The biggest threat to America is ... Bill O'Reilly

*Has the number-one cable news show in the U.S., with an audience sometimes reaching 3 million

* Falsely claimed to be on an Al Qaeda hit list: http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/09/21/oreilly-claimed-to-be-on-al-qaeda-death-list-bu/136693

* Is a fucked-up pervo: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/oreilly-falafel-suit-turns-five

* Was amazed that none of the black patrons in a black restaurant he visited was (in his own words) "screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.'" http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/09/21/oreilly-surprised-there-was-no-difference-betwe/139893

* Only recently learned that most Americans earn less than $50,000 per year: http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2014/11/07/bill-oreilly-what-republicans-have-to-do-to-establish-authority/

* Blames women for their own rapes:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkrMVwWAn3M

DRONE-KILL BILL O'REILLY:

No argument from me !!

Classic Republican liar.

DON'T forget who pays their salaries over there on the Faux News Network...

Good ol' Uncle Ruppert..

The very same who financed those infamous British 'News of the World' phone spying/tapping scandals (where, incidentally, no actual genuine "hackng" activities were committed by those guilty journalsts, (they wouldn't know how to "hack" their lunches - let alone a phone network !)).

AND the puppet-master behind both the Cameron and Abbott governments, Uncle Rupe is also already voicing support for Jeb Bush's push for the 'GOP' nomination for next year's USA presidential elections..

Lone Wolf wrote:

DON'T forget who pays their salaries over there on the Faux News Network...

Good ol' Uncle Ruppert..

The very same who financed those infamous British 'News of the World' phone spying/tapping scandals (where, incidentally, no actual genuine "hackng" activities were committed by those guilty journalsts, (they wouldn't know how to "hack" their lunches - let alone a phone network !)).

AND the puppet-master behind both the Cameron and Abbott governments, Uncle Rupe is also already voicing support for Jeb Bush's push for the 'GOP' nomination for next year's USA presidential elections..    

Yep...and the Wall Street Journal, which coincidentally owns the Dow Jones and many other fun toys. But, unique to America, the conservative movement is not coterminous with the monied element. The biggest difference is that business interests are risk-adverse. Conservatives in America are quite willing to risk everything, hence the frequent split between Wall Street and the Tea Party.

While money is conservative, Conservatives in America are living a script. A script follows no external influence (such as money or militarism); it is what it is.

Original Quill wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

DON'T forget who pays their salaries over there on the Faux News Network...

Good ol' Uncle Ruppert..

The very same who financed those infamous British 'News of the World' phone spying/tapping scandals (where, incidentally, no actual genuine "hackng" activities were committed by those guilty journalsts, (they wouldn't know how to "hack" their lunches - let alone a phone network !)).

AND the puppet-master behind both the Cameron and Abbott governments, Uncle Rupe is also already voicing support for Jeb Bush's push for the 'GOP' nomination for next year's USA presidential elections..    

Yep...and the Wall Street Journal, which coincidentally owns the Dow Jones and many other fun toys.  But, unique to America, the conservative movement is not coterminous with the monied element.  The biggest difference is that business interests are risk-adverse.  Conservatives in America are quite willing to risk everything, hence the frequent split between Wall Street and the Tea Party.

While money is conservative, Conservatives in America are living a script.  A script follows no external influence (such as money or militarism); it is what it is.

A couple of nights ago he was complaining about "algezeera news" being biased and a "propaganda network" i thought looked in the mirror much
And let's remember even though it's called "fox news" it has very little actual news on it.
BO is an "opinion" show disguised as a news show same as that twat hanatty
And therefore allowed in American law to lie and misrepresent the truth (sue them Quill you would be doing the world a favor :-) ) Yaa DOJ and the legal directive seems to be the mantra of the whole allis owned network and because its a pay for service (usually bundled with other stuff because you would not pay for it) they get away with it

we a sometimes critical of the BBC and other new media companies in this country but NEVER would any "NEWS" network be allowed to do what fox does in this country hence why its bundled with pay for service (and owned by the spawn of hell)

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yep...and the Wall Street Journal, which coincidentally owns the Dow Jones and many other fun toys.  But, unique to America, the conservative movement is not coterminous with the monied element.  The biggest difference is that business interests are risk-adverse.  Conservatives in America are quite willing to risk everything, hence the frequent split between Wall Street and the Tea Party.

