Fox News Claims John Cusack Tweets Could Incite Violence
September 01, 2010 1:03 pm ET by Joe Strupp
An angry tweet by actor John Cusack against Fox News and its coverage of the lower Manhattan Islamic center controversey is being blown up by Fox in its own coverage of the incident, with claims it could incite violence and amounts to a threat.
A FoxNews.com web story on the incident stated:
Actor John Cusack went on a caustic Twitter rampage Sunday evening, attacking former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Fox News.
"I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS," Cusack tweeted.
Cusack has long been outspoken about politics. He supported Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election and has contributed to The Huffington Post, but this is the first known time he has stooped to the level of making threats.
Threats? Really?
The story then went on to ask a psychiatrist about the alleged spark his comments could have to incite violence:
And while the U.S. Constitution protects Cusack's right to speak his mind, some critics say he should be more careful about what he says, since he has more than 200,000 Twitter followers.
"His provocative tweets could easily incite a rabid fan to commit violent acts against Fox News Headquarters and others he names," said Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills-based psychiatrist and author of "Coping With Terrorism: Dreams Interrupted."
"Fans could not only be influenced because of their devotion to Cusack, the man, but also because of their love for one of the characters he plays," she told Fox411.Cooper Lawrence, the author of "Cult of Celebrity" told Fox 411: "The fear isn't that a celebrity will influence someone to do something violent or out of character due to the sheer devotion to the celebrity, the fear is that someone who is already vulnerable, mentally disturbed, already considering something dangerous, may be encouraged to do so if it is advocated by their favorite star,"
It doesn't say anything about some of Fox's own caustic coverage and how that might incite viewers.
It is consistent with the nonsense from this "news" organization along with "some would say"
Fox News FINALLY Refudiates Violent Rhetoric
Cusack wasn't even threatening anyone. He was making a satirical suggestion based on the controversy surrounding the so-called mosque at ground zero. There was no threat even implied.
Cabbie in NY has his throat slit, arson at a mosque construction site and a 7Eleven employee shot in Seattle today, all for "being Muslim".
Not to mention the protests against any Mosque being built ANYWHERE in the US.
mmfa, have any examples of fox news pundits calling for outright violence against specific targets?... there's been plenty of railing against them here for what was perceived as incendiary commentary... but i'd love to see examples of beck, hannity and o'reilly calling for the death of someone...
Not merely miming pouring gasoline on someone, but actually naming "People we'd like to beat to death with a shovel."
I sure no matter how hard you look, you'll never find something like that.
During the March 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Krauthammer said of AIG: "I'm all in favor of this heaping opprobrium. I don't -- I would -- I'd deny them the bonuses if possible. I would be for an exemplary hanging or two. Have it in Times Square, invite Madame DeFarge. You borrow a guillotine from the French so we can have a party. If that's what it takes to maintain popular support, let's do it." During the same program, Kondracke said: "I was going to recommend boiling in oil in Times Square."
I think Cusack was being sarcastic and was trying to make the point that F*(hs Noose is toxic for America because of the type of "journalism" the non-news network practices.
At least he got the welfare freaks part of it right. Many of the rw members of Congress have received salaries for years without having done anything that makes the life of the average American citizen better. The majority of what they do benefits those who are already rich.