O'Reilly accused Oregon of "judicial fascism" on adult entertainment, medical marijuana, doctor-assisted suicide; ignored that all were affirmed by voters via ballot initiative
On the October 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show and on the October 11 edition of his Fox News program, Bill O'Reilly baselessly asserted that Oregon was "being hijacked by the judges." Infuriated by a recent Oregon Supreme Court ruling that a statute prohibiting live sex acts in adult venues constituted a violation of free expression under the Oregon state constitution, O'Reilly decried the action as "judicial fascism" and claimed that the Oregon judiciary wanted "to turn it [Oregon] into a secular paradise," falsely attributing Oregonian policies on physician-assisted suicide and medical marijuana to the courts. In fact, Oregonians themselves passed ballot initiatives to legalize physician-assisted suicide and medical marijuana. Moreover, while in this case the Supreme Court struck down an existing statutory prohibition against live sex acts, Oregonians themselves affirmed the right of the sex industry to free speech protections by repeatedly rejecting past initiatives seeking to exempt it from those protections.
O'Reilly said, "If the live sex act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it'd be voted down big -- remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage." While the outcome of a statewide vote on live sex acts is a matter of speculation, Oregonians have specifically rejected ballot measures to permit zoning rules for adult entertainment businesses in the past. In 2000, citizens explicitly denied the government the power to create zoning regulation for adult establishments (Ballot Measure 87, November 7, 2000), 771,901 to 694,410. In addition, by a vote of 652,139 to 549,754 Oregonians rejected Ballot Measure 19 (November 8, 1994), the title of which was "Amends Constitution: No Free Speech Protection for Obscenity, Child Pornography." A proposal to amend the state constitution to limit obscenity protections to those currently afforded by the federal constitution (Ballot Measure 31, November 5, 1996) was voted down 706,974 to 630,980.
Oregonians have also passed multiple ballot initiatives in support of physician-assisted suicide and the medical use of marijuana, contrary to O'Reilly's assertion, "And that's why they have the Supreme Court thing on assisted suicide, it's a medical marijuana controversy and on and on and on." The Death with Dignity Act, currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, allows doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication for terminally ill patients. The act resulted from a ballot measure that passed by a vote of 627,980 to 596,018 in 1994 (Ballot Measure 16, November 8, 1994) and was reaffirmed by a wider margin following a call for its repeal (Ballot Measure 51, November 4, 1997) by a vote of 666,275 to 445,830. Similarly, Oregon approved limited uses of marijuana for medical purposes in a 1998 ballot initiative (Ballot Measure 67, November 3, 1998) by a vote of 611,190 to 508,263.
From the October 10 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: That's what I said. I said the courts are never going to take the business away from anybody that's already established and make them move in Oregon. And that's what's going on. Look, what has happened here is the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], with the [Portland, Oregon, newspaper] Oregonian's help, has rammed down another pernicious ruling to the folks, pernicious meaning harmful, because of the secular progressive movement. That's what's happened.
And you guys living in Oregon, you should know. You know what's happening to your state. It's being hijacked by the judges. And they're going to turn it into a secular progressive paradise. That's what they're going to do. And that's why they have the Supreme Court thing on assisted suicide; it's a medical marijuana controversy and on and on and on.
From the October 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now my next comments are directed at our liberal viewers. How can you support a group as nakedly, pardon the pun, radical as the ACLU? This isn't about freedom. This is about imposing a radical secular progressive agenda on a country that has traditionally voted on public policy issues. If the live-sex-act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it'd be voted down big -- remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage. So once again, the ACLU is using an activist court to undermine what the folks want. This isn't democracy. This is judicial fascism.
[...]
O'REILLY: Well, they're winning. The ACLU is now -- you know, and as I said, if they put this on the ballot in Oregon, the folks will go, "Come on, we don't want this kind of a state here." We -- no zoning laws. I need to buy a house, and then two houses down, Larry opens Larry's Deli and Sex Emporium, but that could happen. And it will happen in Oregon.
Oregon is so cool. Go, oregon!