While money is conservative, Conservatives in America are living a script.  A script follows no external influence (such as money or militarism); it is what it is.

A couple of nights ago he was complaining about "algezeera news" being biased and a "propaganda network" i thought looked in the mirror much
And let's remember even though it's called "fox news" it has very little actual news on it.
BO is an "opinion" show disguised as a news show same as that twat hanatty
And therefore allowed in American law to lie and misrepresent the truth (sue them Quill you would be doing the world a favor :-) )  Yaa DOJ  and the legal directive seems to be the mantra of the whole allis owned network and because its a pay for service (usually bundled with other stuff because you would not pay for it) they get away with it  

we a sometimes critical of the BBC and other new media companies in this country but NEVER would any "NEWS" network be allowed to do what fox does in this country hence why its bundled with pay for service (and owned by the spawn of hell)    

Yes, that's the biggest difference that the First Amendment to the US Constitution wreaks...for whatever good it does, it let's in as much bad.  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established the actual malice standard has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel.  That means you have to show intentional malice, as distinct from mistake and fair comment.

Over on the defamation tort side, where once truth was a defense, falsity must now be affirmatively shown in the plaintiff case.  Also, anything in the nature of opinion is not considered false because such statements are subjective to the speaker. - See: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html#sthash.gEj4UKzG.dpuf  Despite the tabloids, you guys do a much better job of keeping the media clean...but also, remember, it's censorship.

What Faux News has done is honed the art of cheating in speech and publishing...erm, oh yes, in my opinion.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
A couple of nights ago he was complaining about "algezeera news" being biased and a "propaganda network" i thought looked in the mirror much
And let's remember even though it's called "fox news" it has very little actual news on it.
BO is an "opinion" show disguised as a news show same as that twat hanatty
And therefore allowed in American law to lie and misrepresent the truth (sue them Quill you would be doing the world a favor :-) )  Yaa DOJ  and the legal directive seems to be the mantra of the whole allis owned network and because its a pay for service (usually bundled with other stuff because you would not pay for it) they get away with it  

we a sometimes critical of the BBC and other new media companies in this country but NEVER would any "NEWS" network be allowed to do what fox does in this country hence why its bundled with pay for service (and owned by the spawn of hell)    

Yes, that's the biggest difference that the First Amendment to the US Constitution wreaks...for whatever good it does, it let's in as much bad.  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established the actual malice standard has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel.  That means you have to show intentional malice, as distinct from mistake and fair comment.

Over on the defamation tort side, where once truth was a defense, falsity must now be affirmatively shown in the plaintiff case.  Also, anything in the nature of opinion is not considered false because such statements are subjective to the speaker. - See: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html#sthash.gEj4UKzG.dpuf  Despite the tabloids, you guys do a much better job of keeping the media clean...but also, remember, it's censorship.

What Faux News has done is honed the art of cheating in speech and publishing...erm, oh yes, in my opinion.

then don`t go after then for free speech go after them for Commercial speech


Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court does not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment. To effectively distinguish commercial speech from other types of speech for purposes of litigation, the Court uses a list of four indicia:[119]

The contents do "no more than propose a commercial transaction."
The contents may be characterized as advertisements.
The contents reference a specific product.
The disseminator is economically motivated to distribute the speech.

Alone, each indicium does not compel the conclusion that an instance of speech is commercial; however, "the combination of all these characteristics...provides strong support for...the conclusion that the properly characterized as commercial speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And IMHO fox is commercial in its hypeing of GOP candadits ,fundraisers ,and the endless streem of pointless redundent factualy in correct (cite OBIlLY) books,tea paty ,morons and idiots

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, that's the biggest difference that the First Amendment to the US Constitution wreaks...for whatever good it does, it let's in as much bad.  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established the actual malice standard has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel.  That means you have to show intentional malice, as distinct from mistake and fair comment.

