Bill O'Reilly scummier than previously imagined

http://truecrimeblog.blogspot.com/20...-hornbeck.html

www.crooksandliars.com has the video. If it were anyone else, they'd get fired for it, so I hope this story gets some traction. This is not a partisan issue, this is an offensive and stupid issue.

The idea of someone being on national television blaming the victim of a four year ordeal is horrific, especially without having all of the facts. This isn't even some girl who claimed Kobe Bryant raped her, this is a young boy, who, what, got into it? Is that the thinking on this? That somehow he enjoyed being raped and kidnapped? You've got to be fucking kidding me. Eleven year olds, most are pretty much pre-sexual beings. For O'Reilly to have a glimmer of self respect about this he'd need some facts, facts that aren't out there, and this situation needs to be, at the very least, treated with more kid gloves. Someone in Bill O'Reilly's position should know that, and if he was saying it to court controversy, he's just simply evil. If it's because he believes it, then it belies some psychological issues that should be addressed. But someone who feels that way should not have a voice in the mainstream media. Any sort of analagous behavior would be ground for a public speaker to be let go, and some have been for less.

To O'Reilly, and to you, for defending him, have you no sense of decency?

He's blaming the victim, wondering why he didn't escape, and says he doesn't believe in Stockholm. He's saying someone who was kidnapped and raped chose the man who predated him. That he liked it. An eleven year old boy. I'd put this in the ball park of someone saying something pro-nazi or something exceptionally racist. It is ignorant. It is wholy inappropriate. It is, point of fact, inexcusable. And it's wrong. If he isn't fired for it, he should apologize profusely. What he's saying is slanderous, and again, blaming the victim, it's pretty cut and dried wrong.

Not specifically blaming the victim? He's saying "part of him liked it." Few issues in life are black and white. This, quite simply, is one of them. If a woman walks down a dark alley and gets raped, the tragedy is that perhaps if the street were well lit it wouldn't have happened. Perhaps it could have been avoided, but that doesn't make it the victim's fault, it in no way takes any of the blame away from the person doing the assaulting. Any number of fill in the blanks ("she wasn't wearing underwear" "drunk at a party") come to the exact same tally. Being victimized is bad enough. In any situation like this the person taking advantage is to blame 100%. Is it possible that this young boy found a way to survive his imprisonment? To accept the rewards of his kidnapper in an effort to eke out some pleasure, perhaps even knowing that this man (evidence is suggesting) killed a kid a before him. That's not liking the circumstances, that's making you life palatable in a bad situation.

I don't like saying this, but Bill has been charged with sexual harassment (remember the loofa). And the transcriptions of his phone calls suggests that O'Reilly also has some predatory sexual habits. So how about this, I won't say that Bill O'Reilly relates to the predator because he himself is one, but I'll suggest that maybe he feels that if you don't say flat out no (without realizing the party feels intimidated and feels under personal or professional threat), then you're encouraging said behavior, which makes it somehow okay.

You're against penalizing people for committing slander? Also, this isn't a free speech issue.

He's implying that the boy didn't mind his situation, which is malicious. Saying "It's my opinion that X enjoys raping babies" doesn't remove it from slander.