It is a telling irony that what O'Reilly refers to as "judicial fascism" many would call freedom. The judges in these cases were bound by state law to rule the way they did. Ignoring the law and imposing restrictions on these activities is what many would regard as fascist.
The people of Oregon have decided that the state should not make their decisions for them on matters of adult entertainment, end of life and the use of marijuana as medicine. Does that sound like a form of fascism to anyone?
Open Mind ... you nailed it ...
the only fascism going on is O'Reilly's "journalistic fascism"
I'm a bit mystified here. Could someone explain to me what is so terrible about a 'secular paradise'? Sounds like a good thing to me - why does O'Reilly think its a bad thing? (Comments such as 'Because Bill O'Reilly is an idiot, while true, don't count as explanations)
A secular paradise is bad to O'Reilly and the rest of the American Taliban. When they say "freedom of religion" they mean "freedom of Christianity". It's the oldest trick in the book. Accuse the other side of the very thing you are doing (fascism) so they cannot use it against you.
This is what infuriates me about Regressives. Through their twisted logic, they think that NOT letting them restrict the rights and freedoms of others is a violation of THEIR rights. It all hails back to the tired old "States Rights" argument that they tried to use to justify Slavery and Segregation. Somehow they think it's their right to curtail the rights of others. This philosophy drives the whole conservative movement, from their hatred of Activist Judges to their ridiculous "Intelligent Design".
I couldn't agree more. On the other hand, one can make the same point about progressives and economic liberties.
This is what infuriates me about Progressives. Through their twisted logic, they think that NOT letting them take other people's money is a violation of THEIR rights. It all hails back to the tired old "social justice" argument they tried to use to justify minimum wage laws and restrictions on free trade. This philosophy drives the whole liberal movement, from their hatred of capitalists to their ridiculous "comporable worth" idea.
Personally, a donate equally to the ACLU and the Institute for Justice, and I encourage others to do the same.
Not true about progressives. Conflating economic "freedom" with the freedom to not have the state sponsor one religion over another, the freedom to be treated equally under the law, the freedom to marry a loved one regardless of gender, and the freedom to exercise one's reproductive rights are ENTIRELY different. Economics is man-made, and there is nothing natural or "free" about unregulated markets, another artificial creation. Corporations are creations of the state.
Social rights and taxes are very different. I do not view taxation as an infringement on my rights but as an investment in my community and my nation's future.
Well said, Blueblood. Taxes are collected for practical reasons. If we want to live in organized, mutually beneficial societies, then taxes are required to run it. How much to collect and on what to spend it will ever be debated. However, to blame progressives for the existence of taxes is bogus.
It all hails back to the tired old "social justice" argument they tried to use to justify minimum wage laws and restrictions on free trade. This philosophy drives the whole liberal movement, from their hatred of capitalists to their ridiculous "comporable worth" idea.
by ichbin - Wednesday October 12, 2005 06:36:06 PM EST
===============================================================
ichbin,
To add to blueblood's information, I would like to point out a fallacy in the above aspect of you argument. I know of very few people that are vehemently opposed to a free market as long as some basic rules are in place (no lying about the service or product, etc). However, you should be aware that there hasn't been anything remotely like a free market for most goods and services sold in a very long time.
For a true free market, there needs to be hundreds (if not thousands) of choices for the consumers of identical (or very similar) goods or services. Very large farmer markets would be the closest to this...and those are very few and far between in this day. If you have any doubts, then answer how (in a free market) it would be possible for anyone to make substantially more money than another person...much less in the order of magnitude of millions to one. Can't happen in a free market (another person or company would undercut you long before you built up that level of compensation); therefore we don't have a free market (we are actually in a mixed economy) and making arguments in a free market context doesn't make any sense.
