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
Slart:
I didn’t say you said the “law” about the threatening a president was unconstitional; I agreed with you that the “law” hadn’t been challenged in court.
While writing my post to you, I serendipitiously drifted into matters of religion. This is because, I guess, the subject matter deals with real serious life and death issues.
Only after most of my post was composed, did I suddenly remember our past discussions about God, religion, and such. But I kept the religious drift in my post without edit because I believe it is relevant to the issue and serves to explain why I can live with high levels of freedom and many (though not all of course) of the godless (like the Communists) cannot.
In other words I didn’t think “gee, I think I will agitate Slart about religion/atheism”. It never occurred to me until afterwards.
And I didn’t say all the godless are not at peace. I used the word “tend” specifically to recognize a general trend among atheist peoples, especially in the form of government officials who are despots or tyrannical.
Of course, religious people, even those who claim to be Christians, can be despots and tryants. George Bush, for example. John McCain, Cheney, and Obama as well. But this despotism would be counter to their stated religious beliefs. And thus we could point out their errors.
The Bible teaches Christians, and even Jews, to resist evil leaders who violate justice. On the other hand, I don’t know of a codified ethics subscribed to by atheists, which if disobeyed, could let us see which atheists were violating such a code.
If you know about a Bible of sorts for athesis morality, I’d be interested in learning about it. But from what I’ve seen atheists just make up morality as they go along, reinventing the morality wheel with each new generation of atheists, and pretty much consider their own minds as being the beginning and end of right and wrong.
So, please don’t be offended. I honestly, from the core of my being, believe the issue of Christianity (and even other faiths) is important when talking about living with real fear and dread, and even death.
ekeyra,
Are you implying that the person giving an order has no responsibility for that order? I’m not arguing that a person is not responsible for overt acts that they commit – quite the contrary – I’m arguing that, in addition, people are responsible (morally if not legally) for their actions in the form of speech.
Tootie,
I’m sorry that you cannot see the wonder (both beautiful and terrible) of the world or deal with the inequities that occur in life without the crutch of your religious delusions, but this atheist has no problems with peace of mind nor do I fear death. While I don’t care to take the time to answer your comment line by line, suffice it to say that most of the rest of your arguments are equally daft… As for the law against threatening the president, I never expressed an opinion as to its Constitutionality, I just don’t think that the current SCOTUS would rule it unConstitutional – but go ahead and try if you want to…
And if you don’t agree with the Global Warming Scam
Tootie:
“Even clean water is a threat to our existence if we have too much of it.”
***************
Amazing how you can reveal your entire philosophy in just 16 words. I’ll summarize: Everything good is bad and everything bad is good.
I deem you the Reactionary Poet!
Slart:
The legislation you refer too IS unconstitutional. The reason it still exists are several.
Some of these are: that the congressmen and women who wrote the law were too stupid or ignorant to know they were violating the Constitution; and also, when it matters, the morons at the ACLU are generally more concerned about burning crosses and little baby Jesuses at city hall than hounding congress about what it most precisely is forbidden to do: infringe on speech.
I speak about the cross-buring methaphorically, of course.
There are absolutely positively NO exceptions provided in the 1st amendment for congress to limit speech. The written words are so clear, and the understanding of original intent so easily knowable, it is likely that a mildy retarded person could have figured this out at the time the law you mentioned was passed.
I reckon a third grader could be taught all the relevant information regarding this matter in less than an hour and know such legislaton is unconstitutional.
Those in power who seek to overthrow the will of the people and trample the Constitution like to play stupid by pretending the common man cannot understand the meaning of the Constitution or the intent of its words as understood by the people who ratified them. These people I put in the category of criminally-minded despots, tyrants, and usurpers.
So there is no excuse for this rampant and persisent unconstitutional conduct by government, especially at the federal level. The problem is villiany by our leaders and not any supposed difficulties in the Constitution’s words or the intention of its ratifiers.
And now that a long chain of abuses has led us to a state of ultimate danger by government (a totalitarian police-state despotism), we can be sure now who was right or wrong long ago in that great controversy about the extent of federal powers: the Federalists (Hamilton, et.al.) or the Republicans (Jefferson, et.al).
The Federalist party was wrong.
Their concentration of federal powers have now lead us back to King George III’s tyrannies.
The verdict is in: Jefferson and Madison were right. Hamilton and Adams, wrong.
Bang the gavel. The case is closed.
Federally, only after a violent attack is committed, are words and speech to become relevant to a legal case. And not any time before that (except authorities can collect words available to all, etc.)
Only the states may limit speech.
This was clearly understood at the time the 1st. was written. Jefferson mentions this fact during the controversy of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. (I think that’s when he said it, though I might have the timeline wrong).
Within the STATES lies the power of government in this case. They can limit speech. I think any such limiting should be severe, narrow, and exactly precise.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe you can trust government officials to write legislation about what we can say about THEM. Clearly, as the legislation you refer to indicates, they have already proven themselves too stupid to write about such things.