Over on the defamation tort side, where once truth was a defense, falsity must now be affirmatively shown in the plaintiff case.  Also, anything in the nature of opinion is not considered false because such statements are subjective to the speaker. - See: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html#sthash.gEj4UKzG.dpuf  Despite the tabloids, you guys do a much better job of keeping the media clean...but also, remember, it's censorship.

What Faux News has done is honed the art of cheating in speech and publishing...erm, oh yes, in my opinion.

then don`t go after then for free speech go after them for Commercial speech


Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court does not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment. To effectively distinguish commercial speech from other types of speech for purposes of litigation, the Court uses a list of four indicia:[119]

   The contents do "no more than propose a commercial transaction."
   The contents may be characterized as advertisements.
   The contents reference a specific product.
   The disseminator is economically motivated to distribute the speech.

Alone, each indicium does not compel the conclusion that an instance of speech is commercial; however, "the combination of all these characteristics...provides strong support for...the conclusion that the  properly characterized as commercial speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And IMHO fox is commercial in its hypeing of GOP candadits ,fundraisers ,and the endless streem of pointless redundent factualy in correct (cite OBIlLY) books,tea paty ,morons and idiots  

True, the commercial speech test permits more stringent restrictions on speech, and “[w]hether the printed material is commercial speech depends upon the existence of three distinct attributes: (1) [advertisement?], (2) [particular product?], and (3) [economic motivation?].”  Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U. S. 557, 562-563 (1980); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771-772, n. 24 (1976).

But, the Court looks to “the nature both of the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation.”   Your cite leads to Bolger v. Youngs Drugs, 463 US 60 (1983), which held that the printed material in question implicates “‘substantial individual and societal interests' in the free flow of commercial information, [and] also relates to activity which is protected from unwarranted state interference,” and is thus unconstitutional.  (463 US 68, 75).  “We thus conclude that the justifications offered by [the federal] appellants are insufficient to warrant the sweeping prohibition on the mailing of unsolicited contraceptive advertisements.”  Id. So the Court did find commercial speech, but still used the balancing approach in holding that the First Amendment outweighs federal interest in prohibiting the printed materials.

I like the way you think, but unfortunately Bolger found to the contrary and held that the First Amendment did prohibit government intrusion on the questioned printed matter.  Bolger is in fact a case that limits commercial speech, rather than applying it.  A clue is in the fact that Justice Marshall wrote it.

To call Fox News commercial speech would be to throw the baby out with the bath.  Even admitting Fox News is about trumpeting the GOP and its candidates, that ‘product’ would be prima facie political, rather than commercial speech.  The argument on the political level is to watch MSNBC and shout back with Rachel Maddow.

Oh yes…and vote. We Democrats lose more off-elections because we represent the working people, and work makes it harder to get our voters to the polls. I hate to say it, but unless the election is a big splash, working people tend to ignore it.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
then don`t go after then for free speech go after them for Commercial speech


Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court does not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment. To effectively distinguish commercial speech from other types of speech for purposes of litigation, the Court uses a list of four indicia:[119]

   The contents do "no more than propose a commercial transaction."
   The contents may be characterized as advertisements.
   The contents reference a specific product.
   The disseminator is economically motivated to distribute the speech.

Alone, each indicium does not compel the conclusion that an instance of speech is commercial; however, "the combination of all these characteristics...provides strong support for...the conclusion that the  properly characterized as commercial speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And IMHO fox is commercial in its hypeing of GOP candadits ,fundraisers ,and the endless streem of pointless redundent factualy in correct (cite OBIlLY) books,tea paty ,morons and idiots  

True, the commercial speech test permits more stringent restrictions on speech, and “[w]hether the printed material is commercial speech depends upon the existence of three distinct attributes: (1) [advertisement?], (2) [particular product?], and (3) [economic motivation?].”  Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U. S. 557, 562-563 (1980); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771-772, n. 24 (1976).