Since we don't have any real free markets, we do have to put up sensible rules to protect our citizens. Minimum wage laws force a limited supply of companies to provide at least minimal compensation (think hard why this would be necessary considering...and how absurd it is to argue against it considering that nowhere in the U.S. is it possible to even live on minimum wage). Free trade restrictions also tend to be much deeper than the name implies - a good example is NAFTA ( [link to en.wikipedia.org] ) where one of the larger concerns about it's passage was in regards to the potential loss of jobs in the U.S. and Canada. It really isn't all the unusual for a perfectly profitable company to move it's location so it can make even more profit...but should it happen?
by ichbin - Wednesday October 12, 2005 06:36:06 PM EST
Congratulations on a very believable impersonation of a regressive. It sounds exactly like what I’ve heard conservatives argue, something that proves the term conservative vs. liberal is redundant, as you can actually be a liberal conservative believing in little or no taxation (social conservative), but a completely unregulated market (market liberalist). Perhaps we should use terms like authoritarian vs. liberal instead? Anyhow, I’m digressing now, so back on course.
What I see as a big problem with the conservatives beloved “free” market, is how not free it in reality is. The big corporations has grown so big, their now in a win-win situation in every competition. In other words, the core of capitalism which is competition is no longer really a matter in a completely unregulated market. Now its big fish vs. little fish rather then company vs. company – and what happens then? Yup, the big fish wins every time.
Just think about it, what is more likely today if you start a company of your own; that you or your children or grandchildren will see your company grow and become large and successful, or after certain amount of successes some guy with a fat wallet will come with a briefcase so stuffed with cash you’d be foolish to say no to selling your company? The latter seems more common.
If that wasn’t enough the big fishes seems to marry in increasing numbers, merging into larger fishes that you’d be foolish to even attempt to combat. Even if the product you offer is superior to the product of the big fish AND cheaper, you’ll lose eventually anyway. Trust me, I’m seeing this first hand being part of a small company myself. One of our products is technically beating the butt of one of the larger corporations in Norway, being superior in features and price – but don’t you think people rather buy the product of the big fish, just because they’ve been around seemingly from beginning of time and can afford tons more advertising then us? Yup, we’re losing that battle. Though, if we were winning that battle, you BET we’d eventually be swallowed by the big fish anyway.
So considering this, can regressives still figure the ideals of the “market liberalists” are working in reality? Which ideals represent the most freedom for most of us – progressive or O’Reilly? Seems to me that regressives like O’Reilly are fund of restricting social freedoms for most people as long as you don’t touch the “freedom” of the market so only fat fish can win. I bet his flute would sound differently if he wasn’t a big time talking head with a comfortable bank account.
"And they're going to turn it into a secular progressive paradise. That's what they're going to do."
Oh no, Bill. Anything but that.
Basically put, it seems as if Bill O'Reilly is questioning the logic and wisdom of the whole concept of Initiative and Referendum, allowing interested citizens to sponsor ballot initiatives having the force of law, basically bypassing the folderol and ex-lax of the legislative process.
(BTW, it was California Governor Hiram Johnson who created the whole idea of Initiative and Referendum in 1909 as part of the larger Progressive movement to take government out of the smoke-filled rooms, and the special interests dominating them, and into the hands of the Great Booboisie.)
And, in the process, O'Reilly would rather have America deploy the Nazi German device of plebiscite, so infamously perverted to "approve" of the annexation of the Saarland (1935), the annexation of the Demilitarised Rhineland after German troops marched into same (1936) and the Anschluss into Austria (1938). All replete with the manipulation of the media (State-controlled, remember) to urge a vote of Yes in the name of Hitler, Germany, and the Thousand-Year Reich, no contrarian opinions allowed.
(Incidentally, the Rhineland was demilitarised per the Versailles Treaty, and placed under League of Nations control. Likewise with the Free City of Danzig.)
Hey Bill, we VOTE on this stuff out here in Oregon. Sometimes the judges agree with us, other times they use their power to strike down the ballot measures we vote in. Your Oregonian fans get to have their say at the ballot box. It's time for you to get over it AND LEAVE US ALONE.
I thought it was particularly humorous that he was able to come up with a conspiracy between the ACLU, and that bastion of liberalism, the Oregonian. *ROFL*
Oh, for the love of all that's sacred...can you say cherry-picking??
Can we in Massachusetts join you? Our wonderful blue state (only 14% of the entire population of the state is registered republican, the rest is mostly democrat and independant) has been hijacked by a far-right repuglican who doesn't seem to understand that we actually respect people's rights. Can anyone say same-sex marriage?? Romney and the church seem to be the only people trying to take that away... Though I think if BO came here, he'd be lynched...
