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
I am sorry, but if someone says to a Member of Congress, or to her staff, that “I’m just going to come down there and shoot you all,” it should be, and is, a crime, as Rep. Brady says it should be, and such a criminal statute would not, and does not, infringe on the civil liberties or constitutional rights of anyone, at any place, or at any time, because the Constitution is not a suicide pact, Professor Turley to the contrary notwithstanding.
Bob Esq said there is no judicial review in the Constitution.
Bob Esq cited the Supreme Court engaged in judicial review.
Ha!
Edit:
“You want to see how, on a deep level, humans are programed to behave.”
Ekerya,
“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.”
Descarte’s got nothing on you: I think therefor I am (in control). As any addict will tell you, there are times when your conscious mind doesn’t call the shots, but only rationalizes them.
You want to see what on a deep level how humans are programed to behave? Look at chimps. See how much say the non-dominate members of the tribe get in their behavior.
However, we’ve got just enough awareness to be damning. You can’t blame a chimp for being a chimp, but you can blame the human for being a chimp. It’s just silly to pretend that the inclination isn’t there.
Buddha,
I don’t disagree with Bob – my questions were purely for information purposes (thanks for the answers, Bob). I’m not sure where the line of legal culpability should fall, but when any sort of incitement is universally reviled (and more importantly is the express lane to losing elections or audience), then it will cease to be a problem – any sort of criminalization is a stop-gap measure (and one fraught with logistical and Constitutional issues) at best…
Colleen,
They’re just following their standard M.O. of making sure that the truth is never unopposed by their propaganda…
Tootie,
The statement you quoted was not an example of rhetoric (violent or otherwise) – it was a statement of fact. If you can’t see the difference between your quote and people, for instance, using tactics borrowed from the KKK to paint President Obama as unAmerican and whip crowds into a frenzy, then I can only conclude that you are willingly blinding yourself to the truth.
But what can be done to protect us against congress….Oh yeah…Second Amendment…..
ChaZ,
I stand by my statement that there is no reason why anyone needs to use that over-the-top, violent rhetoric (which you effectively ignored). I never said that the government should censor all such speech.
Congressional reps and their staff are probably already covered under the Witness Intimidation and the Witness Retaliation Acts because Congress is an “official proceeding”.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001512—-000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001513—-000-.html
Anything can be called incitement. This is why tyrants like to criminalize it.
It is most difficult to SEE what history is while you live it. If it were easy it would be snap to avoid the pitfalls common to the human race.
There are few people on earth who SEE so clearly during the timeframe they exist. One of those rare people is Glenn Greenwald (yes, I know he is a homosexual so don’t bother wasting your time thinking you got one over on me and come up with a snarky post to me).
He has a brilliant article about the current despotism and tyranny on the rise all around us as I write. As Glenn writes. And as many here write and condemn.
If this crackpot nicompoop congressman gets his way, things will get rapidly worse.
God bless Glenn Greenwald.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl3/govt-created-climate-of-fear.html
If you don’t trust Rockwell (crybaby) here it is at Salon.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/10/fear/index.html
Slarti,
I’m with Bob on this one. Past a point, incitement ceases to be rhetoric. It garners legal culpability.
Slarti: “I certainly don’t believe that a person has no responsibility for orders they give. The example that I was thinking of was the Nazis – I seriously doubt that anyone at Nuremberg was prosecuted for following orders while the person giving the orders was absolved of guilt…”
Charles Manson never killed anybody; he just gave the orders and Bugliosi nailed him anyway.
Chaz,
‘Held accountable’ DOES NOT MEAN ‘Held LEGALLY accountable’. I’ve said that I think that the best way to deal with this is to not vote for politicians who use extreme speech. Surely anyone who wants to has the right to suggest that people don’t vote for a politician who says things they think are inappropriate – or does freedom of speech only cover incitement to violence?
Slartibartfast said:
“I don’t think anyone here is saying that what Sarah Palin did should be illegal – just that people who do that sort of thing should be called on it. You know, people should take responsibility for what they say…”
You know, long ago, people used that same reasoning and sued recording company for teenagers committing suicide because of heavy metal music.
I also recall a rap song about killing cops. Was he held responsible for any murder of cops?
I do not think anyone should be held accountable just because other people did something in relation to what they said or wrote.
How about actually holding people responsible for their actions?
Tootie,
Whether or not I’m offended is beside the point – you are once again making bigoted and uninformed comments about atheism. I happen to think that atheists tend to be more moral than theists – they act in the way that they believe is right rather than the way that they think will allow them to avoid punishment from their magical sky daddy. It’s not really all that hard to come up with rational reasons for behaving in a moral way – personally I believe that acting morally and ethically are in my self-interest (I have other reasons for acting ethically, but that one is generally sufficient…).
Bob,
I certainly don’t believe that a person has no responsibility for orders they give. The example that I was thinking of was the Nazis – I seriously doubt that anyone at Nuremberg was prosecuted for following orders while the person giving the orders was absolved of guilt…
ChaZ,
I don’t think anyone here is saying that what Sarah Palin did should be illegal – just that people who do that sort of thing should be called on it. You know, people should take responsibility for what they say…
mespo:
A correction of my gibberish is required.
A sentence in my third paragraph (written in response to you) read:
“Every is really a reactionary since, really, nothing is new under the sun.”
It should read:
“Everything is really reationary since, really, nothing is new under the sun.
mespo:
You wrote:
“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!”
LOL
No. Not a reactionary.
But, in a sense, all poetry is reactionary, is it not? But I think you meant to say political reactionary.
And to that I say this. Every is really a reactionary since, really, nothing is new under the sun. IMO.
What Obama wants is what Marx wanted. It’s old fashioned. It’s what Robespierre wanted. It’s all a rehash.
All of government is a do-over. All of it reactionary. So, I suppose, we should make being a reationary a normal condition of the human race. Perhaps even a positive unique condition.
We (as a government or governments) shall do things as we have always done. We shall change things around, add this, add that, delete this and that; but there are only so many conceivable ways to organize the human race that virtually all of them have been done and make any new attempt reactionary.
We are limited by our biology and by our creature-ness. By matter. By space. Physics. Etcetera.
We cannot leave the planet (yet) and create a new civilization with a perfect justice. The desire to do that here and now has usually led to more injustice. Especially when the means are compromised by injustice.
As to up being down or right being wrong, your analysis is fautly. I did not say water was bad. I said it could be bad.
A Tsunami comes to mind. Or do the non-reationaries just pop a cork and toast the glories of nature?
James M. said:
“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.”
Absolutely no reason?
Are you saying that our government should have ability to discern between all pictures, all writings, all publications if they are for good reasons or no reasons for censoring purposes? Do you really want to give our (or any) government that kind of power to make that determination?
For me, I prefer that everyone have 100% freedom. If you give government the 1% power to monitor our press, then they will take more and take more and take more because they will use that same argument “Oh there is absolutely no reason for people to read that or see that”.
Giving 1% power of press control to government is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to full control.
Congratulation, you’ve just put a crosshair on our constitution. Mentally.
Slarti: “Are you implying that the person giving an order has no responsibility for that order?”
Two words: Charles Manson.
From what I’ve seen Christians just make up ethics as they go along,