Bill O'Reilly
Posted on 01/03/2003 1:52:52 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.
Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics."
Fox claims Bennett's use of clips from the interview is a copyright infringement.
Bill O'Reilly |
On the Sept. 3, 2002 program, 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."
Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse."
O'Reilly is coming on like a "bully," charged Bennett, who still counts himself as a fan of the Fox News nightly show.
 Stephen Bennett |
"He's a libertarian who relishes the fact that he doesn't care what you talk about, but we have to have that right of free speech," Bennett said of O'Reilly. "Yet when it comes to me now speaking out – never saying anything nasty about anybody but just addressing the issues – he does everything possible to silence me."
Bennett said he has nothing against O'Reilly personally.
"This is just an issue the two of us do not agree on," he said.
A recording artist and national speaker, Bennett's Huntington, Conn.-based group, Stephen Bennett Ministries, says that it offers help to people who want to "come out" of the homosexual lifestyle.
Bennett, who is married with two children, also is a spokesman for the lobby group Concerned Women for America, which just prior to the Sept. 3 interview criticized O'Reilly for telling the homosexual magazine The Advocate that he favored homosexual rights.
Lawsuit threatened
Bennett received a letter yesterday from a New York City law firm representing Fox which charged him with copyright infringement for sale of a product that uses "almost all, if not all" of O'Reilly's four-minute interview with Bennett.
In the letter, Dori Ann Hanswirth of Hogan and Hartson warned Bennett that if he does not stop distributing the tape and does not turn over all remaining copies, Fox will file a lawsuit seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.
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.
WorldNetDaily sought further clarification from Hanswirth, but after conferring with her client, she replied that Fox News does not comment on pending legal matters.
Michael DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the AFA's Center for Law and Policy, told WND that his reading of Hanswirth's letter is that Bennett cannot use any of Fox's material.
Bennett's tape, part of his group's regular tape-of-the-month series, is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment, DePrimo said.
"Certainly Mr. O'Reilly put it at issue when he called Mr. Bennett a religious fanatic and did not give him a chance to respond," he said.
DePrimo, who vowed to "vigorously defend" Bennett if Fox proceeds with a lawsuit, noted that it would not be legal "if somebody puts effort into a particular product and another person tries to appropriate it and sell it as his own."
That is not the case in this situation, he insists, charging that Fox simply "does not like the fact that Bill O'Reilly has been exposed as a homosexualist."
Bennett called Fox's demand's "ridiculous."
"Of course I can comment on that interview," he told WND. "If the heart of the interview was on cats and dogs, that means I can't talk about cats and dogs?"
After reviewing his tape again yesterday, Bennett said he has a total of about three minutes of audio clips from the Sept. 3 "O'Reilly Factor" interview and 57 minutes of original commentary.
Discussing theology
Bennett described his response to the interview in a column published by WorldNetDaily in September.
He said that in "pre-interviews," hours before the Sept. 3 show, producers called to discuss probable questions related to his Aug. 27 commentary in the Washington Times about promotion of homosexuality in the U.S. media and its effects on children, titled "The Gay Spin Zone." O'Reilly's comments in support of the homosexual rights agenda published in The Advocate also were added to the mix.
But Bennett says the "O'Reilly Factor" interview turned out instead to be "about Bill O'Reilly's theology."
After numerous exchanges in which O'Reilly tried to press Bennett on whether he thought practicing homosexuals would go to hell, O'Reilly said, according to a transcript, "We live in a secular society. You're a religious fanatic, with all due respect."
Earlier in the day on Sept. 3, O'Reilly referred to Bennett as "an idiot" and "religious fanatic" on his radio program, "The Radio Factor."
Bennett notes that one day later, O'Reilly compared his brand of religious belief to that of the Sept. 11 terrorists in a conversation with a liberal Baptist preacher.
Just a few days before the Sept. 3 program, O'Reilly responded on his show to Concerned Women For America's reaction to his Advocate interview.
