What Speech Should Be Acceptable to Restrict?

[Foxfyre]

NOTE: I do NOT want this to be focused on any particular event but rather debated on its own merits please.

According to "The Hill" and his appearance on Fox News this morning, Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) plans to introduce legislation that would make 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. He told Fox News that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections as the President. He doesn't know whether graphics or language using crosshairs or targets or similar inflammatory language has been implicated in any violence, but he would rather be safe than sorry.

And that comes amidst a fresh round of accusations of various conservative figures instigating and encouraging violence through their various speeches and programs.

You know there have been tens of thousands of vitriolic political ads in my lifetime and I don't recall any inciting anybody to violence.

Alos, tens of millions of people listen to Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage et al every weekday and also read Malkin, Coulter, and others equally as provocative. Sarah Palin has appeard at several dozen Tea Party events where there was no violence of any kind. And though their audiences are tiny by comparison, none are any more explicit in their rhetoric or any more negative toward those they criticize than are Olbermann, Matthews, Maher, some of the folks on the View, etc. etc. etc. And words like 'target' or 'crosshairs' are commonplace and often used.

And that doesn't even include the other talking heads spewing hate speech toward this person or that group or whatever.

Wouldn't you think if such rhetoric had any power to inspire violence that we would see wholesale violence with so much exposure and so many opportunities and hours devoted to political criticism?

This morning Jack Shafer at Slate, not exactly the last bastion of conservatism, opposed this kind of extremist government control and defended heated political rhetoric:

. . . .For as long as I’ve been alive, crosshairs and bull’s-eyes have been an accepted part of the graphical lexicon when it comes to political debates. Such “inflammatory” words as targeting, attacking, destroying, blasting, crushing, burying, knee-capping, and others have similarly guided political thought and action. Not once have the use of these images or words tempted me or anybody else I know to kill. I’ve listened to, read—and even written!—vicious attacks on government without reaching for my gun. I’ve even gotten angry, for goodness’ sake, without coming close to assassinating a politician or a judge.

From what I can tell, I’m not an outlier. Only the tiniest handful of people—most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds—can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts. Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes politicians no safer. . . .

. . . .Any call to cool “inflammatory” speech is a call to police all speech, and I can’t think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power. As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper’s in 1995, “The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say.” Rauch added, “Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights.”

Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I’ll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me. . . .

The awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

So what do you think. Do you approve of restrictions on the everybody words and imagery used in political ads and promotions? Or is this an unacceptable assault on free speech?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

NONE.

That's my $.02.

 

[Truthmatters]

Threats of violence are already illegal

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Anyone who advocates supression of speech should be forced to wear a ball gag for a month.

Anyone who advocates supression of the writtenword should have their fingers super glued together.

Lots of folks are just salivating for an excuse to shut down people they don't like.


And this legislation never would touch the loons it is supposedly out to get.

 

[WillowTree]

NOTE: I do NOT want this to be focused on any particular event but rather debated on its own merits please.

According to "The Hill" and his appearance on Fox News this morning, Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) plans to introduce legislation that would make 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. He told Fox News that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections as the President. He doesn't know whether graphics or language using crosshairs or targets or similar inflammatory language has been implicated in any violence, but he would rather be safe than sorry.

And that comes amidst a fresh round of accusations of various conservative figures instigating and encouraging violence through their various speeches and programs.

You know there have been tens of thousands of vitriolic political ads in my lifetime and I don't recall any inciting anybody to violence.

Alos, tens of millions of people listen to Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage et al every weekday and also read Malkin, Coulter, and others equally as provocative. Sarah Palin has appeard at several dozen Tea Party events where there was no violence of any kind. And though their audiences are tiny by comparison, none are any more explicit in their rhetoric or any more negative toward those they criticize than are Olbermann, Matthews, Maher, some of the folks on the View, etc. etc. etc. And words like 'target' or 'crosshairs' are commonplace and often used.

And that doesn't even include the other talking heads spewing hate speech toward this person or that group or whatever.

Wouldn't you think if such rhetoric had any power to inspire violence that we would see wholesale violence with so much exposure and so many opportunities and hours devoted to political criticism?

This morning Jack Shafer at Slate, not exactly the last bastion of conservatism, opposed this kind of extremist government control and defended heated political rhetoric:

. . . .For as long as I’ve been alive, crosshairs and bull’s-eyes have been an accepted part of the graphical lexicon when it comes to political debates. Such “inflammatory” words as targeting, attacking, destroying, blasting, crushing, burying, knee-capping, and others have similarly guided political thought and action. Not once have the use of these images or words tempted me or anybody else I know to kill. I’ve listened to, read—and even written!—vicious attacks on government without reaching for my gun. I’ve even gotten angry, for goodness’ sake, without coming close to assassinating a politician or a judge.

