Unfortunately, one of the most predictable things to follow a madman’s attack in this country is a slew of new laws proposed by politicians — often laws that threaten first amendment or fourth amendment rights. In the first of what may be a slew of such measures following the Arizona massacre, Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) has indicated that he now 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. The law will be designed on the model of the law criminalizing threats against the President. That law has long been controversial with civil libertarians and Rep. Brady’s law will only magnify the constitutional concerns.
The despicable attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) (who was shot with 18 other people) has prompted the call to criminalize speech. The matter is simple for Rep. Brady: “The president is a federal official. You can’t do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge.” Of course, that ignores the serious constitutional concerns raised by the presidential provision — a crime that has led to columnists, cartoonists, and others being put under criminal investigation for expressing their opposition to past presidents.
In discussing the matter with CNN, Brady appears to see his effort as part of an effort to curtail violent speech: “The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down.” Violent speech, however, is protected in the United States, as discussed in this column. Political speech is often passionate and passions can lead to the use of obnoxious or irresponsible speech. Putting aside the constitutional problems, we need to think seriously about criminalizing this large area of speech in our country. We are fast criminalizing every aspect of American life with politicians refusing to accept anything other than a new crime to signify the importance of their views.
Politicians often act with emotions are running high with voters — pushing through popular but short-sighted legislation. I am not saying that Rep. Brady is pandering to such emotions. I am willing to accept that he is acting as he honestly believes is necessary. However, it is not the motivations but the means that concern me in his worthy effort to protect members of Congress.
If this bill is introduced, I am concerned about the intestinal fortitude of members to oppose it. Congress has long been short on civil libertarians and has historically shown little inclination to put constitutional values ahead of popular legislation. I hope that I am wrong. However, civil libertarians need to react quickly to this proposal to educate members and the public alike over the implications of a sweeping criminal provision by Rep. Brady below. Here is his bio.
Source: Hill
Jonathan Turley
Obama to ACORN “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama to supporters Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
Oh and lets not forget hostage analogy.
“I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.
Sarah Palin should be arrested for her graphic ‘targeting’ Rep. Gifford’s district with crosshairs, but if Ms. Palin is a decent human being then she should at least feel some shame about it…
Of course not because then they would have to arrest the owner of the Daily Kos.
http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-3-05-33-pm.png
Keep free speech, but do something about the sale of weapons to the mentally ill. Free mental health care to those that can’t afford it could help. Also republican leaders such as Palin and Bachman might self police and tone down their violent rhetoric.
It doesn’t help when you have a president who is trying to fire up his base by using such rhetoric.
Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, … asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.” – Nov. 7, 2009
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun, because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.”
Obama told latino’s to “Punish your enemies”
Said that anyone who agrees with the Arizona Immigration Law was anti-immigrant
Called people bitter gun owners and something about clinging to their religion.
Told a group of supporters to argue with their friends and neighbors to get in their face.
On and on and on and thats just off the top of my head.
Then you have the democratic machine caught in a lie by saying they were spit on and called racial epithets and now want to blame the latest incident against the T-Party movement. Shame Shame.
Bdaman,
Although you have the right to say that, you probably shouldn’t. If you say it in a private conversation or the comments of a blog it’s not a big deal (it’s just adding one more snowflake to the avalanche), but if you are making that statement in a public forum where it will be widely distributed, then there is a responsibility to choose your words more carefully when you exercise your right to free speech. Suppose you said, ‘the world would be better off without the Bushes’ on a platform like Rush Limbaugh’s radio show and a week later they were assassinated – would you regret using that phrase? No one is saying that, for instance, Sarah Palin should be arrested for her graphic ‘targeting’ Rep. Gifford’s district with crosshairs, but if Ms. Palin is a decent human being then she should at least feel some shame about it…
It is better to have rancorous free speech than polite fearful mutterings.
Without free speech it leads people to the underground.
Hows the Weather
Small example: suppose I say the world probably would’ve been better off without the Bushes. That doesn’t mean I’m asking you to go shoot Dubya.
