When does free speech cross the line and become incitement, causation for violence? In law school, the old analogy of the guy in a dark, crowded theatre yelling "Fire" is the classic example of crossing the line. Does the speech concern items of interest to the public? Does it target public figures or private persons? Does it incite to kill or harm any particular persons? Is it blatantly, knowingly false and intended to deceive? If the line is crossed, sue or prosecute.

If not, be thankful you're not one of the fools. Olbermann, Madow et al are there to provide a counter weight, as is Moyers et al; let them do their jobs.

I think that is exactly the question Moyers is asking. Are these voices inciting violence? Are they doing it intentionally? I also think you (mtedone) are drawing a false equivalency between the above three you mentioned, (Olbermann, Maddow, Moyers) and those we saw in the posted clip. Not Olbermann, not Maddow, not Moyers has ever said anyone ought to be "taken out and shot" or be "given a care package of nuclear waste" or anything that resembles any thoughts of physical violence against another human being.
Big Ernie
Burnt Duck

We all have the right to 'reel out our tongues' and walk all over them. We also have the right, or choice, to ignore the rantings of those few, who are so filled with self hatred that they must project themselves onto others, and attack, in order to relieve their own sense of guilt and self loathing.

Big Ernie concludes that the conservative voices have yelled Fire. If so, they should be sued civilly for damages; or prosecuted for aiding and abetting murder. If Moyers takes a snippet out of context, that's another story. The Moyers program only gives us snippets ( ala Rev. Wright). The liberal voices must bellow the position of the left in such a way as to make the conservatives appear foolish and stupid. That's my point. Thanks, Ernie

mtedone, I agree with you. Liberals have failed miserably in their attempts to reveal to the majority of voters the hypocritical political stances of conservatives. You may have put your finger on the essence of the liberal's dilemma. Is it possible to outbellow the bellow kings? Even if you could, bellowing doesn't seem to be effective on thoughtful minds.
Remember, also, conservatives have a far larger, wider ranging, more comprehensive bellowing machine with Fox and Rush and hundreds of talk radio stations dangling on their puppet strings than do liberals have with their spotty, disparate and too often timid voices. Do you think that civil lawsuits are an answer? I can't see that as a real approach to this problem. How would it work in reality? Wouldn't conservatives just point the legal gun back at them and proclaim "See we are a sue-happy society and civil damages should be reined in and trial lawyers are killing free-enterprise?"
Seriously, I'm looking for answers here. How do liberals get their points across to the so-called "low information voters" that conservatives seem to have ownership of? This ownership is evident in the millions of people that actually vote against their own self interest. I'm looking for real answers to what I perceive is serious problem requiring not only creative but urgent attention. Let's start a dialogue, come one come all.
Big Ernie,
Burnt Duck

Anonymous, if you are seriously looking for answers, try this documented, factually based information that gives us some precedents to consider. While the main source of polarized political discourse (especially the use of stereotyping, scapegoating & dehumanization) is the right, statements of Olbermann, Maddow aren't always benign.

Both Republicans and Democrats (and I mean citizens even more than leaders) need to wake up and understand what we are doing with our language.

www.stoppolarizingtalk.org

You've raised several additional threads in this complicated fabric. The Supreme Court in Sullivan v, NY Times put the kabosh on most 1st Amendment law suits; civil libel actions are virtually impossible for public personages such as Hillary, Obama, Reid, Pelosi et al. They're fair game. These guys won't be prosecuted criminally unless you have video of Hannity placing the gun in the guy's hand. Criminal prosecution of words or thoughts without some affirmative action is a no-no in the USA.

The problem is in the public. If no one tuned into O"Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck et al, they'd be off the air. I believe that Olbermann, Maddow et al have a much smaller audience. You can't force people to believe as you do. They must be persuaded, they must agree with your ideas, so you must make your ideas more appealing than the Right.

For example, this "great victory" in the 2010 elections was won with 53% of 40% of the electorate. The turn out was abysmal. I would highlight this fact. The Left has to find a way to be the motivated minority who can convince the great Center that their ideas are best.

Are Beck et al mere shills for a small group of millionaires and billionaires? Where's the investigation into their motivation?

Perhaps the answer is far simpler than an oligarchical conspiracy. Perhaps a larger portion of Americans agree with these guys; or they're just better hucksters of the ideas (dope) that they're pushing.

That may be the biggest success of the right wing echo chamber-that they have actually convinced us that they are the majority-that most reasonable people agree with them when in point of fact if you survey voters on issue by specific issue, be it individual parts of the health care bill, roads and bridges, environmental reforms to name a few, the public agrees with the stances of the left. The right has perfected the art of demonization through generalization. "Government takeover" is one of their favorites. The comment above from stoppolarizingtalk.org is absolutely correct. "We the people" need to wake up and pay attention to the way our incredibly intricate and flexible language is being manipulated to manipulate us.

Big Ernie
Burnt Duck