Egads! Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly has found an obscure caveat buried deep within the bill of rights that our country has been ignoring for the past 200 years (O.k. to be fair I think I remember it being trotted out a few times in the 1950s before the hippies came on the scene, rolled it up and smoked it). It turns out that “Dissent is only valid when based on sincere beliefs with factual back up.” And to think our great nation has been so wrong for so long.
Fortunately, O’Reilly has created a complex algorithm to help us differentiate “legitimate dissent” from “Anti-Americanism.” In his illustrative example, Bruce Springsteen criticizing the war, remains legally-protected speech (barely), while Sean Penn’s discussion of Venezuela on the David Letterman show is treason. Find out how it all works, after the jump.
Here’s what Bruce Springsteen said, as an example of legally permissible speech under the O’Reilly algorithm:
In the past six years, we've had to add to the American picture rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no Habeas Corpus to the neglect of our great city of New Orleans and the people, an attack on the Constitution, and a loss of our best men and women in a tragic war. So this is a song about things that shouldn't happen here happening here.As you can see, complaints over the loss of once-beloved Constitutional protections remain permissible. As O’Reilly notes, “his words are legitimate dissent in my opinion.” But O’Reilly points out that Springsteen comes very close to the line here. “However,” he warns “I don't respect the dissent unless Springsteen can back up his opinions with facts. Violations of Habeas Corpus, Bruce? When and where? Attack on the Constitution? How so?”
I hope you read that carefully, because it’s important if you ever want to see your wife and children again (haha kidding sort of!). Even though there is no real argument whether habeas corpus has been restricted in certain circumstances, the burden is still on you, the “dissenter,” to be able to explain where and how if you are planning to bring it up. Be careful here, readers. In fact, you may want to consider not dissenting at all, as this gets to be murky territory.
Sean Penn, speaking on Letterman, offers us a clear example of impermissible “Anti-American” speech, which is not protected by the Constitution. Here are the words that got him into trouble (Again, we publish the following as a public service only. Reprinting them should not be considered an endorsement of illegal speech):
SEAN PENN, ACTOR: I found him very fascinating guy, very - you know, he's done the moment incredible things for the 80 percent of the people that are very poor there. But a fascinating character, somebody I'm writing about and...The difference here, obviously, is that what Sean Penn’s comments are “based on provable falsehoods.” As O’Reilly takes care to point out, the RCTV television network was never trying to kill Chavez. In fact, he notes, it was the competing “GlobalVision [sic] network that old Hugo thinks is trying to kill him. That's still operating. So once again, Sean Penn doesn't know what he's talking about. How shocking.”DAVID LETTERMAN, TALK SHOW HOST: Yes. Is he talking about nationalizing the media? That always makes me a little concerned when somebody's talking about doing that.
PENN: He's — He's. Well, you know, one of the things that's been said about him is that he shut down a television station. What happen is that for — since 1998, they had been encouraging the assassination of Chavez every day on that channel, something that they would have gone to prison for here. And so, he just didn't re-up that license.
Of course, here O’Reilly is most likely referring to the “GloboVision,” network. And he seems to misunderstand the role of RCTV in destabilization campaigns between 2002 and 2004, but being “wrong” in itself is not impermissible speech, so long as the speaker maintains a “pro-American” worldview.
Look, I know it all sounds complicated now but after a few decades of hearings and gulags and stuff we’ll all get the hang of it.