They made a movie about his assassination called Death of a President. Anybody wanna fess up who seen it.
this is interesting:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Kkk-carpetbagger-cartoon.jpg
Jack asses then, Jack asses now.
Tootie,
I assume the current law against threatening the president was passed by Congress and it clearly hasn’t failed a Constitutional challenge (I have no idea if it has ever passed one, either…), so I am guessing that if a law criminalizing threats against Congress was passed that it wouldn’t be declared unConstitutional – I think that this is something where civil libertarians better win the debate, because if the law gets passed I doubt that they will win in court…
Wayne Frost,
Well said – that’s why I welcome debate on the subject but don’t support the law. We need to police ourselves better regarding violent rhetoric and condemn those who still choose to use it – if the tactic becomes a poison pill it will disappear pretty quickly…
Wayne:
It is better to have rancorous free speech than polite fearful mutterings.
The most dangerous group of individuals in the history of the world is government. Not lone wackos who may or may not have been inflamed by words.
Slart:
I am saying congress has no such authority whatsoever to make such a law unless it changes the 1st amendment. And I don’t see where the executive branch has any such power either.
If someone is too scared to be president (a job for which we provide adequate, abundant, and expensive security) then he or she shouldn’t run for the position.
We don’t need a law about this issue, we as a society just need to think and behave responsibly.
Here in the United States many people don’t seem to understand that the right of free speech comes with responsibilities. Your words have consequences, just as your actions have consequences.
This Loughner character is a lunatic, and that is why he did what he did. But it does not take an advanced degree in psychology or sociology to understand that if a lunatic is exposed to an abundance of violent or extremist rhetoric, especially as so well distributed and pervasive as that delivered by the American media (news and entertainment) establishment, that “protected” speech will quite likely be one of the triggers that sets off the lunatic.
Political figures with media exposure, whether elected to office, or pundits taking pot shots on the sidelines, no matter their party affiliation, need to be circumspect and carefully chose their words before opening their mouths or setting pen to paper. Reckless words stimulate reckless minds.
Tootie,
So you’re saying that the law criminalizing threats against the president is unConstitutional?
Congress has NO authority to do such a thing. That a sitting legislator thinks it does indicates how utterly stupid our leaders are and demonstrates that they have no idea what the Constitution says.
Although I would probably agree with the professor about the inadvisability of passing this sort of law, I think that a national discussion about threatening speech is long since overdue…
this is a bad idea
What if you’re not really serious?
We have got to learn to deal with free speech, fast. Banning threats is not going to make anyone safer, knucklehead.
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but I don’t think threatening speech is in the ear of the listener. It can only be found in the mind of the speaker.
Small example: suppose I say the world probably would’ve been better off without the Bushes. That doesn’t mean I’m asking you to go shoot Dubya. I cannot be held responsible for anything any idiot makes my words out to be, can I?
I sure hope I’m right… or we have seen nothing yet.
Can we say “McDonalds is bad for ya”?
I just happen to have a copy of the manual for the U.S. Marshals Service Prisoner Tracking System. It includes 7 pages of offense codes. These include “0105 sedition” as well as 5307 assembly — unlawful, 3904 card game, 5005 contempt of court, 5704 eavesdropping, 3899 family offense, 5799 invade privacy, 0913 John or Jane Doe No warrant, 4104 — liquor possess, 3808 Nonsupport of parent, and 3608 Seduction of Adult.
It is weird because USMS FOIA officer Bordley wrote me just last month that USMS uses the offense codes on the FBI website but they used one of the old offense codes on me, and I don’t understand why they don’t just update their directions.
In any case, they already have sedition on their computer systems.
“Good morning! I hope you have a good day!” can be interpreted as hate speech.
Any words, spoken or unspoken, can be interpreted as hate speech directed against someone by someone who so interprets the spoken or unspoken words.
While it may be said that, as a philosophical principle, the eternal Tao cannot be told, no less may it be said that, as a philosophical principle, the eternal Tao can be understood.