Bill O'Reilly | FOX News | News | News Clips | Video

Bill O'Reilly: Telling a Gay Person They're Going to Hell Should Be Illegal - VIDEO

Screen Shot 2013-07-10 at 1.54.59 PM

Bill O'Reilly still has some tricks up his sleeve: on his show last night, the Fox News host expressed a belief that telling a gay person "you're going to Hell" should be illegal--at least, in some instances.

O'Reilly's guest last night was John Stossel--who hosts a weekly show on Fox Business--and the comment came amidst a discussion of American evangelist Tony Miano, who was arrested in London last week after preaching against homosexuality in front of a shopping center in Wimbledon.  According to the Telegraph, Miano was arrested "under the controversial clause of the Public Order Act which bans 'insulting' words or behaviour."

"I think that should be against the law," O'Reilly said of any hypothetical anti-gay preacher who "went up to a homosexual, got in his face and said, 'you're going to hell, you're going to hell.' He’s invading the person’s space. He’s bringing intentional, personal anguish to the person. I think that person should be protected.”

Stossel expressed some agreement with O'Reilly but said that the standard should be based on "fighting words" that were meant to incite violence.

Of course, telling someone that they are going to hell is protected speech here in the U.S.  Threatening behavior, on the hand, is illegal.

Watch the full exchance, plus an iconic Bill O'Reilly moment, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Are laws going to be crafted that say I can't call someone a homophobe/bigot/religious nut because that insults them? Because I certainly want that freedom!

    Posted by: marco | Jul 10, 2013 3:20:43 PM


  2. It shouldn't be illegal. I want the bigotry of these crazy, religious bigots to be on full display. I want them to feel the need to be open with their bigotry, so we as a society know not to trust them.

    Posted by: MateoM | Jul 10, 2013 3:26:03 PM


  3. Good god, how are you always wrong Bill? That would be terrible, you need to be able to insult people, also, hell is a made up place for some people and as far as the law is concerned, does not exist.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Jul 10, 2013 3:26:46 PM


  4. What makes Stossel think that those are NOT fighting words?

    Posted by: TomTallis | Jul 10, 2013 3:33:16 PM


  5. Freedom of speech needs to be as broad as possible. In Europe, they go too far. If it weren't for freedom of speech, there would be no such things as LGBT rights because the greater society wouldn't have allowed us to even speak our rights. Yes, freedom of speech protects hateful speech but we have the right to push back, we have the right to determine in a social forum what is an is not acceptable. It's best to keep that kind of thing out of courtrooms.

    Posted by: marshall | Jul 10, 2013 3:40:30 PM


  6. Telling me I'm going to hell, a fictional place, is like telling me I'm going to Neverland -- I don't see the harm.

    Posted by: Carlos Abreu | Jul 10, 2013 3:43:27 PM


  7. It would give me pause to see someone screaming that at gay parents while their children are present.

    I don't like it, but I think a part of me is hardened to their baloney... probably not the healthiest perspective.

    My beef, is when they get to occupy a public space w/ a sound system to amplify. Scream all day long w/ your own voice, but otherwise, it's a hijacking a of public space & a nuisance.

    Posted by: Pete N SFO | Jul 10, 2013 3:51:18 PM


  8. Don't be fooled. This is just a set-up for claiming that calling people homophobes or bigots is just as " hurtful" so shouldn't be allowed either.

    Posted by: e.c. | Jul 10, 2013 3:59:30 PM


  9. Technically, actions predicating violence or inciting violence could be construed as assault, so Stossel and BO are both a bit wrong there. However, the victim would need to press charges and would need to prove intent, which is a somewhat tall mountain to climb.

    Posted by: anon | Jul 10, 2013 4:13:31 PM


  10. I'm stunned that O'Reilly would suggest this. Don't get me wrong, I find those public preachers to be totally obnoxious, but arresting people because we think they are being "insulting" or "offensive"? That is the type of law that is just BEGGING to be abused by the police and court system. While it may be nice to see one loudmouth bigot get arrested for being a jerk, that same law could swing around and kick us right in the teeth.

    Posted by: Lucas H | Jul 10, 2013 4:22:22 PM


  11. Stossel is the creep who when he worked for ABC did piece in which he claimed Matthew Shepard's killers weren't homophobes but killed him in "a drug deal gone wrong."

