O'Reilly baselessly claimed University of Oregon permits "attack [on] Christianity," but "wouldn't allow ... an attack on a minority group"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly has baselessly claimed that the University of Oregon has allowed its students to "attack Christianity," because a student-run newspaper recently published controversial cartoon images of Jesus but "wouldn't allow this if it was an attack on a minority group." In fact, the student paper -- The Insurgent -- is not the official University of Oregon student paper, and, according to the university's president, the school has no editorial control over what it publishes. Moreover, in publishing the Jesus cartoons, The Insurgent was apparently responding to a rival paper's decision to publish controversial cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, which have sparked Muslim outrage and rioting in Europe, a fact that O'Reilly repeatedly ignored in his coverage of the issue.
In recent days, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has baselessly claimed that the University of Oregon has allowed its students to "attack Christianity" because a student-run newspaper recently published controversial cartoon images of Jesus. During the May 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that the university "wouldn't allow this if it was an attack on a minority group" and called for Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer to be "fired" for allowing the images to be published. But O'Reilly has ignored two key facts in his coverage of controvesry. First, the student paper, The Insurgent, is not the official University of Oregon student paper, and, according to Frohnmayer, the school has no editorial control over what it publishes. Moreover, in publishing the Jesus cartoons, The Insurgent was apparently responding to a rival paper's decision to publish controversial cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, which have sparked Muslim outrage and rioting in Europe. Despite hosting the editor of the rival paper to discuss the Insurgent controversy, O'Reilly has never mentioned nor expressed similar outrage for the Oregon Commentator's decision to publish the Mohammed cartoons.
The University of Oregon has several student-run papers, including the Daily Emerald, The Insurgent, and the Oregon Commentator. Each receives some student funding from the university, but they are run independently of the school.*
In its March issue, The Insurgent published 12 cartoon images of Jesus. The Insurgent stated that it was publishing the images in response to Muslim rioting over the Danish publication of controversial Mohammed cartoons and also as a response to the Oregon Commentator's publication of the Mohammed cartoons the same month.
On the May 17 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly hosted Commentator editor Tyler Graf, who defended the Insurgent's right to publish the Jesus cartoons. O'Reilly disagreed, but nevertheless declared the Commentator to be a "responsible" paper, and the Insurgent to be "irresponsible." At no point during the interview did O'Reilly note the Commentator's decision to publish the Mohammed cartoons.
Moreover, despite O'Reilly's repeated insistence that Frohnmayer is a "coward" for not intervening or disciplining the Insurgent for the cartoons, as The Register-Guard newspaper of Eugene, Oregon, noted on April 27: "The Insurgent is not a university publication nor university supported." The Insurgent, along with the Commentator and others, do, however,receive non-taxpayer supported, mandatory "student incidental fees," and O'Reilly has consistently misrepresented the control Frohnmayer has over those fees. For instance, on the May 17 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated:
O'REILLY: [I]t's the old freedom of speech dodge, and this is what Frohnmayer is hiding behind, a former gubernatorial candidate in Oregon, I should add. And -- but it doesn't wash. Because, if any student publication funded by student dollars put a KKK out or a Nazi thing out, immediately the university would step in and say it violates the standards of this university. Since you have an office on campus, since you are using student funds, you have to cease and desist. You know it and I know it.
But, contrary to O'Reilly's repeated assertions, Frohnmayer has stated that he has no legal control over the content of the Insurgent or the Commentator. In his response to the controversy, Frohnmayer both condemned the cartoons and stated that Supreme Court precedents prohibited him from taking any disciplinary action:
Thank you for your note about the student publication, The Insurgent. I share your concern about the offensive nature of the content contained within the publication. I understand why it may seem as if the University should have prevented publication or should take some action against those responsible for the publication. The Student Insurgent is not owned, controlled or published by the University of Oregon and is funded with student fees. Therefore, the University cannot exercise editorial control over its content.
Further, neither the University itself, nor the Associated Students of the University of Oregon, can exercise control over content by using a threat of removal of fee support. The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on this matter. The Rosenberger and Southworth opinions restrict a public university's ability to make decisions about incidental fee allocations on the basis of the content or viewpoint expressed by a recognized student group. Simply put, neither content nor viewpoint is a lawful basis for denying an allocation of incidental fees to a student group.