But, the Court looks to “the nature both of the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation.”   Your cite leads to Bolger v. Youngs Drugs, 463 US 60 (1983), which held that the printed material in question implicates “‘substantial individual and societal interests' in the free flow of commercial information, [and] also relates to activity which is protected from unwarranted state interference,” and is thus unconstitutional.  (463 US 68, 75).  “We thus conclude that the justifications offered by [the federal] appellants are insufficient to warrant the sweeping prohibition on the mailing of unsolicited contraceptive advertisements.”  Id. So the Court did find commercial speech, but still used the balancing approach in holding that the First Amendment outweighs federal interest in prohibiting the printed materials.

I like the way you think, but unfortunately Bolger found to the contrary and held that the First Amendment did prohibit government intrusion on the questioned printed matter.  Bolger is in fact a case that limits commercial speech, rather than applying it.  A clue is in the fact that Justice Marshall wrote it.

To call Fox News commercial speech would be to throw the baby out with the bath.  Even admitting Fox News is about trumpeting the GOP and its candidates, that ‘product’ would be prima facie political, rather than commercial speech.  The argument on the political level is to watch MSNBC and shout back with Rachel Maddow.

Oh yes…and vote.  We Democrats lose more off-elections because we represent the working people, and work makes it harder to get our voters to the polls.  I hate to say it, but unless the election is a big splash, working people tend to ignore it.

Ok then its the obious one libel
Fox news has made/repeated  numurios claim`s and accusations that are demonstrbley false from the birther ,Muslim,drum still being beaten from time to time to bengazie (!!!squrill!!!!! )  

In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990),[181] the Court ruled that the First Amendment offers no wholesale exception to defamation law for statements labeled "opinion," but instead that a statement must be provably false (falsifiable) before it can be the subject of a libel suit

First of all its called the Fox news channel not the fox opinion channel therefore it is presenting its self on the surface as a "news channel" when most of its programming is opinion with news in it
we have Sky news its news all day everyday (well every 15 mins )it has its little sections papers,sport,wheather but its all news same with the bbc news channel
so right there you have them on false advertiseing and misleading the public

And thats what bugs me the most about fox its unbalanced political media war mongering of the worst kind
it claims to be the most watched "news "channel yet you have to take it with your cable packages

The only way I see to balance things a little is not to go after fox directly ,rather the cable tv suppliers who bundle fox news with other content so you're forced to take it.Some mechanism needs to be in place to not contribute to a channel revenue that you have a fundamental  personal dislike of
That's like forcing me to pay union dues when not in a union and we know the GOP types  are not fond of that idea
So when people decide that they don`t need to pay for that crap anymore rateings will fall, revenue will dry up fox is on the big slide to nowhere

Re: the split between the monied conservatives and the Tea Party -- I honestly wonder about the Tea Party at times. I was doing some reading on them the other day and came across this:

The majority of the movement’s rank and file seems to share that skepticism (toward free trade). Recent polls by the Pew Research Center and NBC News found that more than 60 percent of tea party members hold a negative view of free trade and trade agreements — a higher share than is found among Republicans or the population as a whole.

If tea party members apply their stated principles consistently, they should embrace every opportunity to promote free trade.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-tea-partiers-antitrade

WTF? Free trade is a basic tenet of right-wing, ahem, "thought" ... kind of a fundamental part of the whole, actually. How can you take anyone seriously who doesn't even understand the political concepts they're claiming to support? I might as well say I vote Democrat because I believe in low taxes and issuing guns to babies.

no the biggest threat is the people who listen to this creep and whole heartedly buy into it without even TRYING to think things out for themselves.

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

True, the commercial speech test permits more stringent restrictions on speech, and “[w]hether the printed material is commercial speech depends upon the existence of three distinct attributes: (1) [advertisement?], (2) [particular product?], and (3) [economic motivation?].”  Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U. S. 557, 562-563 (1980); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771-772, n. 24 (1976).

But, the Court looks to “the nature both of the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation.”   Your cite leads to Bolger v. Youngs Drugs, 463 US 60 (1983), which held that the printed material in question implicates “‘substantial individual and societal interests' in the free flow of commercial information, [and] also relates to activity which is protected from unwarranted state interference,” and is thus unconstitutional.  (463 US 68, 75).  “We thus conclude that the justifications offered by [the federal] appellants are insufficient to warrant the sweeping prohibition on the mailing of unsolicited contraceptive advertisements.”  Id. So the Court did find commercial speech, but still used the balancing approach in holding that the First Amendment outweighs federal interest in prohibiting the printed materials.