O'Reilly opened his Aug. 29 program with this introduction:
In the "Personal Story" tonight, more attacks on your humble correspondent on the Internet. Now, I've gotten used to being pounded by both the left and the right, and very rarely do I see anything even remotely accurate on these websites. This time, a conservative group believes I am patronizing gays. Fine. My stance is simple. We're all Americans here. Nobody should be discriminated against. I'll leave it to God to figure out who's going to hell and who isn't. I'm not qualified, and nobody else on earth is either.
John Aravosis of About.com published a defense of O'Reilly in which he said, "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."
Calling Bennett a "self-proclaimed 'ex-gay," Aravosis quotes the minister commenting on behalf of CWA, "For a man to come right out and say that he does not believe in the Old Testament ? I think that many Catholics across this nation as well as the world are offended by Bill O'Reilly claiming he's an Irish Catholic."
Bennett said that his tape includes Rev. John F. Harvey, a Roman Catholic priest who asserts that O'Reilly is not speaking for the Catholic Church, which views homosexuality as "intrinsically evil."
Harvey, who runs Courage, a spiritual support group in Manhattan for homosexuals, says O'Reilly is abusing his public celebrity platform and promoting a heresy against the Catholic Church. The priest calls O'Reilly "confused" and "filled with pride – putting himself above the Catholic Church."
You’re right it isn’t, but incest, bestiality and consensual pedophilia is and so is other paraphilic disorders. LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY. And of course we can always play the confession card.
Just as it would be impossible for anyone to talk you or me into lusting after a guy's hairy butt,
Oh NO! Not the hairy butt defense. Run [prison inmates] run.
I believe that it is also impossible to re-orient a gay guy to lust after T&A.
Exodus and NARTH and 10’s of thousands of ex-gays say different.
You sure seem to have a lot of funny “beliefs”; do you still believe in the tooth fairy too?
Thanks for the link, I will check it out. I understand that the gay rights agenda is filled with militants who would love nothing more than to "convert" the masses. Many of the same people want promote pedophilia. These people are less than garbage. Anybody who promotes pedophilia should be put down for good. But this gives no right to carry torches into EVERY gay persons house. I'll check out the link though, thanks.
I don't know about the "confused" part, but O'Reilly surely is "filled" with something.
|
On the Internet, there are innumerable personal ads |
Next Article: 2001 Syphilis Rates Show Increase: Does This Portend a New Wave of HIV Infections?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their final surveillance summary for 2001 syphilis rates in the U.S. in November of this year: Primary and secondary syphilis rates rose for the first time since 1990. Though the overall increase was slight (2.2 cases per 100,000 up from 2.1 per 100,000 in 2000), the increase occurs in the context of a very aggressive national syphilis elimination campaign launched in 1999. The national goal of syphilis elimination is to improve local capacity to respond to every syphilis case so there is no evidence of sustained transmission after an infectious case is detected (i.e., no transmission after 90 days of the report of an imported index case). This goal is numerically comparable to a reduction in the overall number of primary/secondary syphilis cases to less than 1000 by the year 2005. There were 6103 total cases of primary/secondary syphilis in 2001.
Analysis of Current Trends What Might the Current Situation Mean for HIV Transmission? What Does This Mean for HIV Treatment Providers? Summary
In 2001, rates of syphilis increased 15% among men and decreased 18% among women; the male: female ratio of syphilis cases increased 50% (from 1.4 to 2.1). Public health surveillance data do not traditionally include behavioral variables, such as same-sex contact among the men who are represented among reported syphilis cases. However, this rising M:F trend, coupled with the explosive outbreaks of syphilis among men who have sex with other men (MSM) reported in several large U.S. cities [MMWR 2001; 50:117; MMWR 2002; 51:853] indicates that the rise in U.S. syphilis rates for 2001 is due to new epidemics of syphilis among MSM.