    IOW he's lower than pond scum.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jul 10, 2013 4:29:25 PM


  12. WOW. Even when O'Rielly is being pro-gay he's a POS. That takes some doing.

    Posted by: Caliban | Jul 10, 2013 4:39:18 PM


  13. even screaming "you're going to hell" in someone's face should be legal. how many ways can falafel boy be wrong?

    Posted by: gomez | Jul 10, 2013 4:46:06 PM


  14. They can say whatever they want to me, but they need to be prepared for what I'm going to say in return. That's the real problem. Bigots feel free to go on the attack but cry pathetically when someone dares respond or defend themselves. I don't believe in hell so why should I be offended if someone tells me that I'm going to a place that doesn't exist?

    Posted by: Houndentenor | Jul 10, 2013 4:57:46 PM


  15. Ha. Once again a conservative proves he is anything but that.

    Posted by: Opinionated | Jul 10, 2013 7:09:46 PM


  16. No, that is freedom of speech. Want them identified for the CRAZY RIGHTWING NUTJOBS that they are! At the same time, I want to be able to truthfully call them a BIGOT without them playing the phony "martyr" card. This would fit right in with them saying that they are now being "persecuted" when in actuality they always have been and continue to be the violent aggressors! Them persecuted my a$$. That is like saying that the black guy who got dragged to death in south Texas was trying to steal the truck by pulling it with the rope attached to his pr*ck and the poor guys inside were just scared and trying to get away . . .

    Posted by: Mike | Jul 10, 2013 8:07:14 PM


  17. OK, I'll play devil's advocate. How is punching someone in the nose an assault and verbally accosting them OK? Aren't the words a form of assault as well? Is bullying with bruises different than bullying just with words?

    Posted by: GeoffreyPS | Jul 10, 2013 9:01:28 PM


  18. Everyone on Fox News is probably going to He11.

    Posted by: Jim | Jul 10, 2013 9:37:01 PM


  19. Bill isn't as dumb as many on the Left think he is; He occasionally says things that aren't far-right and bigoted in order to make him look sane in comparison to the lunacy that surrounds him on that network on a daily basis. I'm dead sure it's all calculated but still, anything that upsets his ancient, dying viewers is fine by me!

    Posted by: jamesINcambridge | Jul 11, 2013 12:19:42 AM


  20. Telling someone there is a hell, heaven, heavenly father etc should not be illegal it should just be ridiculous!!!

    Posted by: andrew | Jul 11, 2013 2:05:04 AM


  21. Phuk it! We'll do it live! We'll do it live! This thing s*cks! I'll write it, and we'll do it live!

    LMFAO

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jul 11, 2013 10:48:05 AM


  22. @ David Ehrenstein,

    I'm not defending Stossel's gratuitous and incorrect comments regarding Shepard's murder, but in fact Matthew Shepard [RIP] did buy and use drugs, including meth. And it is quite possible he knew his killers from other drug deals. In fact, it's possible he thought he was going to score that night when he went with them in their truck. Matthew liked to party and he was well known as being a druggie. Again, RIP. He of course didn't deserve what happened to him. But let's not sugar coat the situation. We're all I assume adults here.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jul 11, 2013 10:56:57 AM


  23. So Bill O'Reilly says something gay-friendly and the author's reaction is to post an embarrassing video of him. Being so politically partisan you refuse to give the opposing side any credit isn't a virtue. It seems that there are many who would prefer the battle of anti-gay vs gay-friendly always exist. That should be apparent to anyone. Oh and by the way. Democrats don't "love" you. They just like your money. Try to be more mature and pragmatic about politicians. Our objective isn't to be adored by the masses, but rather to secure our rights.

    Posted by: exleftist.com | Jul 11, 2013 11:41:03 AM


  24. I don't think O'Reilly is a bad guy. I think he's a reasonable guy and doubt he's 'homophobic'. Plus, my estimation of him went up after watching that clip where he loses it.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jul 11, 2013 11:58:32 AM


  25. @ratbastard - there is no evidence in the trial transcripts, confessions, or police investigations that Matthew Shepard's killers knew him or vice versa. ABC's reports relied on anonymous self-professed drug users six years later appearing only in shadow with voice distortion.

    Posted by: longshanks | Jul 11, 2013 4:40:50 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «New Study Suggests That Homophobia Stems From 'Fear Of Unwanted Sexual Advances'« «