sigh…. What part of my position is so hard to understand? Loving your neighbor does NOT mean you get to put a muzzle on them because you don’t like what they say, either on the left side, or the right. If that were the case, then EVERYONE would be walking about with a muzzle slapped on their mouths. Pushing the so called Fairness Doctrine would do just that! Do you not want to know all positions on an issue? Ignorance isn’t bliss….it’s just ignorance. Information is crucial, and we should ALL learn as much as we can!

Oh, and that false name? Well, EVERYONE KNOWS my name is K-A-T-E.

Yes, I do get a bit hostile when someone wants to take my rights away. So should you!

I chose to love my neighbor as myself, even the ones that aren’t so easy to love.  I’m sorry to have troubled you and wish you peace.  

So, it’s “hate speech” when coming from the right, even if it’s the truth? Perhaps if one of the ushers at the “church”had a gun, fewer would have been killed or hurt, but oh, I forgot….MOONBATS don’t believe in self defense! (I put church in parenthesis because this particular organization seems to have forgotten what that Book is for, and the lessons it teaches.)

Dehumanizing? Give me a break! Baby murder is dehumanizing. Forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for failed social programs is dehumanizing. Calling someone what they are….a MOONBAT? Naw…. I don’t think so.

Question: Because I have been called MUCH worse than that, do I feel ‘dehumanized’? Uh….not just no, but HELL no! I consider the source.

While, I realize you are trying to rationalize squashing the 1st Amendment, you picked the wrong place. This animal picked up a shot gun, and made the decision to murder. Rush Limbaugh has NEVER said a word about murdering liberals. Bill O’Reilly never has. Rhandi Rhodes HAS! Now, who is advocating hate? Are you trying to tell me that those who destroy private property in one of their “peace demonstrations” is rational, and THEIR 1st Amendment rights should be protected, but not someone like Limbaugh?

Yes, with free speech does come responsibility. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, is an excellent example. Yelling fire when there is one? Absolutely. And that’s what we have here. A fire. One that is burning out of control. Rational talk radio points it out. But like I said, I don’t listen to much radio anymore.

I welcome comments, and discussions, with varying viewpoints. Am I going to call you names? Not unless the name actually fits.

Did you or anyone else put the shotgun in his hand and drive him to the church?  No, but words have influence, especially those of highly-visible talk radio hosts who appeal to the emotions of their followers with sensationalist speech.  I believe that everyone who engages in hate speech bears responsibility for its results no matter what their political and social leanings.  (And by hate speech I refer specifically to speech that inspires hatred and dehumanizes.)  This is because with freedom of speech comes an ethical and moral obligation to use it fairly and wisely.  We aren’t talking about childish foolishness here, but instead about grown adults with the ability to think and act with reason and the ability to resist the urge to act in ways that endanger others. 

This may be somewhat extreme, but let’s say that the President decides that seatbelts aren’t all that important and says so in a press conference.  As a result some segment of the population stops using them, and the death rate in auto accidents goes up and is directly attributable to more people failing to use their seat belts.  It would be difficult under those circumstances to deny that the President’s public statement brought about loss of human life.  I see no difference in that analogy and the analogy being drawn on the TVUUC shootings.   Words have power, something none of us can deny.  If that weren’t true, all the political campagning going on right now would be useless. 

Far be it from me to advocate for putting a muzzle on others and deny their right to free speech.  Instead what I’m saying is that it’s about making a personal choice and using the power of influence in an ethical and responsible way.  There’s way too little of that, and I don’t just mean the Hannitys and Savages and Colters of the world.  I mean anyone of influence who uses their influence to dehumaniz others.  No, you wouldn’t be inclined to take out a gun and kill someone based on the hate speech you hear on the radio, but there are others who clearly are, and it’s them we are talking about here.  Using yourself as an example of why the argument is false holds no water at all. 

Oh yeah, it definitely is. What that’ll do is shut the libs up too, cuz no stations want to be FORCED to carry a show. Since the numbers for lib talk show, on the radio, are so in the tank, there won’t be anything anyone wants to listen to anymore. Can you imagine, an evangelical Christian station having to give “equal time” to an atheist? Stupidity at its finest. The norm for the moonbat libbist!