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
Regarding that posting to Daily Kos by BoyBlue. He deleted that diary with the offensive title himself and offered an abject apology. No one told him to or pressured him. He did it because it was the right thing to do.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/9/934674/-My-Apologies-to-This-Site,-The-Victims,-and-Rep.-Gabrielle-Giffords
I have not seen an equivalent mia culpa from anyone on the other side. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, I am looking at you.
J. Brian Harris,
Bravo! I aspire to live up to the standard you set.
RE: Bdaman, January 10, 2011 at 3:56 pm
“If I was to get in your face and scream I’m pretty sure your gonna push me.”
I know that those words were not an answer to any comment I made; however, I wonder whether you would be pretty sure I would push you if you screamed in my face.
I find that someone screaming in my face, or slugging me because of an inadvertent misunderstanding, has not, in the past ever resulted in my retaliating.
When I was slugged by someone who inadvertently misunderstood something, I left my glasses where the blow knocked them, many feet away, and hugged the person only tightly enough to not get slugged again.
Another time, also many years ago, another inadvertent misunderstanding and someone was clawing at my arms until I was bleeding. I also hugged that person, while saying, “You can’t hurt me that way,” gently, over and over until the person relaxed. Scabs formed shortly thereafter, and there was not a mark on me the next morning.
Retaliation only gives someone else reason for retaliation.
Vicious cycles of hate and harm can be made that way.
Not by me.
Mespo: “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.”
—
You’re right about that: the Patriot Act comes to mind.
OFF TOPIC (maybe not so much)
For Bob Esq. and any others who have ever asked themselves; “What ever happened to McCardle”? (as in Ex parte McCardle)
http://books.google.com/books?id=9Ls8aZ5LdJAC&lpg=PA291&ots=RPBYQTufum&dq=18%20usc%20871%20unconstitutional&pg=PA292#v=onepage&q=mccardle&f=false
I think it’s beneficial for the crazies to post overt threats online. This puts them on the radar screen of the Secret Service or local police and enables them to pay a visit and evaluate whether the person is just a stupid blowhard or a real threat to someone. In either case it may serve as a wake up call to rethink his behavior now that the gov’t knows who he is. Swarthmore mom’s link at 1-10-11 6:14p.m. has many examples of thwarted acts of terrorism. My one caveat on the government investigating an individual’s computer usage- GET A WARRANT FIRST!
The problem isn’t a lack of laws but a lack of balance. The concentration of conservative pov in radio, TV and newspapers leaves few moderate voices in the media to push-back against even the most outrageous, violence tinged speech from the right.
I further think that the FCC has simply failed to follow up on its own regs. I would like to know how many complaints about what could easily be labeled hate speech the FCC has received and failed to follow up on.
I was greatly disturbed by something advocated by a radio personality. I thought, in all good faith, that it crossed the line into advocating violence at a specific time and place against a specific person. I wrote the FCC and made a complaint. All I got was a letter of acknowledgement some time later, but that was all. I didn’t even get a t-shirt. The FCC needs to get back in the business of enforcing its own regs, we don’t need new laws.
ChaZ,
While Sarah Palin is not personally responsible, she is contributing to a polarized culture of over-the-top rhetoric. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be using the crosshairs of a gun to indicate political opposition.
Bdaman: “The article, entitled “My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!”, was written by someone calling him/herself BoyBlue.”
—-
Bad example. Slarti is right about the use of the above phrase. I’ll give you an example: Marcos was on a news-commentary show and just lit into one of my 3 favorite politicians, said outrageous things about him, laid the loss of a national election at his feet, so I turned to my husband and said, “F*** him, he’s dead to me” and I haven’t visited his site or stayed in the room when he’s been on TV since. He’s dead to me. LOL.
I don’t have a problem with a law that criminalizes actual threats or incitements against members of Congress, the federal bench, or senior executive officers. Those types of threats have a much greater impact on the country as a whole than threats against other people. As such, a federal law would be appropriate, rather than dealing with such threats piecemeal at the local level.
However, based on the description of the proposed law:
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.
I don’t see how it could pass constitutional muster. Even if it somehow did, I don’t think we’d want it. I’m all for civility in political discourse, but surely we don’t want to criminalize speech based on the most cynical reading of our words, rather than what our intent was or what a reasonable reader would perceive.
Swarthmore Mom,
Well said! The right is so guilty of using inflammatory langauge that they are trying to pull the old Wizard of Oz move. “do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain”
anon today,
Why did you change your name? Please go back to using Kay
Sieverding so my web browser add-on can easily block out all the gibberish that you have been posting, for every topic that has absolutely no relevance to your situation.
By the way, michellefrommadison have been making threats about beating up/shooting/or hurting police officers that he or she thinks may have been abusing their authorities in various blog entries. It seem to me that maybe michellefrommadison may be not of right frame of mind and might end up shooting an innocent police officer. I’m just call FBI just to be safe so that they investigate her/him.
Heck, I do support freedom of speech, but going far with threats is going too far and I don’t think it should result in any form of punishment, but SHOULD be investigated by local authorities to make sure, just to make sure other people aren’t really off their rocker and are actually going to do what they threatened to do.
I don’t like Sarah Palin at all, but blaming her website with crosshair for what happened in Tucson? Oh, please! Use your frickin’ common sense. Just putting a crosshair on you just doesn’t mean they want to kill you. In political forum, it just means that you’re “targeted” to be removed by voting you out. That’s all. Sarah Palin, even though I don’t like her at all and I don’t want her to be President of USA, are entitled to her freedom of speech and I’m getting tired of people from both side of political spectrum twisting everything up to make themselves a victims and their opponents an unmerciful antagonist/provoker of lethal uprising.
Again, it’s bunch of you wackos who keep perpetrating those stupid blathering about your un-favorite politicians being (fill in blank be it marxist, socialist, neo-nazis, devil worshiper, new world order devotees, whatever) and expounding about how we will lose all of our rights and subject us to constant state of slavehood of poverty, “police state”, high taxes, bad medicare plan, and shitty bureaucracy.
Tootie, you definitely need professional counseling. You are definitely off your rocker big time and in fact, I don’t like Obama, but geez you are going way off your handle as if he’s an anti-christ or something that spark your stupid beliefs of stupendous biblical prophecies which has absolutely no foundation of truth at all. Go see your counselor and get on medication, please!
Sorry, I gotta get everything off my chest before they pass the law making it illegal for me to do so.
ekeyra,
The people at Jonestown died as a result of their actions, so I don’t see how they could be held any more responsible than that – and no one was let off of the hook for issuing orders because the soldiers chose to follow them…
Ekerya,
Why are you ignoring a third of what I wrote (other than it was poorly written)?
People are responsible for their own actions. However, that doesn’t mean that other people can’t influence them. There’s a reason why Fraud is illegal.
henman, The inflammatory language is all coming from the tea party not Obama. Do you really think a black president could use inflammatory language in the good old USA? He might be called a radical communist black muslim.
Bdaman,
Yes, I am aware that you have no compunctions about achieving your ends by the use of any means available regardless of the innocent people hurt (or the truth about the situation).
Unless he was physically forcing those people to drink the kool aid, they are still responsible for their own actions. Nuremberg didnt let the nazis off with “just following orders” did they? I think the same standards apply whether your ordering someone to kill themselves or someone else.
Ekerya,
See Jones was so good he stilt effects the behavior of people today.
Acorn was de-funded, that’s all that matters.
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline Frightening number of incidences.