Comments

  1. marco says

    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!

  2. MateoM says

    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.

  3. says

    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.

  4. says

    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.

  5. Carlos Abreu says

    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.

  6. Pete N SFO says

    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.

  7. e.c. says

    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.

  8. anon says

    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.

  9. Lucas H says

    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.

  10. says

    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.

  11. gomez says

    even screaming “you’re going to hell” in someone’s face should be legal. how many ways can falafel boy be wrong?

  12. says

    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?

  13. Mike says

    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 . . .

  14. GeoffreyPS says

    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?

  15. jamesINcambridge says

    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!

  16. andrew says

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

  17. ratbastard says

    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

  18. ratbastard says

    @ 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.

  19. says

    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.

  20. ratbastard says

    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.

  21. longshanks says

    @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.