Tiller is a very controversial figure in American medicine as he was one of the few doctors in the country to provide late-term abortions for women. You can read some stories about those women here.
Tiller was the target of violent discourse by Bill O'Reilly [see here, here, and here]; by members of Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization [see here, here, and here (warning- graphic images)]; and, of course, profiled on the Nuremberg Files website [see here, and here].
Question One: If the legal standard for judging political discourse is imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio), should the discourse from O'Reilly, Operation Rescue, or on the Nuremberg File's website be protected under the first amendment standard for political discourse or should it be classified under the fighting words classification, if that classification still exists from R.A.V. v. St. Paul, and receive less constitutional protection? Or, is a strategy of counter persuasion against O'Reilly and Operation Rescue a better strategy?
Question Two: Does O'Reilly have any moral obligation to apologize for his discourse about Tiller or does he have any moral responsibility to tone down his discourse? When discussion Tiller's profession, O'Reilly stated:
"No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands. But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller's business of destruction. I wouldn't want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day."
Does O'Reilly, or Operation Rescue, have blood of their hands as well because of the death of Dr. George Tiller?