What is interesting about Oregon is we have the Blue vs Red state problem within Oregon itself. If you looked at a map, most of the state would probably be red.
But, as an Oregonian who has lived on both sides of the Cascade mountains, I am familar with the fact that cows and sagebrush do not get to vote. Oregon like most Western states have almost all their population living in a few metro areas.
For most of the West they are called "Small Towns" for a good reason.
Bill should realize that the founding fathers were secularist and deists to boot. (shudder) That Washington and Jefferson both raised marijuana and I am betting that at least Jefferson as an amatuer botantist had some ideas of its possible use. And given some of the odd things that he invented or cobbled together that are at Monticello, he probably had first hand experience with its effects. (gasp) But if all these things were voted on I have but one question, why does BO hate democracy so much?
I've notice that the Right-wing has a habit of calling judges "activist" when the judges don't rule the way the right-wing wackos want them to rule.
If the voters of OR want legalize physician-assisted suicide and medical marijuana THAT IS THEIR pejorative. And as far as the “secular paradise” thing goes. Earth to Bill – are you suggesting we all live under your theocracy? Yeah, that would be better. Bill O’Reilly is IMO a walking, shouting dung heap. How can ANYONE with a brain not see he is full of not only himself, but a smelly slurry composite that almost always emulates from the rear end of an oxen or male cow. (that last sentence was for the benefit of the prudes that like to flag any comment that has even a hint of profanity)
If the voters of OR want legalize physician-assisted suicide and medical marijuana THAT IS THEIR pejorative.
by Roy Demeo - Thursday October 13, 2005 08:59:19 AM EST
Do you have the same attitude when voters vote to ban gay marriage?? Is that also their pejorative (??)?
The difference is that one expands personal freedom and the other restricts it. Can you guess which one is which?
The issue of denying marriage to gays is taking a right away from a group of people because of a religious view - that should play no part in passing of laws. Right-wingers do understand the fundamental difference - they just don't agree with it because gay marriage offends them for some reason. I am a straight man happily married to women, but I don't think that just because I choose to do that means someone who believes differently, say a man or woman attracted to the same sex should be denied the same rights as myself. And usually it is the right-wing evangelical types that want to deny the gays these right. Religious beleifs have NO role to play in lawmaking. that opens up a whole can of "whose religious beliefs"... But the aurguement was not gay marriage - it was medical pot and assisted sucide. Lets stick to the issue.
"Do you have the same attitude when voters vote to ban gay marriage?? Is that also their pejorative (??)?" -- carramba
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I do believe that citizens of an individual state the right to vote in favor of forbidding gay marriages to take place within their state if that is truly the wish of the majority -- and that's precisely the point!. Conservatives and/or Republicans had no objection whatsoever to the Governator's recent veto of the court ruling in California regarding gay marriage because of the majority vote in 200 in response to Proposition 22. However, what this means is that O'Reilly's argument concerning the state of Oregon doesn't have a leg to stand on. If you truly believe in states' rights as most conservatives and/or Republicans claim to, then you must be willing to apply these more or less wholesale as long as the majority decision does not explicitly contravene anything which is already included in the Constitution. If you believe that states' rights only apply to to those people whose views conveniently happen to coincide with your own, then you are cherry-picking and you are a hypocrite -- it's as simple as that. In that instance, what you believe in is not states' rights but states' privileges because you're demanding that the people in that state provide prerequisite proof that they are entitled to have their wishes met.
If you claim to believe in states' rights and insist that the rights of the majority in California must be honored, then you must on principle agree to honor those of the majority in Oregon. Are the wishes of the citizens of California somehow more deserving than those of the citizens of Oregon purely on the basis of your agreement or lack thereof with your own personal views? If you say yes (as O'Reilly has implicitly done here), then you're simply twisting logic in order to suit your own agenda -- as is anyone, frankly, who disputes Governor Schwarzenegger's veto yet supports the majority votes within the state of Oregon.