From the May 22 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Now, The Register-Guard of Eugene, Oregon, a very liberal paper, then writes this article -- actually it's an editorial -- yesterday. Quote: "In response to Fox News commentator, Bill O'Reilly's charge that the University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer is a disgrace and a coward that needs to be fired, Frohnmayer shot back, 'Being called names by him is being -- like being called ugly by a frog.' "
It's not a bad line for Frohnmayer. The -- back to the editorial: "The only time problem with using the bombastic O'Reilly and a frog in the same simile is the disservice it does to a defenseless amphibian's reputation."
Uh, that's wit according to the Eugene newspaper. "Be that as it may, we come not to bury O'Reilly, but to praise Frohnmayer -- but to praise Frohnmayer -- for his appropriate, balanced effort to condemn deliberately offensive cartoons published in the campus newspaper while trying to help the public understand the important free speech principles involved in the debate." Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
OK. It's just garbage, it's just garbage. Because, again, they wouldn't allow this if it was an attack on a minority group. They would not.
From the May 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Thank you for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.
In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, a disturbing story out of Eugene, Oregon, and one that may offend some viewers.
In the March issue of the student Insurgent, a campus publication at the University of Oregon, partially funded by student fees, the image of Jesus is disrespected in shocking ways. Apparently, the students putting this garbage out hate Christianity and believe it is a destructive force in the world. So they used their tiny platform to abuse those who believe in Christianity.
Now, all of this would be inconsequential if not for the fact that the University of Oregon has done nothing about it, even though some students have filed grievances. The university president, Dave Frohnmayer, has done little, saying only the display was not wise. Frohnmayer is too afraid to appear with us this evening.
But joining us now from Portland is Tyler Graf, the editor of the Oregon Commentator, another student publication at the university, and Jethro Higgins, a junior at the school who's upset by the publication.
Mr. Graf, it's the old freedom of speech dodge, and this is what Frohnmayer is hiding behind, a former gubernatorial candidate in Oregon, I should add. And -- but it doesn't wash. Because, if any student publication funded by student dollars put a KKK out or a Nazi thing out, immediately the university would step in and say it violates the standards of this university. Since you have an office on campus, since you are using student funds, you have to cease and desist. You know it and I know it. But in this case you can -- you can brutalize the image of Jesus and nothing is done.
[...]
O'REILLY: Don't you think this is an extreme attack on a religion?
GRAF: Oh, yeah, I do not --
O'REILLY: I mean, we're talking about the most extreme, vile provocation a publication can make. Now, if it's off campus, and if it's private money, it's under the freedom of speech. But Frohnmayer has the obligation.
GRAF: Well, I don't think Frohnmayer has much to say in this.
O'REILLY: Of course, he does. He can shut it down tomorrow. He's the president of the college.
GRAF: Then you'd open up a lot of lawsuits.
O'REILLY: Well, so what? What's he there for? What's he there for? Isn't he there to have standards?
GRAF: I think he is there to have standards, but I think you have to understand Frohnmayer's way of handling issues on campus. He's very laissez-faire about these things.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I know.
[crosstalk]
O'REILLY: Listen, I understand that. And that means he needs to be fired. The board of directors of the universities of Oregon need to move him out and bring in somebody who can respect the traditions of the university.
[...]
GRAF: Yeah, I know. They're definitely aware now. One of the reasons why they are aware is because my publication, which runs a website -- we put the issue up online.
O'REILLY: OK. But the question is why -- why isn't there a student outcry over this?
GRAF: I think there is a student outcry over this.
O'REILLY: I haven't seen it.
GRAF: Well, there have been a lot of -- there have been petitions filed. There have been grievances filed. The fact of the matter is, though, that there's very little that student government can do in this instance.
O'REILLY: OK. But I know there would be protests if it were, as we mentioned, KKK or Nazi stuff. There are no protests visibly here. And I'll tell you why.
GRAF: That's an absurd thing to say. I don't think any publication would do that. I mean, this is an anarchist -- this is an anarchist-Marxist publication. They have strange views.
O'REILLY: I understand, and that's why there shouldn't be any student money in a publication like that.
