Reply #18: you misstate the case facts [View All]

show me where oreilly advocated KILLING tiller.

he DIDN'T

he advocated "stopping" him. there is a huge difference.

if you want me to get into the case law surrounding incitement i'll do so. i have yet to see anything that comes REMOTELY close to that standard from oreilly.

assume that the guy who killed tiller hung on every word of oreilly and then went out and killed tiller (which is an assumption not in evidence, but assume it), that would NOT make oreilly criminally culpable unless his speech was a clear incitement to kill the guy, which it is not. we don't do "results based analysis" of free speech issues.

this is a free society and i see no law oreilly broke. as a law enforcement officer myself i uphold the constitution. and i damn well know free speech law.

i understand this area of speech law. i have been involved in dozens of investigations involving terroristic threatening, and other forms of ILLEGAL speech.

i have yet to see one clip or transcript of oreilly that crosses the line.

study the case law and get back to me.