[JohnHuang2]

Friday, January 3, 2003 Quote of the Day by JoeSixPack1

[Lion's Cub]

Since Fox would have no interview without Bennett's participation, I fail to see why he doesn't have as much right to use the interview as Fox does. He's not using the entire show--just the portion that has his interview. Even if the court would disagree with that argument, I'd say Bennett is still protected under Fair Use.

I personally think Fox is making a big mistake by going ahead with this suit. A lot of us think O'Reilly made an ass of himself, and we are entitled to that opinion. I'd actually forgotten about this, but now I see that O'Reilly is just one ass amoung others at Fox.

[Always Right]

Bill O'Reily is an anti-Christian hate-monger. O'Reilly needs to examine his own bigotry and fanaticism on this issue.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Since I'm tee vee-less I've only heard O'Reilly on the radio one time. He seemed pretty mild to me, but I've read a lot of threads where he seems like Mike Savage but not had the actual evidence of this. (and I'm a fan of Savage).

O'Reilly is wrong on this, and some people here have said he's a huge bloated egotist (O'Reilly), but he is friends with Rosie O'Donnell (the Irish connection perhaps?) and so that might color his opinion.

I know that O'Reilly seems good on lots of other issues.

He's wrong on this one, and I think a Court of Law, even a very liberal one would see this.

[FreePaul]

I liked O'Reilly until I started listening to him on his radio show. He comes on as arrogant and abusive. I no longer listen to him although I do agree with a lot of what he says. He has taken positions on some things that I think disqualify him as a conservative. I believe that he is trying to gain listeners by being confrontational without regard to the issues.

[B. Rabbit]

This is a problem with the conservative party, I think. I'm not for pragmatism, but O'Reilly thinks like most of us with regards to most issues. He differs on a few, and on a couple quite substantially, but this does not make him someone who is "not a conservative" IMHO. I would rather have him have a top rated show than Martin Sheen or some other hardline liberal.

Economics and foreign policy should be (again, IMHO) the rallying points for this party. Everything else is a secondary issue. They are important, don't get me wrong, but liberals can cause much more damage when they control these issues than any other issues, and conservatives can do the most good...

[DB]

O'Reilly attacked the man on a TV interview on O'Reilly's turf. It seems only fair that the man be able to use the clips of the events to rebut that attack on his character in basic self-defense.

[William Terrell]

However, Bennett's legal defense, the American Family Association, maintains that the tape is legal because it uses excerpts from the interview for the purpose of commentary.

FR didn't get very far with that defense. Maybe it'll get to another circuit court of appeals and yield a different ruling. Then we can all go to the Supreme Court.

[Aquinasfan]

But Bennett says the "O'Reilly Factor" interview turned out instead to be "about Bill O'Reilly's theology."

In which case there isn't much to debate. Theology isn't Bill's strong suit. Ignorance isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's a problem when you think you know something when you really don't.

[AppyPappy]

Gotta live those Libertarians like O'Reilly. They want freedom for themselves but restrictions on everyone else.

[RightOnline]

I generally like and agree with O'Reilly.......but he's flat dead-wrong on this one.

[Sungirl]

If FOX starts suing people...who would risk going on his show and speaking their mind?

[txoilman]

I quite watching Bill O'Really because he is only about ratings. His arrogance turns me off and he is dead wrong on many issues.

[buffyt]

I saw O'Reilly in person in Houston a few years ago. He was saying some pretty negative things about gays. Now he seems to have softened on the gay agenda. I wonder why. I wonder if he found out a relative or friend is gay. I know that when I found out my nephew was gay it changed me. I do not approve of his lifestyle, but I don't want anyone to beat him up or abuse him because he is gay. It broke my heart when I found out he is gay. But being gay is no worse than getting a divorce and remarried. Sin is sin. That is all.

[RooRoobird14]

Hmmmm......I'm a practising Roman Catholic, so I thought that automatically made me a "religious fanatic." I wonder if O'Reilly's brand of Catholicism gravitates towards Bela Pelosi's.........

[tdadams]

As unpopular as it may be, I have to agree with Fox and O'Reilly on this one. I'm not an attorney, but I have a broad and lengthy background in copyright law and intellectual property in the music industry.

Bennett is committing copyright infringement and his defense arguments aren't going to fly with a court. His attorneys are either seriously incompetent, ignorant of copyright law, or trying to win the court of public opinion.

First of all, he's clearly a blatant self-promoter. Who ever heard of this guy before he was on O'Reilly? Now he's trying to appropriate O'Reilly's fame to further his own career, to the point of using O'Reilly's name on his audio tape.

He's charging money for this tape, which instantly nullifies any 'Fair Use' argument.

He's also using nearly all of the segment in question, probably only editing out a few seconds in order to make his specious 'Fair Use' claim. While the tape may foster discussion, fair use is limited to short excerpts, not "nearly all" of a selected work.

The courts will see this for what it is, an attempt to ride O'Reilly's coattails to fame. Fox is correct to stop this.

[exmarine]

"What's troubling about this confrontation isn't that militant fundamentalists are angry about what O'Reilly said, but that they chose to respond to a political difference of opinion by questioning the faith of their opponent."

O'Reilly and his spokesman are behaving like a liberal democrat - demonize those you disagree with, e.g. calling those who support Bennet "Militant fundamentalists."

Christians should not be surprised at O'Reilly's attitude. It is what one would expect from a blind unbeliever. Unbelievers behave in this way because there is a veil over their hearts. O'Reilly has a strong sense of right and wrong, but it is based on worldly standards.

[scripter]

Thanks for the ping. I think O'Reilly is wrong as well and even though I'm not tee-vee-less, I haven't watched his show in some time.

Homosexual Agenda Index

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

[truthandlife]

The reason FOX is doing this is that is it affecting FOX's viewership of O'Reilly. I am one of those who does not want to do anything with O'Reilly's TV or radio show after this interview. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

If this was not affecting the ratings of O'Reilly then I don't think that FOX would even be wasting their time. O'Reilly's 15 minutes of fame with conservatives is coming to an end.

[CPT Clay]

Since O'Reilly is opposite Kudlow&Cramer I dont watch him much.

[Remedy]

O'Reilly, a Roman Catholic, called Bennett a "religious fanatic" who wants to "deny people rights" and suggested the minister wanted "all gays to go to hell."

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion

As the Court notes, ante at 192 , the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality [p*197] and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here. ++++"Rejuvenating Blackstone"

Homosexual creator of StopDrLaura preparing to SMEAR ex-gays [Thread III]

Alan Keyes Targeted by GLAAD (Homosex Activists): Please Call or Write in Support of His Show