GRAF: But my publication is a conservative-libertarian publication.
O'REILLY: Are you responsible? Yes. You are responsible. They are irresponsible, and that is where the president of the university comes in. And this man, Frohnmayer, is a coward and needs to get out.
Gentlemen, thanks very much. We appreciate it.
From the May 18 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, with Dave Lang of the Eugene chapter of the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic fraternal organization) and Rev. Carl Schlichte of the Newman Center at the University of Oregon's St. Thomas More University Parish:
O'REILLY: You're going to be waiting a long time. I mean this happened during Holy Week in March, and it's now the end of May, and Dave [Frohnmayer], as you put it, is hiding under his desk.
LANG: Yeag, there's no question about that, Bill.
O'REILLY: So, what do we do here, gentlemen? I mean, you are two leaders of the Christian community. I mean, I can't lead this crusade. I'm furious about it, because I think this is just a violation of the taxpayer, a besmirchment of the university, and Frohnmayer ought to be removed from his position. But I can't do it.
SCHLICHTE: Well, that's -- one part of our position has always been -- the Newman Center staff position has been encouraging the students to avail themselves of the ways that they can address this wrong in a way that we, as an outside organization of the university, simply can't do.
I mean, if I were to send a letter of protest to President Frohnmayer or the associated students, you know, they would look at it: "Oh, the Catholics are upset. How nice," you know, move on. But the students, however, are part and parcel of the university, and we have always encouraged the students to --
From the May 18 broadcast of The Radio Factor:
O'REILLY: OK. We asked the president of the University of Oregon to come on the program. He is too afraid to do so. His name is Dave Frohnmayer. Today, he said in the press that -- he attacked me, of course. This is the way they always do it. "Bill O'Reilly doesn't know what the first amendment from the back of his own hand, which is a shame because he takes full abuse of it," says the president of the University of Oregon, Dave Frohnmayer.
We're gonna do a follow up on TV tonight. Now, Frohnmayer has an obligation to the University of Oregon, to the state of Oregon, because it's a taxpayer-funded institution, to have standards on his campus. This is hate speech. Frohnmayer is a coward. He is afraid of the radical students who put this out. Frohnmayer has to go, has to go. Because you cannot have a major state-funded university using student union money for this kind of hate speech.
If it were KKK, Nazi stuff, Frohnmayer would've shut it down in a heartbeat. But it's OK to do this and to attack Christianity in this way. It's not OK. It's wrong; it cannot be funded by, by student fees. And Frohnmayer is a coward and has forfeited the intellectual high ground -- has to go.
It is a fundamental right and will remain so as long as we can reign in the O'falafels of the world trying demand that only THEIR speech be protected
I had to go back up and re-read that, because I found it incredible that he could have possibly said that 'freedom of speech' defenses were a dodge.
But sure enough, he said it!
Incredible.
Or at least it would be incredible coming from anyone but him.
Bill O'RealizingI'madolt: You are misinformed as to the paper's affiliation to the university...or you are lying. Please correct yourself... thank you, your loyal listener...
really now, it is Bull O'Btuse we are speaking of here!
First of all what were the Mohammed cartoons that the Comentator published. Second, why did the Insurgent find it necessary to counter these cartoons and why did it do it with cartoons that insulted Christians?
It is right for the Commentator to publish demeaning and offensive cartoon images of Muhammed, by the way in the Muslim of religion you never show the image of Muhammed, but it is completely wrong and irresponsible to show demeaning and offensive cartoon images of Jesus. You can't have it both ways.
that the image of muhammed is banned in the muslim religion.
There are alot of muslims that like to riot at the drop of a pin.
O'Reilly has one good point, if the Insurgent printed offensive pictures of gays, blacks, women, palestinians, et al the school would have been all over them.
Also, why does the Register Guard and Media Matters ignore the fact that the Insurgent receives money from the University through mandatory student fees? Since the University is mandating the fees going to support an operation that is NOT the official newspaper of the university, there are legal consequences sitting squarely on the university. The Insurgent clearly is university supported despite the lame Media Matters argument.
You can debate that the Insurgent should or should not have free speech, but accepting mandatory student fee money clearly makes them a university supported operation. The Insurgent, if they want to be free, needs to cut off that funding immediately.