Like you, I don’t think the federal law has been challenged. Though, I think wise states could simply nullify the federal law now, provoke a Constitutional challange, and create standing before the Supreme Court.
Then the matter can be cleared up by SCOTUS (if they have a lick of sense they will deem the law unconstitional). The federal law can then be abolished by congress (as opposed to being struck down from the gods….I mean SCOTUS). And then, if the people wish and I don’t suggest they should wish, they could change the first amendment to allow such federal law. That, I, most ardently, do not recommend. Let the states handle speech matters.
Maybe, if government officials would pay better attention to the people and stop stealing from them and destroying their lives, they would not have to fear so much. Maybe if they would stop violating our Constitution themselves and set a good example for others, citizens attend to their own lawful conduct. Maybe if our government officials were not a pack of criminally-minded people themselves, the people would lead more virtuous lives.
This is still no excuse and certainly no shield from murderers hell bent on evil deeds. I believe there is adequate security available offerred to officials to help with that.
Additionally, people need to put their safety in God’s hands even after taking reasonable steps to increase security. Then they need to grow up and learn to live with the fate their life brings and stop trying to prevent every last bit of evil from occuring. That is an Utopian dream which, if chased to the nth degree, leads to a totalitarian police-state.
China has little civilian violent crime only because the people are tied down and locked in “legal” chains that forbid them to make one false step. They had to be stripped of weapons to do that. To get there, the Chinese government had to slaughter and enslave billions of people. That is the only way to get to absolute safety.
That is not acceptable.
Someone said, and I cannot remember who, that the last victim of continual warfare by a government is liberty. The same goes with limited “warfare” for personal safety. Like the one we now wage through the Department of Homeland Security. The more one wages it to the nth degree, the more liberty must be extinguished.
It is generally the godless, thinking this is the only life they will ever have, who tend to have no peace of mind about living in a world where risk and danger are the ONLY guarantees outside of death. This kind of thinking tends to move such individuals (and groups) towards an extreme tyranny of perfect safety and elimination of all crime. Examples again are the Chinese. The Communists, etc.
But such a quest is extremely destructive.
Note, that the crime rate (by civilians) in North Korea is probably extremely low. This is not a good tradeoff. A balance has to maintained in favor of greater liberty and faith in God, over against less liberty and faith in government.
Even clean water is a threat to our existence if we have too much of it.
Many of the godless are so freaking afraid to die or suffer, they won’t let the rest of the living live in freedom.
Those of us who have faith in God have already come to terms with that which cannot be perfectly avoided: suffering, injustice, and death. And they merely wish to move forward from there in a more perfect liberty.
This is not to say modern Republicans (made up of many believers) accept this. They don’t. They move the totalitarian police-state forward as much as the Democrats do.
Democrats, like the congressman who is calling for a violation of the Constitution because of this weekend’s tragedy.
Dredd,
“Was Hal Turner correct, then, when he claimed innocence at his sentencing for verbally advocating the killing of federal judges?”
Of course. Why shouldn’t he be? Regardless, you do know turner was an fbi informant for almost a decade right? I doubt they held him accountable for his speech or actions when he was on their payroll.
Sandra Bernhard issued a blistering warning to Sarah Palin during a performance of her new one-woman show.
The Republican V.P. nom would be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” if she enters Manhattan, Bernhard said. Palin is said to be making a campaign stop in New York next week.
Bernhard isn’t the only celeb to speak out against Palin. Pamela Anderson, Lindsay Lohan, Matt Damon and Pink have all expressed their disdain for the Alaskan Governor.
Damon called her candidacy “a really scary thing,” telling CBS News, “I think the pick was made for political purposes, but in terms of governance it’s a disaster.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/09/19/2008-09-19_sandra_bernhard_issues_gang_rape_warning-2.html#ixzz1Aj1MHPSa
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/83137110.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19303D83A05122D2369E79C6F9065C2DCA0E30A760B0D811297
Was Hal Turner correct, then, when he claimed innocence at his sentencing for verbally advocating the killing of federal judges?
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2011/01/constitutional-ignorance-kills-judge.html
Henman,
“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.”
Thats a wonderfully naive theory you have there but it seems when they fbi catches wind of you spouting angry, violent notions, they just give you a bomb.
http://www.herald-review.com/news/state-and-regional/article_e9d7dd86-c641-11df-b334-001cc4c03286.html
By having an anonymous commenter on a liberal website take down their target, it made people decide it must be linked, therefore Palin must have some culpability. It’s called controlling the spin.
Giffords was a target of Loughners since 2007. The Daily Kos put the “Bulls Eye on Gabrielle Giffords Back” June 2008. I doubt that Loughner was a follower of Palin. When was it that Palin used the target symbol? I’m sure he didn’t attend any T-Party rally’s. He was described as a left wing pot head.
Slarti,
“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…”
Way to miss the forest for the trees. In this discussion of speech influencing people its not the person making the speech or giving the orders im referring to, it would be the follower who would attempt to escape responsibility for their actions. The fact of the matter is, your brain and your conscious do not turn off when you are issued an order, or watch fox news, or read an internet article. YOU and YOU ALONE are responsible for your actions regardless of any “violent rhetoric” or “hate speech” that happens to finds its way into your mind. By suggesting otherwise is to allow people to simply hang their violent and anti-social actions on the notion that “society made me do it”, “fox news made me do it”,”sarah palin made me do it”. All of which is horseshit.