From what I can tell, I’m not an outlier. Only the tiniest handful of people—most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds—can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts. Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes politicians no safer. . . .

. . . .Any call to cool “inflammatory” speech is a call to police all speech, and I can’t think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power. As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper’s in 1995, “The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say.” Rauch added, “Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights.”

Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I’ll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me. . . .

The*awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

So what do you think. Do you approve of restrictions on the everybody words and imagery used in political ads and promotions? Or is this an unacceptable assault on free speech?

It will end up like the "N" word. In liberal land it a "free speech for me but none for thee" kinda deal.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't believe in any legislative mandate restricting speech. I do believe that editors, pundits, talk show hosts, bloggers and columnists should use better discretion and taste when making their points.

Those same pundits and talk show hosts decry the coarsening of the culture while using inflammatory phrases and misleading accusations when they talk about political opposition. They have no one to blame but themselves when politics gets violent.

 

[Nosmo King]

It will end up like the "N" word. In liberal land it a "free speech for me but none for thee" kinda deal.

Miss calling the darkies *******, do ya?

 

[Jarhead]

I don't believe in any legislative mandate restricting speech. I do believe that editors, pundits, talk show hosts, bloggers and columnists should use better discretion and taste when making their points.

Those same pundits and talk show hosts decry the coarsening of the culture while using inflammatory phrases and misleading accusations when they talk about political opposition. They have no one to blame but themselves when politics gets violent.

And then?
Perhaps we will tend to blame sportscasters? Afterall, the say things like "dead heat" and "sudden death" or "killing them"....shot gun (football)..
Sorry....I do not believe the word "revolution" by a pundit is something worthy of discussing.

 

[zzzz]

So I guess we cannot make an effigy of our congressman if this passes! And people do not think that we are progressively turning into a police state. Duh!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't believe in any legislative mandate restricting speech. I do believe that editors, pundits, talk show hosts, bloggers and columnists should use better discretion and taste when making their points.

Those same pundits and talk show hosts decry the coarsening of the culture while using inflammatory phrases and misleading accusations when they talk about political opposition. They have no one to blame but themselves when politics gets violent.

Here you and I are pretty much on the same page. There has definitely been a coarsening of the culture and in recent decades a new ugliness infused into the national debate about almost anything. I deplore this as I think it demeans and diminishes us as a people as well as immediately lowering IQ at least 20 points.

Your comment to Willow, however, I would put in that demeaning category. She said nothing to deserve that.

I have no desire or inclination to use the "N" word which I am sure she doesn't either. But I do resent the double standard that allows one segment of society to use it often and with great familiarity while I would be condemned and, if possible, punished for using the same word. To me there is something wrong with that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Threats of violence are already illegal

Yes, but the problem is ability to legally interpret ANY innocent metaphor or phrase or imagery as threatening. You don't see a problem with that?

 

[Jarhead]

I don't believe in any legislative mandate restricting speech. I do believe that editors, pundits, talk show hosts, bloggers and columnists should use better discretion and taste when making their points.

Those same pundits and talk show hosts decry the coarsening of the culture while using inflammatory phrases and misleading accusations when they talk about political opposition. They have no one to blame but themselves when politics gets violent.

Here you and I are pretty much on the same page. There has definitely been a coarsening of the culture and in recent decades a new ugliness infused into the national debate about almost anything. I deplore this as I think it demeans and diminishes us as a people as well as immediately lowering IQ at least 20 points.

Your comment to Willow, however, I would put in that demeaning category. She said nothing to deserve that.

I have no desire or inclination to use the "N" word which I am sure she doesn't either. But I do resent the double standard that allows one segment of society to use it often and with great familiarity while I would be condemned and, if possible, punished for using the same word. To me there is something wrong with that.

I see it differently.
I do not use the word as it repulses me...not becuase I would be condemned for using it.

 

[boedicca]

The poll choices are inadequate.

The power of the government to limit speech should be rare. The "fire in a movie theater" example is oft cited - and yet is a very specific example of doing something which in the moment may lead to somebody being hurt.

A public figure engaging in "vitriolic" rhetoric is not analogous to said situation. There is no "flash of the moment" aspect which creates unthinking mob or individual action. Each individual listening to such rhetoric has sufficient time and responsibility to make his own decision on how to behave.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't believe in any legislative mandate restricting speech. I do believe that editors, pundits, talk show hosts, bloggers and columnists should use better discretion and taste when making their points.