I like the way you think, but unfortunately Bolger found to the contrary and held that the First Amendment did prohibit government intrusion on the questioned printed matter.  Bolger is in fact a case that limits commercial speech, rather than applying it.  A clue is in the fact that Justice Marshall wrote it.

To call Fox News commercial speech would be to throw the baby out with the bath.  Even admitting Fox News is about trumpeting the GOP and its candidates, that ‘product’ would be prima facie political, rather than commercial speech.  The argument on the political level is to watch MSNBC and shout back with Rachel Maddow.

Oh yes…and vote.  We Democrats lose more off-elections because we represent the working people, and work makes it harder to get our voters to the polls.  I hate to say it, but unless the election is a big splash, working people tend to ignore it.

Ok then its the obious one libel
Fox news has made/repeated  numurios claim`s and accusations that are demonstrbley false from the birther ,Muslim,drum still being beaten from time to time to bengazie (!!!squrill!!!!! )  

In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990),[181] the Court ruled that the First Amendment offers no wholesale exception to defamation law for statements labeled "opinion," but instead that a statement must be provably false (falsifiable) before it can be the subject of a libel suit

First of all its called the Fox news channel not the fox opinion channel therefore it is presenting its self on the surface as a "news channel" when most of its programming is opinion with news in it
we have Sky news its news all day everyday (well every 15 mins )it has its little sections papers,sport,wheather but its all news same with the bbc news channel
so right there you have them on false advertiseing and misleading the public

And thats what bugs me the most about fox its unbalanced political media war mongering of the worst kind
it claims to be the most watched "news "channel yet you have to take it with your cable packages

The only way I see to balance things a little is not to go after fox directly ,rather the cable tv suppliers who bundle fox news with other content so you're forced to take it.Some mechanism needs to be in place to not contribute to a channel revenue that you have a fundamental  personal dislike of
That's like forcing me to pay union dues when not in a union and we know the GOP types  are not fond of that idea
So when people decide that they don`t need to pay for that crap anymore rateings will fall, revenue will dry up fox is on the big slide to nowhere

Well, now you are in the area of regulating and affirmative legislation.  You have to ask, first, what is the purpose of such regulation?  Is there some inherent harm in calling a show ‘news’ rather than ‘opinion’?  Even assuming your premise that it is false and misleading, the law of libel requires that it harm the reputation of a plaintiff.  A falsehood that harms no one, or just exists abstractly, harms only moral and political sensibilities.  The answer when your sensibilities are offended is not legal, but to argue back...or as I say, shout back.  There's no monetary or material loss; no damages, as they say in law-speak.   You are making that leap when you try to apply the law of libel to affirmative legislation to limit news content...a lawsuit is redress for damages, legislation is a statutory edict.

Second, the “provably false” idea goes to the opinion v. fact distinction: in order for something to be a statement of fact, it must be of a nature that can be classified and characterized as true or false (“provably false”).  We call this a 'verifiable' speech act.  As Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist argues in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), while ‘Jones is a liar’ is provably false, ‘Jones shows his abysmal ignorance' is not.  In my personal opinion, this is making distinctions without a difference, nevertheless it is SCOTUS law.  (Still, I predict that this is an argument that can, and will be destroyed in cases in the future.)

That said, how are you going to hone that into a weapon to combat what Fox News is doing?  You craft an legislative scheme that would target the bundler, but is Fox News mandatory in the package…as in your analogy to labor unions?  If a customer can simply reject the subscription to Fox News, where is the coercion?  Moreover, isn’t it a less onerous alternative to simply make all channels elective and separate, rather than a part of a bundle?  I suspect that this is what you would see once you passed your proposed restrictive legislation.

