I was struck by today’s response of Sarah Palin to criticism that her rhetoric and “targeting” of Rep. Gifford’s district may have added to the recent massacre in Tucson. In fairness to Palin, the family stated today that Jared Loughner did not watch news or listen to talk radio. However, I was most interested in her claim that the attacks against her and conservative commentators amounted to a “blood libel.”
On her Facebook page, Palin has the following comments:
But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.
Of course, she is not speaking of actual libel. Such criticism of the over-the-top rhetoric of conservative commentators is clearly opinion and not defamation.
“Blood libel” is a term usually associated with religious groups who are accused to killing innocents. Blood libels have a strong anti-Semitic history, such as claims that Jews feed on the flesh or blood of innocent children. For that reason, the Anti-Defamation League has denounced the use of the term — though I do not believe that the simple use of this term is evidence of any anti-semiticism by Palin.
That is a pretty loaded term to use for the criticism over violent terminology and over-heated rhetoric. Indeed, it seems to emphasize a degree of persecution. There is probably some distance between dueling and discourse.
The closest term in torts is “group libel” which (as discussed earlier) is generally difficult to establish.
If either term is relevant, there appears to be an ongoing effort on both sides to tag the other with the massacre. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik stated “The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information. . . [Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.”
Limbaugh has reportedly fired back by saying that the Democratic Party supports Loughner and is “attempting to find anybody but him to blame.”
In the meantime, members are moving toward a spasm of new laws to criminalize speech.
There is of course another obvious possibility: Loughner is mentally unstable and fully motivated by his own personal demons. Of course, this does not mean that we should not reexamine the rhetoric of our politics.
Frankly, I also share the concern of conservative commentators with politicians like Bernie Sanders (who I agree with on many issues) referring to the massacre in fundraising appeals. This massacre has somehow become about the politicians as opposed to the killer or the victims. That alone says something about the state of our politics.
Jonathan Turley
Lemur,
I said ‘mature ECONOMY’ not ‘mature MARKET’ – try actually reading what I wrote! Developing free market economies make money in bucketloads (the also exploit their workers and pollute the environment quite effectively if unregulated), as the economy matures like ours, free market capitalism starts stratifying wealth. 40 years ago the average CEO made about 20 times what the average employee did – now that’s more like 200. Are CEO’s 20 times more valuable today or is this behavior that is expected from the free market? I believe it is the latter and all of the empirical evidence supports my position.
Bob,
You’re being disingenuous – neither Buddha and I are talking about legislating acceptable speech, we’re talking about telling demagogues who make a living preaching hate and violence that they are pathetic, unAmerican, and should be ashamed of themselves and telling everyone else that not only is there a connection between such speech and actual violence but it is also toxic to our civil discourse and hence our Republic and that we will all be better off if these people are marginalized. The only one being dishonest here is you in implying that we were talking about legislating speech.
Bob,
I’m going to say this again real slow . . . we’re not talking about court or law.
Chan L.: “Shouldn’t a moral law and a practical law be non-contradictory?”
I’m not sure what part of the “square of opposition” you’re referring to, but regarding the categorical imperative…
A simple imperative says that given a certain set of ‘circumstances’ a particular action is necessary.
Given the limits set by circumstance, we do not call it a law.
A categorical imperative is an absolute requirement applicable to ALL circumstances and is thus a law.
Always begin with your ‘necessaries.’
You’ll find a similar order of operations in the fundamental theorem of poker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_poker
Man does not exist solely in the concept of pure reason.
Man exists as part of a terrain.
It is very hard to separate the two.
Bob Esq:
If the law is not in the nature of man, wouldnt it be against man? Shouldnt the law be compatible with the nature of man so that it protects what men value, i.e. their lives? Wouldnt it then be both a moral law and a practical rule/law?
Shouldnt a moral law and a pratical law be non-contradictory? Your post seems to imply a schism between a moral law and a pratical rule/law.
“Everyone must admit that if a law is to be morally valid as a ground of obligation, then it must carry with it absolute necessity. [One] must concede that the ground of obligation here must therefore be sought not in the nature of man, nor in the circumstances of the world in which man is placed, but must be sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure reason; he must grant that every other precept which is founded on principles of mere experience-even a precept that may in certain respects be universal-in so far as it rests in the least on empirical grounds-perhaps only in its motive–can indeed be called a practical rule, but never a moral law.”
No one can understand why people think the “atmosphere” contributed to his shooting unless they live here in Arizona.
We had millions and millions of dollars flood our media market with terrifying commercials, both on television and on the radio. The signage all over town was disgusting and full of hate speech.
This was on top of the daily dose of the Hatestream Media. The people here who follow Palin consider everyone else to be communists and traitors. She has a huge following here thanks to McCain.