It appears that Sheriff Dupnik may be trying to deflect criticism away from himself and his department. Loughner had previous run ins with the law. The question or questions need to be how much did the Sheriffs office know about Loughner and what actions did they take, if any, in keeping the public safe from him.
Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation. My sympathies and my heart goes out to her and the rest of Mr. Loughner’s family. This tragedy must be tearing them up inside wondering if they had done the right things in trying to manage Jared’s obvious mental instability.
http://thechollajumps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/jared-loughner-is-a-product-of-sheriff-dupniks-office/
I’m with guilhem, let’s just keep helping to ensure that congressmen and other heads of state are treated like gods while us common folk are treated as disposable. But the F-word can be illegal sometimes though: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2011/01/04/drop-the-f-bomb-in-court-go-to-jail-for-6-months/ Which is nice because people curse too much these days.
Obviously, threatening speech, symbols and gestures against people NOT members of the congress is perfectly OK.
This was said by David Frumm on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show tonight:
I couldn’t agree more (although I think extreme language can also make it more likely for people to go on killing rampages (more so for politically motivated rampages like the killing of Dr. Tiller or Oklahoma City than mental illness motived rampages like this appears to be – I don’t have any evidence of this, just my opinion). As President Obama pointed out, calling him a communist or unAmerican makes it impossible for Republicans to compromise in any way without their constituents thinking they’ve sold out. The fact is that the kind of partisan, obstructionist politics that we’ve seen in the last 4 years, and especially the last 2 is unprecedented in my political lifetime (I first voted against Vice President Bush). Anyone using extreme speech in politics (on either side) needs to tone it done for the good of the Republic, but I doubt that any unbiased study would find more examples of extreme speech (and violence) on the left than on the right (during the last two decades or so, in any case…). All politicians need to be rewarded for extreme speech with losses on election day – it’s the best way to get them to stop doing it.
BBB,
I’m definitely focusing more on the last 2-4 years, but do you ever recall the partisan divide being as large as it is now? I know it’s been bad in the past, but it seems much more rancorous to me in the age of Obama than it was in either the Clinton or Bush years…
Slartibartfast,
“the left hasn’t been guilty of much in this regard”
Says the left. From my centrist point of view, both sides are guilty of fanning the flames. I’m probably considering more years than you are, too. The Party in power is always going to be the subject of the harshest rhetoric. The last two years are fresh in your mind.
I don’t know why Palin took anything down. She doesn’t consult me. 🙂 Maybe she decided that this wasn’t a battle worth fighting. Taking it down will be seen as an admittance of culpability by the left. Nobody on the left will praise her for doing so. (Unless they read my comment first. :))
BBB,
You’re just preaching the false equivalency of violent rhetoric on the left vs. the right. While some on the left have been guilty of violent rhetoric (and if Bdaman’s pathetic list of quotes is any indication, the left hasn’t been guilty of much in this regard), it is the bread and butter of a large group of politicians and pundits on the right. Also, why did Sarah Palin take down the image with crosshairs on Rep. Giffords’ district, but not apologize? If there was nothing to apologize for, why take it down?
OS,
“He did it because it was the right thing to do.”
And because there was no downside to him doing so. If he didn’t take it down, it would make liberals look bad. (guilt by association). It doesn’t matter that nothing has linked the ‘hit list’ rhetoric or ‘crosshair’ imagery to the shooter. By having an anonymous commenter on a liberal website take down their target, it made people decide it must be linked, therefore Palin must have some culpability. It’s called controlling the spin.
I’m not a fan of Palin. I don’t need to despise someone to have a reason not to vote for them. It’s enough for me that I don’t consider them to be qualified for the position. I’m content to let others make up their own mind.
I don’t know what led the shooter to do what he did. I cannot begin to comprehend that. I probably never will. If it should come out that the hit list rhetoric and/or the crosshair imagery had a role in the shooter’s actions, I’m sure many people will feel pretty bad about it.
Was Palin the first to use the ‘hit list’ rhetoric? Not from what I found.
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2009/09/whos_really_on_the_gop_hit_lis.php
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/78035/gop_engages_in_'political_extortion‘,_draws_up_hit_list_of_dem_lawmakers/
(I would post more, but I don’t want my post to be held in moderation.)
Searching for the use of crosshairs is not so easy, but I will try to find some earlier usage tomorrow.
The vitriolic speech from the right is no different than that of the left. The only difference is that we see the speech from “our side” to be the truth; so we accept it as being OK.
I’m not pointing fingers here. I’d just like to see more thought about how we can (without sacrificing individual liberties and protected rights of good law abiding citizens) find a way to reduce the occurence of this kind of carnage.
As a dear friend always says; “The best part about taking the moral high road………….Is the view”. Someday I hope to be along for the ride.