"If the voters of OR want legalize physician-assisted suicide and medical marijuana THAT IS THEIR pejorative." -- Roy Demeo
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the words of Inigo Montoya (The Princess Bride)..."I do not think it means what you think it means." I would suggest that both you and Carramba check your respective dictionaries -- my guess is that you meant the word "prerogative", because "pejorative" means something else altogether.
True, the term pejorative means negative or bad. It can be an adjective or a noun, depending on how one uses it.
Example:
The recent court ruling was portrayed in a pejorative sense.
The man employed pejoratives to describe his boss.
Why does this man have his own tv show, btw? There just HAS to be a more entertaining paranoid/schizophrenic out there with something delusional to say. Why not give Art Bell the time slot following O'Rielly -- then he might be worth watching -- if only for contrast of character!
I especially like how he has to define the word "pernicious" (meaning harmful) because the average FOX viewer doesn't know what it means...
As a proud Oregonian of 25 years, I can say that Bill is full of it here. Medical marijuana and assisted suicide were balloted initiatives passed by the voters one or more times. We do have zoning laws applied to siting sex businesses. And Mr. Bill, being a strong supporter of capitalism, you should realize the good citizens of Oregon vote in support of these businesses by throwing their dollars at them. They don't stay open as a charitable cause.
What we do fight here in Oregon is the attempted hijacking of our progressive history by the right wing evangelicals. They've successfully brainwashed much of the state in believing that any tax is bad, any form of government is a danger and that a return to the Wild West mentality of "it's my right to exploit anyone and anything" is somehow good for the state.
Cybernanny didn't like the Man-Donkey thread.
"to turn it [Oregon] into a secular paradise,"
I hope this is true, Bill, me and my wife are seriously thinking about moving there. Now it seems more inviting than ever.
On another note. Does Bill (sexual harraser) O'Reilly really think the ACLU is a "radical" group like he claims or is it just his delusions talking? I mean compared to the NRA for example? The KKK? The Neo-Nazi movement?
Are you serious?
Bill is just dutifully emphasizing his talking points.
When it comes to the sex industry in Oregon, Bill overlooks another important statistic. Portland has the most strip clubs per capita in the nation. Ballot box aside, this should make it clear to Bill about how we feel about looking at naked people here in Oregon.
Where I live, we have the most churches per capita. Want to trade?
That's it - I've had enough! This thread has gone on too long and I continue to get pissed off with things Bill O'Reilly and his ilk say. Well no more - I have had an epithany. O'Reilly is a fool, and by commenting on things that he says we just give him more oxygen, which is exactly what he craves. The best way to deal with him is to ignore him. From now on, I will totally ignore everything he says or does. If I see the name Bill O'Reilly (or Rush Limbaugh, etc, etc) I will move on without reading more. I urge you all to do the same.
Where's the fun in that?
We also have more bookstores per capita as well. Listen If BO doesn't like it he can book his loofah a flight to somewhere else. Oregon is my home and I was born here. My other post was deleted so I am reposting. I voted for these when they hit the ballot and I hope the SCOTUS dooesn't over turn either of them. Rightwingers always seem to want to control others.. who cares? They should concentrate on their own lives not the lives of others. It really chaps my hide to see the hypocrisy they exhibit when it comes to states rights or just about any other issue. People who want to cram their ideals down our throats need to get a life. Having a choice is not the same either, it's not mandatory to end your life or smoke marijuana. They want to choose YOUR choices for you. If they were in charge and the roles were switched it would be forced on you, you WILL take marijuan you WILL end your life. I want choices the trighties want to limit them or make them for you.
I might be alone on this but I feel voters dont have the final say when it comes to gay marriage. Just because a majority of people in a state want to deny equal rights to those whose lifestyle they disagree with doesnt make it correct or constitutional..ballot initiatives in my opinion cause more problems than they solve, they are also at times worded in ways that can affect the outcome of the vote. The fact is most people do not care about who gets married or the sanctity of marriage, furthermore how would you know if someone was gay or married to begin with. still waiting for rational intelligent fact based discussions on why it should be banned.