[link to news.bbc.co.uk]
There is Freedom of Speech, and Freedom from Religion.
The stuff that Media Matters provided.
The University cannot stop these newspapers from printing whatever they want to. They cannot take away funding.
Too bad you didn't read before you spouted off.
It's not the first time I've seen you do this.
you have no idea what you are talking about.
Media Matters is not the final say on all matters believe it or not.
If a newspaper accepts mandatory student fees, it becomes affiliated with the university.
There is plenty of law precedent for this this. Google it yourself.
Ellie is of course correct and if you CANT show why the two court decisions, not MMFA, but the two mentioned court decisions somehow dont apply you are simply bloviating without any content
Was so easily obtained.
This is what I see everytime you I read your posts. As wrong as it is to generalize about people, you definitely fit the archetype of uniformed, uneducated, but highly opinionated Freako-Christian Republican.
First of all, ANY image of Muhammad is considered sinful based on the first commandent, idolatry. Therefore, any picture (sacred or profane) of Muhammad is considered forbidden and sinful. Furthermore, this belief covers representations of any living thing; no pictures of humans and animals, especially banned are pictures depicting sacred Islamic figures. Look it up, this is why "The Passion of the Christ" was banned in some Islamic countries.
Also, if the University of Oregon pulls money from the Insurgent they should pull money from the other paper. Pure and simple, both printed some offensive pictures and since both receive funds from the University of Oregon. Therefore, the University of Oregon is just as responsible for offensive Muhammad pictures as it is for offensive Jesus pictures.
The student fees were NOT ignored but specifically addressed. They mentioned specific court decisions that limit their ability to deny them as in:
The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on this matter. The Rosenberger and Southworth opinions restrict a public university's ability to make decisions about incidental fee allocations on the basis of the content or viewpoint expressed by a recognized student group. Simply put, neither content nor viewpoint is a lawful basis for denying an allocation of incidental fees to a student group.
Your weak attempt at a point disintegrates from there. Since denial of student fees is prohibited by the courts for this action exactly WHAT would you have the administration do to a newspaper that is outside their control.
...straw man, straw man, straw man.
It doesn't matter WHAT you think the university WOULD have done IF students published hateful things about gays, blacks, women, etc. In the real world, you cannot base a logical argument on what you think WOULD have happened and then put it out to the public as fact. We DON'T know what would happen. Nobody knows until it happens. The fact of the matter is that no matter what anyone says, it is protected speech. Just because O'Reilly doesn't like it, doesn't mean that the president of the university should be fired. Hell, I don't agree with ANYTHING Jerry Fallwell says as president of Liberty University (I think), but I don't call for him to be fired because I don't like what he says.
The university president has a point. O'Reilly is all for free speech as long as it is protecting O'Reilly. If O'Reilly doesn't agree with what you're saying, or not saying, you should be fired. Nice double standard for you freaking worthless hypocrites.
Why did one paper find it necessary to counter the other? If one paper stoops so low and publishes cartoons that offend Muslims the other paper found it necessary to stoop even lower in publishing cartoons that offend Christians? And no one has shown examples of the cartoons that offended the muslims. I haven't seen them. The ones of Christ were disgusting!
People never cease to amaze me. People are angry about the pictures of Christ and Muhammad. Why are you so insecure in your religious beliefs that such a thing makes you angry?
On another note, I witnessed a protest outside of a cinema last weekend. I went to see 'The Da Vinci Code'. Outside the cinema were some protestors, yelling that we are going to hell because of this movie and bothering people as they were waiting in line at the box office. Why do these people get a pass? Why do I have to be heckled for going to a movie? What happened to my rights to be able to go to a movie in peace without being harassed by some right-wing zealot?
Get a grip.
One newspaper did stoop low, and published cartoons mocking a religion, publishing pictures of a religious leader against the proscriptions of that religion.
Then another newspaper said to their readers -
Don't you see how this is offensive? Let's do it to your religion, even though it's not against your religion to show pictures of your religious patriarch, and see how you feel!
The second newspaper did not stoop 'even lower'. They did a less offensive thing, and they did it after the first newspaper did it to make a point.
They are not equivalent actions.