Finally, you attack Fox News for its alleged falsity, but you go after it circuitously via the market.  How do you know Fox News is not just as marketable with all of its alleged lies?  I keep stressing, in this and other contexts, that speech is affective and not just verifiable…conservatives like to allege falsities, and indeed they incorporate it into their game.  They have to, because obfuscation is their whole game.  It doesn’t matter if it is true or false; to allege Obama is a Muslim, or he wasn’t born in the US, or that there are death panels provided for in the Affordable Care Act, is to hurl invective, not speak verifiable truth.  If enough people want to do that, they will pay.

Again, I like your thinking and where you are going.  You've got the craft down really well...you just have to take more into account.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Re: the split between the monied conservatives and the Tea Party -- I honestly wonder about the Tea Party at times. I was doing some reading on them the other day and came across this:

The majority of the movement’s rank and file seems to share that skepticism (toward free trade). Recent polls by the Pew Research Center and NBC News found that more than 60 percent of tea party members hold a negative view of free trade and trade agreements — a higher share than is found among Republicans or the population as a whole.

If tea party members apply their stated principles consistently, they should embrace every opportunity to promote free trade.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-tea-partiers-antitrade

WTF? Free trade is a basic tenet of right-wing, ahem, "thought" ... kind of a fundamental part of the whole, actually. How can you take anyone seriously who doesn't even understand the political concepts they're claiming to support? I might as well say I vote Democrat because I believe in low taxes and issuing guns to babies.

Think of where these guys come from.  Old, Hamiltonian conservatives in America come from the ranks of bankers and financial interests of the northeast...New York, Boston and Philadelphia. we used to call them silk-stocking Republicans--men like John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller.  They are the privileged and polite of America.  No dirty hands...we have maids and gardeners to do that.

But the new conservatives--those brought into the Republican Party by Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy of post-1964--come from Birmingham, Atlanta, Jackson, New Orleans and Dallas.  They don't give a sheit about banking and world trade.  They are living a script, emphasizing southern Baptist religion, the superiority of whites over blacks and Hispanics, guns, wars and anti-intellectualism.  They are the old populists.  The two factions have married, but not yet blended.

The Tea Party draws disproportionately from the ranks of the latter.  People have moved around, but the factions hold together.

Cass wrote:no the biggest threat is the people who listen to this creep and whole heartedly buy into it without even TRYING to think things out for themselves.

I sort of Disagree those people are 'stupid' but not necessarily evil, they are easily convinced IF a man like O'Reilly was actually a good man he could mobilise large numbers to commit to good causes. Even Christianity, if they focused more on the Charity and forgiveness you could do a lot to reduce homelessness in the USA. (and to be fair some do)

Now as O'Reilly uses his position to further the divide between rich and poor create and maintain conflict and disunity in the community that is why HE is worse than any of the fools that follow him.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Ok then its the obious one libel
Fox news has made/repeated  numurios claim`s and accusations that are demonstrbley false from the birther ,Muslim,drum still being beaten from time to time to bengazie (!!!squrill!!!!! )  

In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990),[181] the Court ruled that the First Amendment offers no wholesale exception to defamation law for statements labeled "opinion," but instead that a statement must be provably false (falsifiable) before it can be the subject of a libel suit

First of all its called the Fox news channel not the fox opinion channel therefore it is presenting its self on the surface as a "news channel" when most of its programming is opinion with news in it
we have Sky news its news all day everyday (well every 15 mins )it has its little sections papers,sport,wheather but its all news same with the bbc news channel
so right there you have them on false advertiseing and misleading the public

And thats what bugs me the most about fox its unbalanced political media war mongering of the worst kind
it claims to be the most watched "news "channel yet you have to take it with your cable packages

The only way I see to balance things a little is not to go after fox directly ,rather the cable tv suppliers who bundle fox news with other content so you're forced to take it.Some mechanism needs to be in place to not contribute to a channel revenue that you have a fundamental  personal dislike of
That's like forcing me to pay union dues when not in a union and we know the GOP types  are not fond of that idea
So when people decide that they don`t need to pay for that crap anymore rateings will fall, revenue will dry up fox is on the big slide to nowhere

Well, now you are in the area of regulating and affirmative legislation.  You have to ask, first, what is the purpose of such regulation?  Is there some inherent harm in calling a show ‘news’ rather than ‘opinion’?  Even assuming your premise that it is false and misleading, the law of libel requires that it harm the reputation of a plaintiff.  A falsehood that harms no one, or just exists abstractly, harms only moral and political sensibilities.  The answer when your sensibilities are offended is not legal, but to argue back...or as I say, shout back.  There's no monetary or material loss; no damages, as they say in law-speak.   You are making that leap when you try to apply the law of libel to affirmative legislation to limit news content...a lawsuit is redress for damages, legislation is a statutory edict.