"Just because a majority of people in a state want to deny equal rights to those whose lifestyle they disagree with doesnt make it correct or constitutional." -- Vegabaja73
--------------------------------------------------------------
On the whole, at least with regard to the subject of gay marriage, my inclination is to agree with you -- however, I have to stand by what I said in an earlier post and say that you either believe in the rights of the majority to decide what they want for their state, or you do not. You can't justifiably claim that the decisions of the majority in Oregon should be honored while denying the same to the majority in California, nor vice versa -- by definition, rights are defined as freedoms which we have simply by virtue of our citizenship and which we are not required to earn by meeting prerequisite conditions beforehand. On the whole, I think it far preferable for delicate issues in which law becomes inevitably entangled with morality and/or religion (abortion, right-to-die, gay marriage, etc.) to be left to the states rather than decided on the federal level. I'm opposed to a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on these grounds because that is an attempt to enforce what is primarily if not exclusively a religious belief on the people as a whole regardless of whether they follow that religion or not -- and in that respect, it's not that much different from the way in which the British crown required the colonists to pay taxes to the Church of England as well as to the state regardless of whether or not they were Christians or indeed had any religion at all. Allowing the states to decide is not an ideal solution since there will probably be a few people who "fall through the cracks" -- but it at least offers people a chance to move (if necessary) to one of the states where they can have the opportunity to live more or less as they see fit, at least unless or until our society as a whole decides to re-evaluate the concept of marriage as a civil as well as a spiritual union.
For myself, I feel that the more reasonable solution would be to dispense with marriage as a civil status altogether. I've been saying for several years now that in my opinion, the only way to resolve this issue in a fashion which would fulfill the wishes of the most people insofar as possible would be to have two entirely separate forms of partnership status within our society -- one civil union which is recognized under the law, and one personal union (which is called "marriage") over which the law has no jurisdiction and which is recognized solely within that person's religious or spiritual community. Two ceremonies would be required of all couples who wished to have their union recognized both by the state and within the religious community -- religious unions would not be valid in the eyes of the law, and religious communities would have the freedom to decide for themselves to recognize the civil union or not. Religious or spiritual communities would be under no obligation to admit or recognize couples whose unions did not coincide with their beliefs, and they in turn would be unable to prevent same-sex couples from enjoying all the same rights as opposite-sex couples under the law.
Under our Constitution, majority rule is never absolute, at the state or federal level. The majority can be convinced to approve just about anything given the right circumstances (look at the 2004 election). The Constitution is designed to protect certain rights against the whims of the majority.
judicial facism would apply to any judge who doesnt agree with your core beliefs, for a party who screams about judicial fascism and activist judges, the republicans and conservatives sure do have a blueprint for what they want in a judge and want they want smells exactly like they condemn...conservative judges who will judge based on a preconceived opinion and ideaology
you would think a perv like oreilly would welcome live adult entertainment. The fact is Oreilly is a tv tabloid anchor who believes the garbage he says, he's such an egomaniac and junk peddler that his show should be seen as what it is..the ramblings of an idiot.
I hope everyone sends Billy boy an email. I always do when he is caught lying. I am very very polite and ask why he lies in ways that are so easily caught?
I then say, "Didn't your mom and dad tell never to lie, because when you are caught you look foolish and unreliable?"
So if everyone would do the same and do it nicely, if nothing else he would be constantly reminded that he is easily found out.
I also tell him in every email he has a pulpit to tell the truth even when it is against his philosophy because no one can call you on it. That he has a terrific opportunity to do the right thing and lying is NEVER the right thing.
One thing I noticed about O'Reilly is that he constantly uses the term "secular" in contexts that have nothing to do with religion.
I find it quite frustrating.
He uses any opportunity he can to demonize those of us who support secularism.
A few weeks ago he was reporting on the ACLU and their opposition to voter ID cards in Georgia. He described the opponents of ID cards as "the secular left."
I am sure it is just not secularists who oppose the ID cards.
I also believe he is trying to equate secularism with atheism in the minds of his viewers.
"I am sure it is just not secularists who oppose the ID cards."
I believe that the "survivalists", who are generally religious, also oppose them. I'm sure some of the evangelicals also consider national ID cards as the "Mark of the Beast."
The founding fathers gave us a secular Constitution, and the Religious Right has been chapped about it for over 200 years.