By the Commentator editors own admission, it "is a conservative-libertarian publication." Most conservatives, from what I gather, worship Jesus.
then Bull OhReally? has the right to express his outrage over the situation of note. Free speech works all ways. Did BullyBoy threaten bodily harm or death as did the radicals in Europe? Oh, of course he overhyped the situation looking for the Trifecta from Olderman this week.
Media Matters didn't question O'Reilly's right to say what he said. It merely pointed out his misinformation and hypocracy.
Plato
But I can see why you'd satrize FOLLOWERS of a religion (as long as its done tastefully), since they choose what dogma they follow. But it's wrong to attack minority ethnic groups because that's something you are born with and can't change.
What about Christian minorities, Bill? Can I attack them?
This is his favorite pose, shouting "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS" while lacking even the most basic of relevant information.
BillO wants the University's president fired.
Even though the publication in question has NO official affiliation to the school, and the school has NO control over its content.
Even though control of content is also known as "censorship", and court cases staunchly support First Amendment Rights.
And even though the "Jesus" cartoons were a REACTION to the publication of "Mohammed" cartoons published in a publication which is identically affiliated (though some funding) with the school.
If BillO were to actually give the FACTS about this instance, there would still be outrage ... that attacks on ANY religion (Christianity OR Islam, or any other religion) is highly controversial.
As it stands, the publisher of the "Jesus" cartoons got exactly the reaction they wanted: Christians who didn't understand the outrage at the publication of "Mohammed" cartoons understood perfectly how to get outraged when the cartoon was on the other foot.
It was this hypocricy being addressed, and mission accomplished. Only by distorting the issue and hiding the facts can BillO spin the outrage as an "official" unwarranted and unprovoked attack on Christianity.
I'm reminded of the character in the old "Popeye" cartoons, the one who ran around telling everyone "YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY". That character was treated, in the cartoons, as a mental incompetent and ignored. The perfect reaction.
"Even though the publication in question has NO official affiliation to the school, and the school has NO control over its content."
They are taking mandatory collected $$$ from the student body.
That makes them affiliated to the school.
The school should have editorial control over content because of this funding? Then the school should also rightfully be able to exercise editorial control over the Oregon Commentator which, by the editor's own admission in the interview, "is a conservative-libertarian publication."
I'm trying to grasp what your big hang-up is because the Commentator is just as guilty of desecrating a religious prophet as The Insurgent is. Does the Commentator get First Ammendment priviledge because it's conservative-libertarian? That's the hypocrisy cited by MMFA in this post.
please provide proof of "Mandatory Contributions" by the students.
The "affiliation" this newspaper has is the same type as INDEPENDENT COUNSELS have with the government. The Treasury pays the bills, but has NO CONTROL over the actions/content.
You may argue that if some funding is provided, then the University should retain veto power over content. That would be an argument for another day. If you WON this argument, then the U would also have to "cut off" funding to the "conservative" publication which published the cartoons depicting "Mohammed".
If the University decided to sever the partial funding from BOTH newspapers, I'd have no gripe with that.
But that's not your argument, is it? Retroactively, you think an "affiliation" with an agreed-to INDEPENDENT media source should spell the ability to censor. Even if that could be successfully argued (it cannot), then where is your outrage about Islam being assaulted by the cartoons about Mohammed? Hmmm? This was the event that STARTED this question about whether religion is "fair game" for ridicule by partially-school-sponsored publications.
Finally, the Christian Faith is either held, or is not. Cartoons, columns, movies, or ANY commentary which seeks to depict Christianity from a different standpoint cannot shake a true faith. Only a faith that is held tentatively and in fragile nature can be so threatened.
The issue here, bottom line, is O'Reilly's abject FAILURE to give all the relevant FACTS surrounding this issue. O'Reilly says (1) Christianity was "insulted", so (2) the University president should be fired. Period.
Such "outrage" is to be expected from a partisan, from a "defense attorney". This is why, in our trials, the advocate for the OTHER side gets equal opportunity to present its case. In this instance, the information O'Reilly LEAVES OUT is information which clearly tells the reasonable person that O'Reilly's conclusion is wholly unwarranted.
