The Rush man is at it again:

Dreaming of Riots in Denver

I think it's pretty funny, reminiscent of the food fight metaphor being used on this site.

However, there might be serious repurcussions of this little tasteless joke that was broadcasted repeatedly. So, a question for debate:

Is dreaming for riots (on air) in Denver during the Democratic convention the same as trying to incite riots?

Keep in mind that Rush is broadcasted on the public airways. There might still be a few FCC rules being enforced.

Clearly, his comments have to be taken within the context of which he was speaking. He was merely pointing out Al Sharpton's promise for "trouble" and sought to bring that out by using rhetoric. It really is a minor matter and he was just trying to draw out Sharpton's sillyness. This is another example of "gotcha!" swiftboat politics. It is nice to see Rush on the receiving end of it as he likes to dish out so often. I'm sure he will rant and rave about how he is being so persecuted.

Assuming he isn't so stoned he goes deaf again.

Some rhetoric Rush has then.

And, the link that AM has in his post tones it down quite a bit. I guess some legal types got ahold of him and told how much trouble he could be in, if he kept this meme up. Because here's what he said on Wednesday's show:


Here's the audio porion of this, courtesy of youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjwE-kJpyts

He's saying the objective is to force a riot in the streets, complete with burning cars and buildings. Sounds like a little more than a "pleasant dream" to me. In fact, it sounds to me like he doesn't give a damn about the people or property of Denver. He's making a blatant call for violence in the city of Denver, in the furtherance of a political agenda.

And then, just to emphasize the point, he said it again, directly to a caller:



And just in case we hadn't heard him correctly, a third time:



http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5112.guest.html

Limbaugh ought to be investigated for this in my opinion. And should there be a riot in Denver, and anyone arrested mentions Limbaugh's comments, he ought to be thrown into prison for inciting violence.

I can see a lot of liability on RL's part. His entire schtick has been based upon the idea of ditto-heads, a term that some take as a compliment. Anything Rush says is okay in their books.

Colorado has its share of loonies. We've had them in state and local government. These are people far over the edge and they might be even farther gone now that the Republican machine in Colorado has been pretty much dismantled by popular vote.

So it looks to me that nobody has to mention RL's name should riots break out in Denver this summer in order to draw a line of responsibility right back to RL. This is one that he can't spin out of. The evidence has been recorded and now we just wait and see.

I'm also fairly sure that the FBI is busy on this case. Should there be a conspiracy to create pandemonium at the Democratic convention, the cops will be watching and taking action. Remember: In 1968 there was no Web.

Niteguy:


He is referencing the '68 convention and mocking the democrat for being split like that potentially again. To him, they are made up of partisans who would feel cheated and who would probably let their feelings out in a less than desirable way, thus showing the electorate the true nature of some of these folks. THAT is his purpose. He isn't telling Obama or Hillary fans to grab the molotov cocktail and chuck it. He is pointing out that if there are protests and vitriolic speeches, or physical fights like in '68, it will get McCain elected as he and the party are the more sensible choices in Rush's opinion.



So if he accurately predicts that nutcases make a scene at the convention, thereby proving the party is split and unreliable, then he is repsonsible for it? That would be like blaming Jeremiah Wright should there be another terrorist attack. Didn't he after all, talk about: "The chickeeeeeeeeeeeens, have come home, to rooooooooost!" It's rhetoric folks, nothing more, nothing less about the potential instability of a party and how it would affect the outcome of the race.

Well, obscenity isn't protected speech, but Rush has been on the air too long for that charge to apply in this case. Let's look at the clear and present danger test:

Well, 'clear and present' in itself would indicate that the message has to present an immediate threat, not one months away. This isn't shouting fire in a crowded theatre, or Radio Rwanda telling the mob to 'cut down the tall trees'. So I don't think this is prohibited speech, however unwise it may be. There are more borderline examples throughout the civil rights movement in particular, and we wouldn't want to classify such speech as banned so Rush's idiotic spouting should be no exception. Even if there are riots in Denver, there would have to be evidence that Rush's speech weeks/months before caused those riots, a rather dubious premise I think, and not a precedent I'd like to see set.

Is dreaming for riots (on air) in Denver during the Democratic convention the same as trying to incite riots?

The incitement laws vary from state to state, most having to do with "urging" from five to ten or more people to riot (defined in New York State Law, for example, as engaging in"tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm". The federal Statute in relation to incitement (18 USC Section 2102) reads as follows:

While Limbaugh is admitting that "the objective" of Operation Chaos is "literal riots", his audience is hardly composed of those he would see as potential rioters - his "dream end" is that the opposition will break out into rioting. I don't think that expressing the desire to see acts of violence is necessarily promotion or advocacy.

A (flimsy) case could maybe be made that Limbaugh's astonishing ability to win votes for Hillary Clinton is some sort of goad to "Obama enthusiasts" that could prompt them to commit acts of violence and is, therefore, a sort of back-handed incitement. However, I doubt you'd find many liberal Democrats willing to testify that they were moved to riot on the streets of Denver because Rush Limbaugh thought it would be a good idea.

Rush's wishful thinking strikes me as irrelevant on the account that whatever riots may occur, they won't be due to any "incitement" he may or may not do prior to Denver. More often than not civil disturbances at a convention is the product of the hard core, unreconstructed Marxists and anti-globalist crowd. The worst you could ever hope for from the right is counter-protesting, but a riot it is not. I sincerely doubt there will be any follow up here.

Is dreaming for riots (on air) in Denver during the Democratic convention the same as trying to incite riots?


No. This is political satire. Like much political satire, it's in very bad taste. That doesn't mean it should be illegal.

One person quoted in the article has the right idea.



How about we all ignore this nonsense and move on?