Speech police steady crosshairs on First Amendment after Ariz. shooting

Daily Caller ^ | 1/12/11 | Mary Katherine Ham

[markomalley]

This week is enough to make one long for the days when we’d just blame the Arizona shooting on video games and flagrantly use the tragedy to regulate that kind of speech.

In what has become a modern American custom, the media began a frantic, mostly fact-free “national conversation” this week about a national tragedy while trauma surgeons were still packing wounds. In the past, this kind of speculative blame-placing has been unfair and uninformed, making targets of Doom, role-playing, action movies, or Pantera despite unconvincing evidence they influenced the crimes at hand.

But this time, the national conversation’s clumsy crosshairs are trained on core political speech. While blood was still pooling in a Tucson parking lot, before we even knew the names of the victims, a not small number of very small people decided that the deaths of those victims, the pain of their families, and the trauma of a nation would be useful tools for hurting their political adversaries. To call these people political ambulance chasers would be an insult to the comparatively sensitive men and women who populate the commercial breaks on “Judge Judy.”

But in the toxic swirl of panic, stupidity and opportunism that is a national conversation, the media pegged a year-old graphic from the political website of a former governor as the root cause of a shooting rampage. By extension, the political rhetoric of Tea Party activists and any right-leaning elected official might be similarly “inciteful,” so we are having a national conversation about limiting one side of the conversation.

There is no evidence the shooter was actually inspired by any mainstream political philosophy or figure, but a child watching TV coverage would have thought the alleged shooter’s name was Rhetoric long before he realized it was Jared Lee Loughner. Rhetoric was the suspect most closely examined. Our rhetorical guardians claim to have good intentions, but the lack of evidence betrays their utter lack of sincerity.

Once a root cause was identified, our friends on their hobby horses were off to the races, paying tribute to the too-short lives of the noble, brave, and heart-breakingly young the only way they knew how—with mind-blowingly stupid pieces of legislation.

Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA) proposed a bill making it a federal crime to use “language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress,” extending a law that already criminalizes threats against lawmakers.

When asked on Fox News why he would legislate political speech when there was no evidence the shooter was even inspired by political speech, Brady answered, “Then what harm would there be in putting it in a bill?”

Sadly, there is more than one student of the “Why Not?” school of prior restraint in the U.S. Congress.

“The level of discourse is out of control,” Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) told The Daily Caller. “Yes, I would certainly sit down with [Brady] and look at the wording and see how we could strengthen it. There’s a need to tone down the rhetoric that occurred here these last few years.”

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) would prefer to use the FCC to regulate speech, she told a New York TV station.

“Frankly what I’d like to see is if we could all get together on both sides of the aisle and really talk about what we can do to cool down this country. Part of that has to be what we hear over the air waves,” she said.

During his national TV blitz, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik proclaimed that there’s “no doubt” in his mind that political rhetoric, vitriol, talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin had something to do with the shooting, again without evidence.

And, FBI Director Bob Mueller waxed philosophical a day after the shooting about the wide availability of speech on the Internet as a law-enforcement challenge.

“The ubiquitous nature of the Internet means not only threats (but also) other inciteful speech is much more available than it was 10-15 years ago,” he said.

There has been surprisingly little alarm from the civilian rhetoric police about actual federal officials and law-enforcement officers who sound pretty keen on limiting speech (with Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont as a notable exception). Thus far, they have been more than happy to let political speech be the hostage with a gun to its head in their cynical negotiations over what Sarah Palin is allowed to say.

It is not wise for a nation that prizes free speech to conflate political speech and violence. Even if there were evidence that a crime perpetrated by a clearly disturbed individual had been inspired by political speech, suggesting one’s peaceful fellow citizens are therefore guilty of abetting murder is not terribly good for public discourse.

In the absence of such evidence, it is the worst kind of rhetorical poison.

People who deplore the rhetoric of “Second-Amendment remedies” cannot solve the problem by seeking remedies to the First.

[Sacajaweau]

They have this half a** backwards. He’s the one that was spewing hate and violence...about everything...

[FlingWingFlyer]

Didn’t the buffoons in Congress pass a law forbidding us from saying “crosshairs” in America? It’s the ‘RATS’ new “C” word.

[Diogenesis]

Obama:
“They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”

Obama to His Followers:
“Get in Their Faces!”

Obama on ACORN Mobs:
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”

Obama to His Mercenary Army:
“Hit Back Twice As Hard”

Obama on the private sector:
“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“

Obama to voters:
Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”

Obama to lib supporters:
“It’s time to Fight for it.”

Obama to Latino supporters:
“Punish your enemies.”

Obama to democrats:
“I’m itching for a fight.”

---

Democrats Plotted to Blame Tea Party for Slaughter
One veteran Democratic operative: “They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers”
“Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City
bombing on the militia and anti-government people."

---

Breaking: Democrats Plotted to Blame Tea Party for Slaughter
Democrats plotted to blame the tea party patriots for yesterday’s slaugher in Arizona.
A democratic operative admitted this to The Politico."

---

Click here for more info

---

[ConradofMontferrat]

All this is an attempt to shut down or otherwise control the town hall meetings.

These wimps were so surprised at the anger voters had for them, they ran and hid.

If they succeed in getting ANY of these things, get ready for a wave of arrests at the subsequent town hall meetings.

Anything they don’t like will be considered a “threat”.

[bunkerhill7]

The First Amendment is Protected by the Second Amendment

[R0CK3T]

Speech Czar to be announced by next week, whose prime directive will be to eradicate all forms of so-called cross hair target hate speech.

Van Jones will be announced as the person to hold that post.

What could go wrong?

Do you all think I have the Alinsky policy/pattern figured out for the Obama Regime?

[tumblindice]

What precedes the imperative phrase: “Grab your ankles!”
“ ... if we could all get together on both sides of the aisle ... “

Here’s to the 1st Amend.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg

[PATRIOT1876]

In other words:

Only NewSpeak is now allowed, OldSpeak is now illegal and free speech is TriplePlus Ungood!

[Soothesayer]

They’ll come for those too and you’ll all cave in the very second the 30 man death squad threatens your families.

America is dead.

[Carley]

Have the America hating leftists ever actually listened to C-SPAN.

The rage against Preident GW Bush was truly frightening in it’s baseless ignorance.

Now they have turned that ugly rage against the tea parties.

[Fred Hayek]

I look at it as Article 58 of the Great Constitution of the Soviet Union has come to America.

[PATRIOT1876]

Spectacular cartoon!

MSM should adopt vultures as their new logo

[beachn4fun]

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see those LIB-DEMS pass a new law against “certain” speech. They passed a “hate crime” why not “hate speech?” Anyway, they want to control everything else.

THANK GOD we now have some conservative, constitution-minded reps in place.

[beachn4fun]

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see those LIB-DEMS pass a new law against “certain” speech. They passed a “hate crime” why not “hate speech?” Anyway, they want to control everything else.

THANK GOD we now have some conservative, constitution-minded reps in place.

[beachn4fun]

p.s.

but a child watching TV coverage would have thought the alleged shooter’s name was Rhetoric long before he realized it was Jared Lee Loughner.

ROTFLOL - that's a good one.

[SeeSac]

Haven’t they heard? “Crosshairs” is policically uncorrect speech.

[RickB444]

Don’t count on it troll.

[Christian4Bush]

bump