Those same pundits and talk show hosts decry the coarsening of the culture while using inflammatory phrases and misleading accusations when they talk about political opposition. They have no one to blame but themselves when politics gets violent.

And then?
Perhaps we will tend to blame sportscasters? Afterall, the say things like "dead heat" and "sudden death" or "killing them"....shot gun (football)..
Sorry....I do not believe the word "revolution" by a pundit is something worthy of discussing.

When a talk show host says the Republic is in dire straits and we have to do something now to stop the Socialist take-over of our nation, I don't think equating "sudden death" overtime is a fair comparison. Especially when his audience already owns and LOVES their guns.

 

[loosecannon]

>inciting violence, revolution, acts of terrorism

>any attempt at seducing children

>conspiracy

>criminal acts

>Public endangerment ("FIRE")

>disclosing classified information

>slander

>threats against public officials

>lying to federal officials

That is a list just off the top of my head of forms of speech that are already prohibited in the USA. Are you asking if there should be more exceptions to free speech?

How bout?

>bribery/campaign contributions by corporations

 

[loosecannon]

Anyone who advocates supression of speech should be forced to wear a ball gag for a month.

Anyone who advocates supression of the writtenword should have their fingers super glued together.

Lots of folks are just salivating for an excuse to shut down people they don't like.


And this legislation never would touch the loons it is supposedly out to get.

tell that to the SC

 

[Jarhead]

I don't believe in any legislative mandate restricting speech. I do believe that editors, pundits, talk show hosts, bloggers and columnists should use better discretion and taste when making their points.

Those same pundits and talk show hosts decry the coarsening of the culture while using inflammatory phrases and misleading accusations when they talk about political opposition. They have no one to blame but themselves when politics gets violent.

And then?
Perhaps we will tend to blame sportscasters? Afterall, the say things like "dead heat" and "sudden death" or "killing them"....shot gun (football)..
Sorry....I do not believe the word "revolution" by a pundit is something worthy of discussing.

When a talk show host says the Republic is in dire straits and we have to do something now to stop the Socialist take-over of our nation, I don't think equating "sudden death" overtime is a fair comparison. Especially when his audience already owns and LOVES their guns.

"have to do something to stop this Socilaist take over", to you, is inciting violence?
I mean...really? So are you saying that anyone with an audience should have the sense to ensure that what they say can not be taken another way?

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't believe in any legislative mandate restricting speech. I do believe that editors, pundits, talk show hosts, bloggers and columnists should use better discretion and taste when making their points.

Those same pundits and talk show hosts decry the coarsening of the culture while using inflammatory phrases and misleading accusations when they talk about political opposition. They have no one to blame but themselves when politics gets violent.

Here you and I are pretty much on the same page. There has definitely been a coarsening of the culture and in recent decades a new ugliness infused into the national debate about almost anything. I deplore this as I think it demeans and diminishes us as a people as well as immediately lowering IQ at least 20 points.

Your comment to Willow, however, I would put in that demeaning category. She said nothing to deserve that.

I have no desire or inclination to use the "N" word which I am sure she doesn't either. But I do resent the double standard that allows one segment of society to use it often and with great familiarity while I would be condemned and, if possible, punished for using the same word. To me there is something wrong with that.

I took umbrage with willow this time due to her "In liberal land it a "free speech for me but none for thee" kinda deal."

It's not a Liberal or Conservative thing, it's common courtesy. It takes a fool to infer politics on courtesy.

 

[Nosmo King]

And then?
Perhaps we will tend to blame sportscasters? Afterall, the say things like "dead heat" and "sudden death" or "killing them"....shot gun (football)..
Sorry....I do not believe the word "revolution" by a pundit is something worthy of discussing.

When a talk show host says the Republic is in dire straits and we have to do something now to stop the Socialist take-over of our nation, I don't think equating "sudden death" overtime is a fair comparison. Especially when his audience already owns and LOVES their guns.

"have to do something to stop this Socilaist take over", to you, is inciting violence?
I mean...really? So are you saying that anyone with an audience should have the sense to ensure that what they say can not be taken another way?

We have elections to decide the course of the country. We should never believe we should do something right away to change the outcome of those elections. Otherwise, we're Northern Irish or sub-Saharan Africans or the citizens of a banana republic. We elect, we don't incite coup d'etats.

 

[WillowTree]

It will end up like the "N" word. In liberal land it a "free speech for me but none for thee" kinda deal.

Miss calling the darkies *******, do ya?

Never did. But if it's such a bad word why use it on each other brother?