According to the New York Times, Glenn Beck has criticized a professor's writings but never threatened her with harm. People who were unaware of the professor's writings until they listened to Beck have intimidated and threatened her. Beck is not responsible for these acts. He is entitled to criticize the professor's writings until the cows come home.
Addendum: Here are two paragraphs from the story:
The Center for Constitutional Rights said it took exception to the sheer quantity of negative attention to Ms. Piven.
“We are vigorous defenders of the First Amendment,” the center said in its letter to Fox. “However, there comes a point when constant intentional repetition of provocative, incendiary, emotional misinformation and falsehoods about a person can put that person in actual physical danger of a violent response.” Mr. Beck is at that point, they said.
If Beck has defamed the professor, then she should sue him. Otherwise, she should shut up. She wants to be able to write incendiary tracts without taking responsibility for the ideas expressed therein. By the standards of the Center for Constitutional Rights, many law professors would be putting George W. Bush "in actual physical danger of a violent reponse" by criticizing his policies, motives, and character. One particularly thuggish law professor called him a "war criminal" repeatedly. He was said to be identical to, or even worse than, Hitler. His administration was described as a "bestiary of madmen." Do only progressives get to spew vile rhetoric? Are only conservatives required to increase the thickness of their skins?
Addendum 2: Speaking of vile rhetoric, how many people has this man put "in actual physical danger of a violent response"? Why has the Center for Constitutional Rights not expressed concern about him?
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 