Ken Lay, like O'Reilly, told only the one side, the SELF-SERVING side, of his situation. With arguments like O'Reilly uses, his outcome would parallel Lay's. On a daily basis, MMFA presents the "mitigating" information that shows O'Reilly's presentation to be bogus and specious. O'Reilly is simply unconvincing, and the same is true of YOU, Leatherhelmet.
It is the information that O'Reilly left off that is relevant here.
It is common for those of your ilk to keep repeating the same statement over and over and over and over without coming close to making any kind of a point, considering the validity of the statement or even listening to the counter point.
Works well for talk radio, but not so for forumns.
Posting it three times does not make it any less idiotic.
If an organization recieves funds from some other organization, this does not in any way infer that the second has any influence or control over the first.
I live in a university town. They have given money to a religion center. So, they can now decide what the independant organization can and can't do?
They gave money to the Boy Scouts. Can they demand they stop being hypocrites and bigots (that one still breaks my heart as Scouting was such a HUGE part of my childhood).
Now Letherneck, try to follow. This is how it works: you make a statement and then provide some form of reasoning or justification for the point.
...or, you can post the same inanity for the fourth time. Hey, you don't work for the White House, do you by any chance? This is like deja vu.
Two student groups, College Dems and College Reps, each put out a newsletter. College Dems does something which BOR considers offensive, and he raises hell and eventually he were to win his way and College Dems has its funding stripped. Then College Reps does something that other people find offensive and the university president says "Well I have to take away their funding as well."
I wonder who would be first to raise hell.
My friend goes to this school. He told me about this a long time ago. He told me to visit their website and answer their poll that asked, "Did the cartoon go to far?" or something to that effect.
He was pretty upset about it.
Oh, and he's Muslim. Did I mention that? Yeah, people seem to forget that Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet of God.
I see this a lot by people who feel like Christianity is under attack by movies like The DaVinci Code. "They'd never do this to Islam." Well guess what? They just did. Jesus is a prophet of Islam.
It's okay to publish pictures of prophets.
It's not okay to publish pictures of Mohammed.
"One drawing depicts Jesus on the cross with an erect penis. Another, a painting titled "Resurrection," shows a sexually aroused Jesus and another man embraced in a kiss".
This is more than merely showing "pictures of prophets". This is inflammatory stuff.
Actually that is one of the tactics of such cartoons. IF the cartoons of Islam are the ones that the Danish paper printed then they showed Mohamed with a bomb in his turban. I think thats pretty offensive too. Bottom line the outrage should not go only one way. If there is no moral consistancy in an argument there is no moral base TOO the argument
Actually I thought Ellies post was implying that the prophet pictures weren't offensive.
If you did, you forgot the context of my statement immediately then.
The previous writer said that pictures of Jesus would be offensive to Muslims, just as pictures of Mohammed, because Jesus was a prophet. But that fact does not make both sets of figures equally offensive.
It was really pretty straightforward, and I cannot understand how you did not know this.
Yet another phony, or at least exaggerated controversy from the man who brought you the War on Christmas and Ward Churchill.
I can't believe people get into such a tizzy whenever their chosen set of bronze-age myths is mocked in some form or another.
"Yes, you have published mildly derogatory images of a figure that I believe produced excrement that smelled like roses because of faith. I will now go ape-crap because my silly beliefs and attempt to censor you. Because that is my right as a victim of your religious bigotry that amounts to little more than a humorous portrayle of a figure with questionable historical veracity."
The cartoons of Muhammed were just as derogaroty in their depiction as the cartoons the paper published of Jesus were. Can we all just calm down and admit that beliefs should be immune to all criticism and/or satirization just because we choose to call those beliefs "religious"?
I just copied/pasted that entry into AbiWord and noticed about 40 million typos and misspellings (this is an exaggeration). My apologies for any illegibility that results from such.
The ultimate "POWER conceit" is whether you, on your own, can "get someone fired".
Cops on the beat see this constantly, from petty felons to self-important miscreants, who threaten the police with "I'll have YOUR JOB for this!"
Seldom does the threat play out. It's an empty threat, because personal outrage or a persecution complex does not mean that the authority is out of line. It just means that you got embarrassed, and are pissed, and so you react by lashing out impotently.
So, this is how O'Reilly seeks to project his importance. If he can raise enough stink to get someone fired, then he feels EMPOWERED as a person.
