It is *not* a bill of attainder.

Are you trying one of those "These are not the droids you're looking for" tricks? Because, simply repeating that assertion does not make it true.

The intent of this bill is to punish ACORN. Everyone would agree with that, at least off the record. This punishment comes in the form of withholding its primary source of revenue, not in incarceration (which you seem to regard as the only form of punishment). The fact that they've worked to zero in on ACORN without specifically stating the name shows that the republicans writing this bill understand that this is a bill of attainder, and are trying to make it not look like one.

I don't receive any Federal funding, it's not because the Federal Government is punishing me.

No. It's because you didn't apply for it. And had you applied, it could have been because you didn't qualify for it. However, had you applied and qualified and were still turned down due to legislation that said "We will not give any money to Xanthro," then that's a Bill of Attainer.

If Congress wants to say, "We won't fund you anymore", unless there are specific Constitutional issues such as entitlements, then Congress and do so, and it doesn't violate any Constitutional issue.

The "specific Constitutional issue" you're referring to does exist and is called Bill of Attainer.

Somehow dropping funding for the Bridge to Nowhere doesn't nor should raise any issues of punishment.

Congress does get to choose which projects it funds. However, once it chooses to fund a project, it doesn't get to specify a particular organization or individual that does not qualify. They can generally talk about the characteristics that don't qualify (preventing employees from suing because of gang rapes, requiring employees to take drug tests, etc). Your comparison here does not apply.

We're all on the same page: there are limits to free speech. No sense in flogging that dead horse.

Your burden is to show how Fox News qualifies to be placed under that limit. You need to show examples of their behavior to warrant that. Specific ones.

Your continuing failure to do so shows that you are starting to understand that you were pushing a bullshit argument, however your unwillingness to admit that says something about your emotional maturity.

Just provide the examples. Thanks.

Thanks for providing those. Again, nobody including Glenn is refuting the fact that there are limitations to 1st Amendment protections. The debate is about whether or not Fox News' behavior should encounter those limits. What I'm saying (and I think Glenn agrees) is that these limits kick in only when there's specificity and immediacy to the incitement. You don't seem to acknowledge these requirements, and feel that if Fox makes vaguely critical (also nasty) comments about Obama, they should be censored.

The 2 legal cases you cite uphold our point, not yours. Both cases acknowledge the need for a "clear and present danger" that the speech is going to result in bad things that Congress needs to prevent. As Holmes said, "It is a question of proximity and degree." I don't see that Fox News has reached that proximity, and perhaps not even the degree.

Again, I invite you to prove me wrong. Show me where Beck specifically and directly incited his followers to break the law.

If Fox News airs something live that is specific, and it promotes violence against innocent parties, it is inciting riot, even by Greenwald's definition.

Agreed. Now, can you show us specific examples where Fox has done that?

Secondly, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the analogy that the Supreme Court itself used to describe what kind of free speech is illegal and criminal.

You don't say.

The thing is, I can't find any examples of Fox doing something analogous to that.

I can do the research and give you the specific court case; it won't be hard--it's a famous case and an even more famous quote, used by attorneys in the courtroom all the time.

I look forward to that. However, I wonder, why did you tell me you can do that and it won't be hard, rather than just doing it?

if some right-wing wacko like Limbaugh or Beck gets on their show and preaches violent overthrow of a democractically elected government by a group of armed loons, he is advocating treason, and is a traitor.

Agreed again. However, again, I don't see any example of Fox doing that. Specificity and immediacy require Beck to be standing in front of a group of armed loons and saying "violently overthrow that democratically elected government!" If you can show me where that happened, I'll happily revise my view.

Come on guys, this is basic stuff. Civics 101. Do I really need to spend time going over all this!!??!!

You seemed to have grasped Civics 101. It's Reality 101 where you have clearly been snoozing in class.