More Ring Lardnerism

H/T to Powerline for this.

It seems Glenn Back, by accurately quoting Frances Fox Piven, has gored the Ruling Class ox again.  Professor Piven wrote, and The Nation published,  an article calling for violent, angry protest.  In her piece in The Nation, Piven calls for:

An effective movement of the unemployed [that] will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union,[Emphasis mine.]

Beck and The Blaze have publicized the piece; Piven appears to have become something of a bête noire for Beck.  (And yes, there's no doubt that Beck does obsess about things sometimes.) But he's neither misattributing the piece, nor taking it out of context; Piven is urging violence as what will be necessary to achieve her ends.

The reaction in the Times?  Why obviously, to accuse Beck of fomenting threats against Piven.  They quote in particular:

In response, a liberal nonprofit group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, wrote to the chairman of Fox News, Roger Ailes, on Thursday to ask him to put a stop to Mr. Beck’s “false accusations” about Ms. Piven.

“Mr. Beck is putting Professor Piven in actual physical danger of a violent response,” the group wrote.

Piven's own response:

That is not a call for violence,” Ms. Piven said Friday of the references to riots. “There is a kind of rhetorical trick that is always used to denounce movements of ordinary people, and that is to imply that the massing of people itself is violent.”

No one notes, apparently, that there's no such thing as a "nonviolent riot" and the riots in Greece in particular have been deadly.

According to the Times, the Center for Constitutional Rights says (find their full web article here):

[I]t 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.

The puzzle, of course, is that Beck is repeating and truthfully quoting Piven -- or, appears to be, unless Piven asserts the article published under her name wasn't actually hers. The central point or the CCR's complaint seems to be that while they're all in favor of free speech, they don't want too much of it.

In other words...

"Shut up he explained."