The political climate here has been terribly violent since last summer. It was just a matter of time. Now we have had 4 Republican office holders quit their positions after the shooting because of death threats from the TeaParty.
Thats terrorism in my book.
Brock Asks Ed Schultz: Is It An Accident Pelosi, Murray, And Giffords Were Targeted? There’s A Lot Of Misogyny On Talk Radio
From the January 14 broadcast of Dial Global’s The Ed Schultz Show:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101140042
Chan L.,
Please add to the discussion with substantive rebuttals. Your constant misspelling of ‘Buddha’ clearly demonstrates that your major goal is inciting trouble instead of reciting meaningful debate.
Thanks.
Chan,
Unless you have something to offer besides merely personal sniping?
Stuff it, greed boy.
Bob,
Then you don’t properly understand anti-propaganda and operate off of a totally different definition of bearing false witness than I do.
Premise: Inciting language appeals to the mentally unstable.
Fact: People like Glenn Beck use inciting language.
Fact: Beck has directly inspired attempted attacks by mentally unstable people. (see Elaine’s post of January 16, 2011 at 1:37 am)
Fact: The Tuscon attack brought such inciting language into the public discourse about the corrosive nature of political speech – direct or proximate causal nexus or not. This was instigated by the media and the political parties themselves, not me personally.
Fact: That a successful shooter may or may not have been causally connected to the incitements is only relevant to his direct case.
Fact: That the unsuccessful shooters/attackers were causally connected to the incitements is relevant to the corrosive climate created by such incitements. Such analysis might not have been brought to the forefront absent the media’s self-criticism and the political parties scrambling to cover their asses in case there was a causal connecting proven for Tuscon.
The third fact, if your assertion of undermining credibility holds, points to the media and the parties as undermining their credibility. As an anti-propagandist, I am merely exploiting that. Again, if I were suggesting a causal connection in the Loughner be used as a basis of prosecution absent further evidence, that would be bearing false witness. Pointing to inciting language in general as contributing to an environment where “2nd Amendment solutions” are perceived as viable – by the unstable or not – isn’t. It’s exploiting an opening created by the media and the political parties proper.
Bubbha:
Bob Esq is handing you your ass on a gold plate again.
Slartibarfast:
“Lemur,
Just so you know, unregulated free market capitalism in a mature economy is an environment where wealth tends to stratify, not an environment where wealth creation thrives…”
Just so you know there is no such thing as a mature market in free market capitalism. What with new markets, products and services being created everyday.
Stick to your chosen profession.
Buddha: “We don’t know in fact that there is no nexus here. And it’s not bearing false witness if there is no prosecution. … We don’t know in fact that there is no nexus here. And it’s not bearing false witness if there is no prosecution.”
To imply the existence of that which you have absolutely no hint of proof existing is in fact bearing false witness. Furthermore, what we have been learning is that for six months prior to the attack the man’s psyche was decaying into incomprehensibility. None of the words Laughner used to describe his struggle with the world are found in the vernacular of the right or left.
The man was clearly a burger shy of a happy meal; compelled by his own demons based on his personal interactions with the congresswoman himself.
I’m never one to argue “don’t stoop to their level” since sometimes that’s the only thing the other side understands; but I am against mortgaging one’s credibility for a cheap fleeting gain.
Bob,
We don’t know in fact that there is no nexus here. And it’s not bearing false witness if there is no prosecution. Again, “[d]irect or proximate cause is not required. No one is talking prosecution. That would require a lie (barring contrary forthcoming evidence if any).
It’s the court of public opinion and as such operates by different rules and has different acceptable tactics. What is required is simply any mechanism that gets people to think about the problem you wish to address. Cybernetic ‘combat’ – propaganda and anti-propaganda – operates on different axioms than adversarial process.”
Buddha,
Implying the existence of a nexus where the speaker knows that none in fact has been shown to exist IS THE IMMORAL ACT.
Whether the end achieved is Fraud or, how shall we say, bearing false witness, is irrelevant to the analysis.
Bob,
Fraud.
It wasn’t a feint because it was an end in and of itself.
Buddha: “Attacking Iraq wasn’t a feint either.”
What do you call Bush, et. al. implying and stating that a nexus existed between 9/11 and Iraq?
Slarti: “At the risk of mentioning a topic that we probably shouldn’t discuss… Swarthmore mom’s link showed a connection between Glenn Beck and 3 assassination attempts – that’s already stronger than connection between Saddam and 9/11 (and it did not require any lies).”
What does it have to do with Tuscon?
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/439286/watch%3A_maher_says_founding_fathers_would_have_hated_tea_party/