the Nazi occupied countries. Propaganda legitimizes aggression by conveying the message that something has to be done regarding a targeted group or person. It is impossible to establish to what degree a single piece of propaganda is responsible for a violent act, but it's just common sense to believe that it's a contributing factor.

 

[Foxfyre]

Using metaphors such as putting crosshairs on congressmen or it's time to lock and load are intended to rally supporters to take decisive peaceful actions but these are metaphors that clearly have double meanings. Most people will not take this as a call for violence but rather a call for peaceful political action. However,the emotionally unstable, and there are plenty of those that are political junkies, may well draw a different conclusion. I question why is it necessary to use such inflammatory language. There are plenty of other good arguments and slogans available.

I'm not meaning to intentionally rag on you specifically, Flopper, because you have been debating competently and respectfully and I appreciate that very much. Kudos despite the flaws in your argument that I think I see.

The point I am making and that you so far have not addressed is that there is no evidence of ANY kind that use of any graphics or the political commentary found in conservative or liberal media has ever incited or encouraged anybody, mentally unbalanced or otherwise, to violence.

Invariably such violence, if it can be traced to anything other than mental imbalance, seems to be triggered by specific government action (McVeigh protesting Koresh's Mt. Carmel and Ruby Ridge) or some seemingly innocuous trigger--Reagan's attempted assassin wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Shall we outlaw movies because some nut was infatuated with a movie star to that extent?

Squeaky Fromme targeted President Ford because she wanted a new trial for Charles Manson. The Unabomber defended his bombings as extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies. We to this day do not know why Oswald shot Kennedy, but there was no talk radio and very little political commentary on television at that time. As he apparentlly isn't cooperating, we don't know why the Arizona shooter committed that tragic act, but he was not affiliated with a political party, he didn't watch any news on television, didn't listen to any talk radio, and embraced delusions that had nothing to do with any of that.

Looking back over history Booth shot Lincoln over grief of the Confederacy losing the Civil War.

Guiteau after killing President Garfield wrote: "Washington June 16, 1881. To the American People: I conceived the idea of removing the President four weeks ago. Not a soul knew of my purpose. I conceived the idea myself and kept it to myself. I read the newspapers carefully, for and against the Administration, and gradually the convictions settled on me that the President's removal was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men that made him, and thereby imperiled the life of the Republic."

Schrank said he was instructed by a ghost in a dream to kill Teddy Roosevelt. Seven years later, Roosevelt went to his grave with the bulllet Schrank put in him.

It is believed that an attempted assassination of FDR was an organized crime project and was not specifically targeted at the President.

An assassination attempt targeting Harry Truman was committed by Puerto Rican activists.

Nixon's would be assassin was prompted by a thwarted plane hijack attempt.

Where do we find a specific pattern in all of this? There isn't one. Where can you point to any violent act committed by somebody who took his cues from radio, television, or Tea Party events? You can't.

So again. You obviously hold radio and news commentators in high disregard and refer to what they do in strong negative language. Are you responsible for hateful people or nuts launching death threats at them? Should YOUR speech be restricted lest somebody wig out and actually carry out those threats?

Or do we take the realistic and reasonable view that such bad acts are committed by bad or mentally ill people and only the most extreme believe that restricting the freedoms of the rest of the world will have any good effect to prevent such bad acts?

Good points. I believe violent political rhetoric is not directly responsible for these acts by simply adds wood to fire. This is difficult to prove but there is historical evidence.

For example, Leon Czolgosz who assinated McKinley became interested in anarchism in the years preceding the McKinley murder. He attended a number of speeches given by renowned anarchist Emma Goldman, who openly advocated the overthrow of government. In the 1960's, liberal propaganda certainly encourage the violence. Look at the book "The Moon is Down" by Steinbeck. It certainly led to increased violence in the Nazi occupied countries. Propaganda legitimizes aggression by conveying the message that something has to be done regarding a targeted group or person. It is impossible to establish to what degree a single piece of propaganda is responsible for a violent act, but it's just common sense to believe that it's a contributing factor.

