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
Gyges, jonestown is a great example of why I abhor the idea of obedience and find it one of the most distateful words in the english language. If you can guess its a small part of why I am who I am.
Bdaman,
What I described was exactly what happened (in the San Diego ACORN office, I believe) – how many indictments against ACORN resulted from Mr. O’Keefe’s ‘journalism’? How many indictments against Mr. O’Keefe?
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/gop-candidate-shoots-at-target-with-wasserman-schultzs-initials.php There are so many examples of republicans firing guns or urging people to shoot last fall. The imagery of the fall campaign involved lots of shooting.
Thanks Hen Man I was trying to think where I just read an article about Trumans Letter the last few months and can’t remember where I read it at the moment.
Once again, if you say so, you are certainly entitled to your train of thought.
Bdaman-
Your Obama quotes are pretty tepid stuff. For some stronger quotes, try Harry Truman’s letter to the newspaper music critic who trashed daughter Margaret Truman’s singing recital, or any number of reported quotes from Dick Nixon or Lyndon Johnson. I wish we could see that kind of anger and passion occasionaly from our current President. Particularly on the subject of civil liberties.
On a personal note, Bdaman, I was happy to read last night that the prognosis for your Mom looks very good. I hope she recovers quickly.
Bdaman,
I think that people who played along with a self-confessed pimp and whore in order to get as much information as possible which they then relayed to the police are to be commended, don’t you?
As for your Daily KOS diary – first off, ‘BoyBlue’ is highly unlikely to be Jared Loughner (for reasons that should be obvious even to you) and secondly saying that someone is ‘dead to you’ is not violent rhetoric – it’s a common idiom indicating that someone has done something that you consider unacceptable and not in any way an incitement to violence.
I have no problem with an organization dedicated to gaming the system for the poor and oppressed
or a pimp and his whore
Bob,
Thanks. In light of this it seems even more important to point out the connection between violent speech and violent acts – if there is no legal punishment (which I agree with) then there should be a political cost for using such speech (ideally, the speaker should be condemned from all sides for making such a poor choice in how they exercise their rights).
Bdaman,
Gaming the system is not illegal and I have no problem with an organization dedicated to gaming the system for the poor and oppressed (the rich and powerful typically have no problem figuring out how to game the system on their own…).
Observer,
I wasn’t disagreeing with Bob, I was asking questions (which I didn’t know the answers to…).
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.
Daily Kos has a long history of scrubbing things like this, so those are the screen grabs above for a hit piece Kos ran on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords on Thursday January 6th, 2010.
The article, entitled “My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!”, was written by someone calling him/herself BoyBlue.
It eerily presaged the assassination attempt on the Congresswoman, with the Kos author angry Giffords opposed Nancy Pelosi’s radical agenda.
Daily Kos, DemocraticUnderground, and other George Soros-funded Leftist sites routinely use turns of phrase that seem to encourage bodily harm towards their political opponents. If someone at Kos, in particular, does not like you, stories will appear there urging Kos readers to teach you a lesson in physical ways, to get you to either shut up or toe whatever line the Left is insisting on that day.
It remains to be seen if the gunman involved in today’s shooting of the Congresswoman and a dozen others is directly connected to Daily Kos, but it would not be at all surprising if he was.
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/08/my-congresswoman-voted-against-nancy-pelosi-and-is-now-dead-to-me-eerie-daily-kos-hit-piece-on-gabrielle-giffords-just-two-days-before-assassination-attempt-on-her/
Gyges: “All those people surrounding Jim Jones all just happened get thirsty at once?”
Nice.
Observer: “Mespo and Slart are right, Bob Esq is wrong.”
1. I didn’t write Brandenburg.
2. Last I checked, it hadn’t been overturned.
3. Thanks for playing anyway.
Kevin,
J. Douglas: “The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.
The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.
This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 357 U. S. 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience.”
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, at 456-457 (1969)
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.
What the right is doing now they learned from the left the last eight years.
Mespo and Slart are right, Bob Esq is wrong:
“According to the FBI complaint, a man named John Troy Davis has been calling Bennet’s office in Denver, Colorado for some time, asking for a hearing regarding his Social Security benefits. During a call in December, Davis allegedly threatened a staff member “by stating that he might come down and shoot people.” On Jan. 6, Davis called again, and allegedly told a different staff member, “I’m a schizophrenic and I need help,” and later said, “I’m just going to come down there and shoot you all.”
“During a second call on Jan. 6, Davis allegedly told a third staff member that he was upset about not having a hearing about his benefits. According to the complaint, the senator’s office had arranged a meeting in the past, but Davis had failed to show up. In the second Jan. 6 call, Davis allegedly said “I killed that woman. To get your attention, I will go down there and set fire to the perimeter.” He also allegedly said he “may go to terrorism.” When the staff member told Davis he was making threats to a senator’s office, Davis allegedly “screamed.”
“Davis is being charged with one count of assault on a federal employee.”
Just exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech. Sure.
The only criminal acts I am aware of being committed in the ACORN affair were in regard to James O’Keefe and Hanna Giles taping people without their consent…
and showing people how Acorn tries to game the system. In other words get around the rules to get the rules to work for you.
For example lets say you a white male needs an SBA loan to start a business. You see a program that really looks good only to find out it’s for minorities like a 504C program. You immediately recognize that you don’t qualify because your white, but wait if your married to a white woman you do qualify because she’s a minority. Solution, put it in her name. Kinda like give me the most exceptions so they don’t take alot out of my check. It’s called gaming the system.
ekeyra,
No one is saying that any of this excuses Mr. Loughner in any way – just that people are responsible for their actions (even when those actions are protected speech) and that an incident like this one is a predictable and expected result of the regular use of violent and inflammatory rhetoric and the demonization and delegitimization of opponents by a large group of people in the public discourse.
Ekerya,
All those people surrounding Jim Jones all just happened get thirsty at once?
While I believe everyone is responsible for their own actions, I just happen to put “influencing others” as an action.
Slarti,
Arent you responsible for your own actions, regardless of what words come out of anyone else’s mouth/computer? If so then how can their speech be held responsible for anyone else’s actions? This entire line of reasoning is absurd.
Bdaman,
The only criminal acts I am aware of being committed in the ACORN affair were in regard to James O’Keefe and Hanna Giles taping people without their consent…