It would be interesting to compile a LIST of all the people O'Reilly has claimed "should be fired", and how that has worked out for him. I understand Ward Churchill, for one, still has his job. So much for O'Reilly's "POWER".
When we have BillO spouting forth every night with something incredibly stupid. I laugh everyday watching Countdown and the Daily Show, but the real comedy is BillO.
is at it again, twice. First he is promoting that the war against christians is very real and secondly he smears and demonizes someone who attacked him to spin everything he sees.
Bill compares these cartoons with things of the KKK and the nazi's (of course!), which is totally different of course, unless you know nothing about it. An artists impression of the stance of the church on sexuality and gays is depicted by using jezus (who is the symbol of christianity), which is the same thing that happened with using mohanned (as a symbol of islam) to depict how moderate and extremist muslims yell to blow up everyone.
Bill wants everyone who criticizes christianity (and especially its narrow and restrictive views) fired. Criticizing the church and faith is allowed and there is nothing in the law that prevents from using jezus or whatsoever. There is however in the law a prohibition to discriminate. However, christians themselves are not depicted, so there is no discrimination here.
A lot of people on the LEFT hide behind freedom of speech to say or do the most outragious things to make people mad. No one is saying that it is not a right.
See, I say offensive things because I am a jerk. Never occurred to me that I would not be a jerk if there was no first amendment.
Now I get it! I see what you guys have been arguing all along. If we get rid of this pesky little amendment, then there will be no more jerks.
...sorry, I have to stop now, while I enjoy sarcasm like few others, getting my brain to dance around such obtuse and down-right silly "logic" is giving me vertigo.
(ps - sorry about the "obtuse", "silly" and synical quotes around logic, it is that darned first amendment making me be all snarky again. Darn amendment!)
It was just flat dumb. USING freedom of expression to say something is in no way, no possible reasonable interpretation can claim it is, HIDING in any way. It is expressing an opinion. This isnt even spin its delusion
I forwarded this to a friend, an Oregon alumnus, and this was his interesting take:
"May I add something to this? Notice in the clip that O'Reilly is posturing in front of the "O" symbol that represents the Atheletic Department, but not so much the University, which favors its circle with the mountain in it. Four years ago, upon a student referendum, the University of Oregon pulled its coaches' shows and game replays off of Fox Sports Network citing that the Fox empire's political agenda is unacceptable for a business partner of the university. The Oregon Atheletic Department was not bound by this referendum but opportunistically used it to try and make more money by forming their own network. Oregon games still show on Fox live because the Pac-10 has a conference deal with FSN, but Oregon is the lone holdout in refusing to sell its coaches' shows and replays to FSN. Thus, the Oregon Sports Network was formed comprised of television stations that purchase the rights to air the coaches's shows and game replays along with a package of games that ABC and Fox passed on through their relationship with the Pac-10. When you watch FSN-Northwest (I watch lots of Mariners games), you'll notice that you never see a Duck on any previews, only Huskies, Cougars, and Beavers. When you're out there, it's amazing how negative the FSN news shows are about the Ducks. O'Reilly is perfectly capable of being a dumbass without corporate motivation, but in this case, I can't help but wonder if he wasn't specially grinding a corporate axe against the school's Atheletic Department."
I am a student of the University of Oregon and a regular follower of both Media Matters and the Oregon Commentator.
I have also been paying attention this story. A lot of the national media outlets, blogs, and concerned organizations who have come swooping down into this controversy have had a lot of factual problems. Especially, but not only, O'Reilly.
The Commentator, for the record, is libertarian but is not necessarily representative of any religious persuasion. In fact, they have been incredibly supportive of their "rival" Insurgent, backing their right to free speech even on national television, as shown above. Also the very common false "hypocrisy" constantly being applied goes as follows:
From Conservatives: If this publication was demeaning or offended anyone but christians - say homosexuals, blacks, or musims - the University of Oregon would immediately shut it down.
From Liberals: When the Commentator made fun of Muslims by republishing the Muhammed cartoons, no one cared. But suddenly now that someone makes fun of Jesus, conservatives are all pissed off.
