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
Bob,
So does that mean speech can only be prosecuted if you are advocating that someone to commit a specific lawless act? What about yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater – how does this relate? Could the argument be made that (a particular expression of) violent speech is an implicit attempt to incite an (unknown) individual to violence?
ACORN was brought down by lies and propaganda, nothing more, and was never shown to have committed any wrongdoing.
If you say so.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
pete,
I’m guessing that there are no penalties to increase here – killing a federal judge is probably a capital offense and I doubt that the premeditated murder of six people would ever get anyone less that life without parole. Anyone who does this sort of thing is clearly willing to trade their life for their victims or is too irrational to be considering possible punishment.
Bdaman,
ACORN was brought down by lies and propaganda, nothing more, and was never shown to have committed any wrongdoing.
Bdaman said:
“If I was to get in your face and scream I’m pretty sure your gonna push me.”
You’d be wrong (at least based on history). The only time someone has ‘gotten in my face’ (yelled at me with our noses separated by about an inch) I returned the favor, but did nothing to escalate the situation to violence (he had (incorrectly) accused me of leaving dirty dishes in the sink and retaliated by putting the dishes in my bed). I may not be a pacifist, but I believe that they are right 99% of the time. Besides, in an intellectual confrontation with you, I would be confident in victory – a physical confrontation, not so much…
The Truth,
No one is saying that someone told Mr. Loughner to kill Rep. Giffords – we’re saying that when people use violent rhetoric that seems tailor made to incite ‘lone wolf’ action which is followed by a lone wolf (of any ideology) taking action that it is not unreasonable to suggest that there is a connection between the two. Also, I wouldn’t be too quick to call Mr. Loughner a ‘leftist’ – the currency thing is much more right-wing (or Libertarian – and he certainly seems to share Glenn Beck’s obsession with gold…) and some of his rhetoric is similar to that of the sovereign citizens movement.
FYI,
Jared Loughner’s ‘Hello’ video had 340 hits as of Saturday morning and was over 1.8 million hits this morning…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/tom-delay-sentenced-to-th_n_806951.html
sentence: 3 years
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/01/arrest_over_threat_to_senator.php Arrest made over threat to Sen. Bennett.
If someone got “up in my face” I would kick their ass. That Obama is telling people to do that is promoting violence. No other way to look at it.
The democrat party and the left has a very violent history starting with the KKK.
I think that threats of death or grevious bodily harm against anyone are not free speech. I also think speech that has, as its primary purpose, the incitment of violence against others or their possessions is likewise not free speech. Under those parameters I will wait to see what issues forth from the legislative sausage mill.
Legislation made in reaction to seismic or horrific events is usually ill-considered and emotion-packed. Cooler heads will prevail, but later sometimes much later.
Bdaman:
how did you find that Daily Kos post? Since the guy had left wing leanings, it is more probable that he got the idea from the Daily Kos.
Just like the guy who flew his plane into a building a few years ago, he turned out to be a lefty but was labeled a tea party member.
Funny how things work out.
Wasn’t expecting that Bob, Great Song !!!!!
The way to deal with free speech needs is to allow First Amendment Retaliation lawsuits to actually proceed to a jury.
the congress person was wounded, and seven or eight bystanders killed.
how about we increase the penalties for collateral damage instead of going after what might be said in the heat of the moment.
the last thing we need is possible charges for something misspoke or missinterpreted at a townhall type meeting.
Swathmore Mom Acorn ran them selves out of business because they were trying to game the system.
If I was to get in your face and scream I’m pretty sure your gonna push me.
Violence is the source of confrontation.
Bdaman,
Most of the quotes you posted from President Obama I would characterize as confrontational rather than violent (for instance, ‘getting in someone’s face’ is far different than ‘targeting’ them for ‘removal’, while the remaining quotes which did make use of violent rhetoric were (mildly) inappropriate, they were also far milder than that which many on the right make use of far more frequently. If President Obama jaywalks it doesn’t give the right wing permission to go on a crime spree…
Yesterday Arizona state Rep. Linda Lopez was on FOX News and blamed tea partiers for the attack at the Safeway. Of course, she had no evidence of this. Rep. Lopez also suggested that Loughner was an Afghan veteran.
Today, veterans are demanding that Lopez apologize for her hateful rhetoric.
we’ve got a HUGE problem she said
”the shooter is likely, from what I’ve heard, an Afghan vet..”
She was running her alligator mouth if front of her canary ass.
We now know it didn’t make it pass the recruiters office.
bdaman: How many people did the members of Acorn shoot? They were run out of business while the neonazi groups expanded.
Slarti it don’t matter, as soon as I get my new ID is when I’ll have to be careful. They can assign what I say to my number. Like they can’t do that already.