Biologic and epidemiologic data support the concept that untreated syphilis biologically enhances HIV transmission. Data from cities reporting new epidemics of syphilis in the MSM community suggest that an increasing proportion of persons with syphilis are also HIV-infected compared to those diagnosed with syphilis in prior years. Thus, rising rates of syphilis among MSM may be a marker of changes in sexual practices among both HIV-infected and -uninfected individuals in this era of HAART and treatment optimism. This may well indicate increasing HIV transmission in many MSM communities.
The CDC surveillance summary underscores the importance of maintaining a high level of suspicion for syphilis. This remains true for all clinicians, but most importantly for clinicians who treat HIV infected patients. Clinicians should be aware that the growing connectivity of this information age allows for diverse opportunities for their patients to meet sex partners in distant cities or on distant continents: Epidemics of syphilis have been described among individuals who met in Internet-based chat rooms or through website postings, so that syphilis epidemics can be rapidly introduced tomorrow into jurisdictions reporting low syphilis morbidity today. Providers should also be aware that the clinical manifestations of syphilis may be atypical: Because oral sex is recognized to be a lower risk activity than other acts with respect to HIV transmission, clinical presentations such as oral chancres (appearing first at the site of T. pallidum inoculation) should always trigger a discussion of sexual risk behavior and serologic testing for syphilis. A request by a patient for HIV testing should prompt syphilis testing as well, and conversely, HIV testing should be recommended for any person treated for syphilis.
In past decades, rising rates of syphilis have preceded rising rates of HIV among specific populations. Though intensification of syphilis control and prevention efforts have markedly reduced syphilis rates in groups most impacted by syphilis in the past decade, these gains have been offset by rising rates among MSM. Developing effective new strategies for education, screening, and risk reduction in the MSM population will be necessary to meet syphilis elimination goals in the U.S.
You didn't feel 'sorry' for her - meaning what, you think she 'deserved' it? Well, I feel sorry for you lady....the levels of hate some of you have are endless, even going so far as trying to justify rape. And to think some of you call yourselves Christians....
For like, their behavior? Hmmm. Don't think you can even begin to defend that position Bill.
My guess is he has a homosexual priest. He basically calls any Christian who believes the entire word is a religious fanatic. He should stay away from theology because he is way off base and shows he's liberal on social issues.
Pray for W and the Troops
I think so too.
Remember when Howard Stern made those shocking comments about how the Columbine killers should have raped the school's better looking girls before killing them? When Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association condemned him for the remarks and some Stern-supporters agreed, Stern insisted that his words were taken out of context.
Wildmon struck back by posting on the AFA website an actual recording of Stern's comments, showing that he said that if he was going to kill the Columbine girls, "...I would take them out with some sex."
CBS sent Wildmon a letter threatening him and AFA with legal action, citing copyrights and what-all. Wildmon posted the letter on the site, and added an open letter to CBS in response: "So that there will be no misunderstanding, I will make my answer short. Sue."
CBS backed down.
More than anything, the Gay-stapo is afraid of the truth coming out about anything that hurts its agendas. They will do whatever it takes to stifle evidence of their true intents and motives. That's why most people who have heard of "Fistgate" have never heard the tape of it.
Not one unbiased person with an IQ over room temperature could fail to understand the significance, seriousness and imminent societal suicide built into the current "politically correct" cultural response to the issue of homosexuality.
You should send it to Fox News and to Mr. O'Reilly with a cover that says,"you will not be able to refute this so for the sake of America,deal with it,we will be looking forward to the program."
I just wonder how this critical information can get conveyed to the public to counteract the fantasies the media have concocted presenting the "gays" and their lifestyles as harmless,poignant and/or desireable. Any ideas?
As you'll notice in my original post, I said this would be the exception. If he signed, then he shouldn't whine.
I don't think I'd ever sign anything about use of my own words transferring to someone else. That seems silly.
In any case, he would be entitle to "fair use" of the segment. Coupling that with a writer's "license" to paraphrase, the could have gotten everything in without violating anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.