What is important to note about these so-called hypocrisies is the following: 1. Frohnmayer is a Republican. Let's just get that out of the way. While the American Family Association and various blogs were busy painting him as a Christian-hating pinko, this somehow got lost in the shuffle. 2. The University cannot, and will not, censor student publications. Its ability to do so is prohibited both by the Supreme Court in Southworth v. University of Wisconsin, and more or less by the principle that unrestricted discussion is essential to the education of citizens in a free society. Those interested should look up this decision. 3. The Commentator did not demean or try to offend Muslims the way the Insurgent did Christians. As someone who personally was not offended by the Insurgent, and personally thinks people like O'Reilly need to grow up and quit whining, I must say that the Commentator was much more responsible with their publication of the Muhammed cartoons. 4. The Insurgent did not publish the cartoons in response to the Commentator. This was falsely reported in the Daily Emerald, the campus paper, but Insurgent writers have explained that they came up with the idea before the Commentator covered the Muhammed controversy. 5. The Commentator is not necessarily pro-Christian or anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim or anti-any religion or pro-any religion or whatever. It might be a good idea to actually read the issue in which they published the Muhammed cartoons: Comics Kill. 6. As for the "if this made fun of minorities" argument... the Insurgent has made attempts to argue there is a difference between the powerless making fun of the powerful and the powerful making fun of the powerless, but I don't particularly buy it. I think, as an American who believes in free speech, that all speech, no matter how unpopular, demeaning, hurtful, absurd, erroneous, or offensive, should be protected. Nonetheless, the Commentator last year published material that many considered offensive to marginalized groups, and an effort was made to defund that publication as well. In the end, the University took the exact same stance it is taking now, and the result was the same as well: the right to free speech will be respected in accordance with the law. What is interesting about this is that the "if this was making fun of anyone else..." hypothetical is actually not hypothetical, and furthermore, is not hypocritical either.
I am hoping this will help clear up some of the confusion. I respect Media Matters and thank them for providing some background on this controversy that has impacted my campus in a extensive and, in my opinion, hilarious way.
The bottom line is that the University of Oregon and the Associated Students who fund the Insurgent cannot legally pull its funding even if they wanted to. Both Frohnmayer and student leaders have indeed mentioned that they found the material the publication ran to be offensive and immature, but nonetheless protected.
Because this will come into question when I provide my feedback, I'll mention that I'm a registered Democrat who's never posted here before but who appreciates what you do in the interest of slapping down that mendacious twerp O'Reilly, and I'm also the publisher of the Oregon Commentator-- the libertarian/conservative magazine on the UO campus. 1) The Commentator republished the Jyllands-Posten images for the same reason it republished the Insurgent images: they were newsworthy. That's right. The Insurgent doesn't maintain a website, so we scanned their issue and put it on the web. For better or worse, this freakish controversy is largely attributable to the fact that we posted their images on the web. We sort of wish we hadn't, but whatever. 2) We actually ran the Jyllands-Posten images in our print magazine, and we wrote about why we thought it was important to do so. Our decision wasn't anti-Muslim in the slightest. These are interesting cartoons (some of which are sort of anti-Muslim in their own right). Basically we are of the position that there are more creative ways of thinking about the present conflict between the West and the Muslim world, and that a way of pursuing these better ideas involves a) speaking freely, and b) allowing the fact that there are an awful lot of Muslims in the world who are reasonable, peaceful people, and they deserve their say. 3) The Supreme Court desision in Southworth v. University of Wisconsin states definitively that student incidental fees (which are not taxpayer-funded) must be distributed to student groups in a viewpoint-neutral manner. 4) Another aspect of the Southworth decision is that specifically political groups-- for instance, the College Democrats and the College Republicans-- may not receive funding from student incidental fees. As such, there is not an official College Democrat paper, nor is there an official College Republican paper. 5) The Oregon Daily Emerald is not the official, "school-sanctioned" paper of the University of Oregon. It is a standard, daily newspaper. The U of O has no official paper. 6) Yes, it was hypocritical of O'Reilly to let the Commentator off the hook by declaring us "responsible" while railing against the Insurgent. Mostly because he didn't justify his claims. Not that he'd have been able to honestly approach the issue either way. But we do like to think we're responsible. I mean, in the sense that we have principles. We believe in free speech-- for everyone, including the Insurgent.