Flopper, propaganda encouraging violence indeed encouages violence among those who are agreeable to violence. The cases you cite are those explicitly encouraging people to use whatever means are necessary, legal or illegal, including violence, to overthrow the government or punish whomever is targeting as the enemy at any given time.

I have NEVER heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Palin, any Tea Party speaker or even the likes of Maddow, Maher, or Olbermann suggest any such violence. Nor have you. That isn't what they do. All express a specific ideology that includes criticism of opposing ideologies or specific actions. None suggest anything other than peaceful lawful means of furthering their point of view or correcting a bad act. They might suggest really bad law be created which is sort of what this thread is about.

At some point sane and rational people need to make a clear distinction and appropriately recognize, define and address that these are two very different things.

Again are you and others like you promoting death threats against talk show hosts because you express your opinion that you don't like what they say? The death threats are happening. Should we forbid criticism of all public figures just in case you might be encouraging them? Or is it absurd to believe that you criticizing, even in harsh language, something somebody says provides license for somebody to commit a bad act against them?

 

[Flopper]

Just listen to any Limbaugh or Beck broadcast. They never suggest that their audience commit violent acts. They leave that conclusion to their audience. If you are interested in just how effective this type of propaganda is, I refer you to "State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda" by Susan Bachrach and Steven Luckert

I can't speak of Limbaugh but I do listen to Beck. Beck hardly speaks of violence or anything that a sane person could draw such a conclusion but quite the opposite. You speak so harshly of Beck, I hardly think you listen to him yourself.

Of course he doesn't or he would know that what they do contains far less violent images than some used by Democratic leaders spouting off about them or even the President talking about his opponents. If Limbaugh or Hannity et al speak of violence at all, it is almost always to denounce it.

To believe they are somewhat inspiring or encouraging violence suggests one who does not check it out for himself but just swallows hook, line, and sinker what is written about them on leftwing internet sites or other leftwingers. And hey I just used another metaphor to make my point. Am I suggesting that people are literally feeding Flopper fishing gear? Am I possibly inspiring some nutcase to do so?

Flopper still hasn't answered my question whether he is in fact inspiring death threats against talk show hosts when he repeats his uncomplimentary opinion about them. Nor can he say that those talk show hosts are doing ANYTHING differently than what he himself is doing.

Good propaganda can incite violence without ever suggesting a violent act.

No, I serious doubt that I inspire death threats against anybody because I do have the audience. the skill, or the desire to do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't speak of Limbaugh but I do listen to Beck. Beck hardly speaks of violence or anything that a sane person could draw such a conclusion but quite the opposite. You speak so harshly of Beck, I hardly think you listen to him yourself.

Of course he doesn't or he would know that what they do contains far less violent images than some used by Democratic leaders spouting off about them or even the President talking about his opponents. If Limbaugh or Hannity et al speak of violence at all, it is almost always to denounce it.

To believe they are somewhat inspiring or encouraging violence suggests one who does not check it out for himself but just swallows hook, line, and sinker what is written about them on leftwing internet sites or other leftwingers. And hey I just used another metaphor to make my point. Am I suggesting that people are literally feeding Flopper fishing gear? Am I possibly inspiring some nutcase to do so?

Flopper still hasn't answered my question whether he is in fact inspiring death threats against talk show hosts when he repeats his uncomplimentary opinion about them. Nor can he say that those talk show hosts are doing ANYTHING differently than what he himself is doing.

Good propaganda can incite violence without ever suggesting a violent act.

No, I serious doubt that I inspire death threats against anybody because I do have the audience. the skill, or the desire to do so.

What propaganda unintended to incite violence does so though? Could you be influenced by such propaganda? Do you know a lot of people who would be? I know a LOT of people and can't think of a one that I think would be encouraged or inspired to commit a bad act because of expressed propaganda.