Second, the “provably false” idea goes to the opinion v. fact distinction: in order for something to be a statement of fact, it must be of a nature that can be classified and characterized as true or false (“provably false”).  We call this a 'verifiable' speech act.  As Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist argues in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), while ‘Jones is a liar’ is provably false, ‘Jones shows his abysmal ignorance' is not.  In my personal opinion, this is making distinctions without a difference, nevertheless it is SCOTUS law.  (Still, I predict that this is an argument that can, and will be destroyed in cases in the future.)

That said, how are you going to hone that into a weapon to combat what Fox News is doing?  You craft an legislative scheme that would target the bundler, but is Fox News mandatory in the package…as in your analogy to labor unions?  If a customer can simply reject the subscription to Fox News, where is the coercion?  Moreover, isn’t it a less onerous alternative to simply make all channels elective and separate, rather than a part of a bundle?  I suspect that this is what you would see once you passed your proposed restrictive legislation.

Finally, you attack Fox News for its alleged falsity, but you go after it circuitously via the market.  How do you know Fox News is not just as marketable with all of its alleged lies?  I keep stressing, in this and other contexts, that speech is affective and not just verifiable…conservatives like to allege falsities, and indeed they incorporate it into their game.  They have to, because obfuscation is their whole game.  It doesn’t matter if it is true or false; to allege Obama is a Muslim, or he wasn’t born in the US, or that there are death panels provided for in the Affordable Care Act, is to hurl invective, not speak verifiable truth.  If enough people want to do that, they will pay.

Again, I like your thinking and where you are going.  You've got the craft down really well...you just have to take more into account.

I dont know about the craft and thanks for the complment
if any thing i am perhapps "A friend to the court"

the common man so to speak with a common mans view

And to be fair
i dont`t think the same way as most people do ....:-)

veya_victaous wrote:

Cass wrote:no the biggest threat is the people who listen to this creep and whole heartedly buy into it without even TRYING to think things out for themselves.

I sort of Disagree those people are 'stupid' but not necessarily evil, they are easily convinced IF a man like O'Reilly was actually a good man he could mobilise large numbers to commit to good causes. Even Christianity, if they focused more on the Charity and forgiveness you could do a lot to reduce homelessness in the USA. (and to be fair some do)

Now as O'Reilly uses his position to further the divide between rich and poor create and maintain conflict and disunity in the community that is why HE is worse than any of the fools that follow him.

no some of them are evil, some stupid, some a combination of both. He panders to a fear based reality that fir whatever reason these people swallow whole even with factual evidence put in front of their noses. He is paid to be divisive and sees no reason to stop the gravy train. If these people didn't buy into the crap he spouts then he wouldn't be where he is. Its like they live in a pararell universe.

Lets just hope that someday soon, he and Rupe and all of the other lovelies at faux news do a Glen Beck and so overreach themselves that they'll be discredited but I ain't holding my breath.

it is a bit Chicken and egg

Do the stupid/evil feed the idiocy cycle or are they the victims of the idiocy cycle.

I'm of the opinion those people will always exist and always have. through out history they have always been suckered into the schemes of others. Bad leaders/demagogues take advantage of this large group with statically lower than average intelligence for their own personal gain.

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

True, the commercial speech test permits more stringent restrictions on speech, and “[w]hether the printed material is commercial speech depends upon the existence of three distinct attributes: (1) [advertisement?], (2) [particular product?], and (3) [economic motivation?].”  Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U. S. 557, 562-563 (1980); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771-772, n. 24 (1976).

But, the Court looks to “the nature both of the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation.”   Your cite leads to Bolger v. Youngs Drugs, 463 US 60 (1983), which held that the printed material in question implicates “‘substantial individual and societal interests' in the free flow of commercial information, [and] also relates to activity which is protected from unwarranted state interference,” and is thus unconstitutional.  (463 US 68, 75).  “We thus conclude that the justifications offered by [the federal] appellants are insufficient to warrant the sweeping prohibition on the mailing of unsolicited contraceptive advertisements.”  Id. So the Court did find commercial speech, but still used the balancing approach in holding that the First Amendment outweighs federal interest in prohibiting the printed materials.

I like the way you think, but unfortunately Bolger found to the contrary and held that the First Amendment did prohibit government intrusion on the questioned printed matter.  Bolger is in fact a case that limits commercial speech, rather than applying it.  A clue is in the fact that Justice Marshall wrote it.

To call Fox News commercial speech would be to throw the baby out with the bath.  Even admitting Fox News is about trumpeting the GOP and its candidates, that ‘product’ would be prima facie political, rather than commercial speech.  The argument on the political level is to watch MSNBC and shout back with Rachel Maddow.

Oh yes…and vote.  We Democrats lose more off-elections because we represent the working people, and work makes it harder to get our voters to the polls.  I hate to say it, but unless the election is a big splash, working people tend to ignore it.

Ok then its the obious one libel
Fox news has made/repeated  numurios claim`s and accusations that are demonstrbley false from the birther ,Muslim,drum still being beaten from time to time to bengazie (!!!squrill!!!!! )  

In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990),[181] the Court ruled that the First Amendment offers no wholesale exception to defamation law for statements labeled "opinion," but instead that a statement must be provably false (falsifiable) before it can be the subject of a libel suit

First of all its called the Fox news channel not the fox opinion channel therefore it is presenting its self on the surface as a "news channel" when most of its programming is opinion with news in it
we have Sky news its news all day everyday (well every 15 mins )it has its little sections papers,sport,wheather but its all news same with the bbc news channel
so right there you have them on false advertiseing and misleading the public

And thats what bugs me the most about fox its unbalanced political media war mongering of the worst kind
it claims to be the most watched "news "channel yet you have to take it with your cable packages

The only way I see to balance things a little is not to go after fox directly ,rather the cable tv suppliers who bundle fox news with other content so you're forced to take it.Some mechanism needs to be in place to not contribute to a channel revenue that you have a fundamental  personal dislike of
That's like forcing me to pay union dues when not in a union and we know the GOP types  are not fond of that idea
So when people decide that they don`t need to pay for that crap anymore rateings will fall, revenue will dry up fox is on the big slide to nowhere

Well bugger me malicious innuendo

Lindsay Lohan sues Fox News over Hannity guest’s cocaine allegations
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/lindsay-lohan-sues-fox-news-over-hannity-guests-cocaine-allegations/

Yep, that's just the type of thing that will trigger a lawsuit.  This is the first I've heard about this, but some things you can tell right off.  Look at the statement:  “Lindsay Lohan’s mom is doing cocaine with her,” Fields said.  As a legal matter, it appears that's a statement of fact.

I'd say that this comment doesn't need any help from Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990).  That's a flat-out, in-your-face, verifiable claim.  Whether it's true or not depends upon the facts.  Either Fields has proof, or she is in for a long afternoon.

The article you offer doesn't go into the theory against Fox News, so we don't know what was the demand, nor what was the response.  The letter from Lohan's lawyers may have been something like: We're pissed off, lawsuit pending.  Or, it might have asked for a retraction, disclaimer or an apology.  We don't know, and we also don't know what evidence Fox News has in its pockets.

Anyway, a single lawsuit is not going to satisfy the broad policy goal of putting Fox News out of business.  Some tabloids and media businesses actually budget for these kinds of things, figuring that paying off a lawsuit is just the cost of doing business.  I'm not saying this is the case in this instance; I'm saying merely that we don't know.

It bears close watching.  I'll keep an eye out for anything more on the story.