One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
from the discourse? dept
Like many people, I was absolutely horrified by the story over the weekend concerning the shooting in Arizona that has left a bunch of folks dead and left US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in extremely serious condition in a hospital. At the same time, for many years, I've been disgusted by the nature of political discourse, which often seems to involve petty name calling and ridiculous hyperbole (on all sides of the debate) usually based on association, rather than any actual position. It's one of the reasons that we almost always try to avoid naming political parties on this site -- because we seem to get knee-jerk reactions to the party that someone is a member of, rather than a response to the actual positions. That said, I'm troubled by the fact that many people have immediately jumped to the conclusion that the shooting was somehow caused by that ridiculous level of hyperbolic discourse, despite little evidence to support that. So far, almost everything said has suggested that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was an immensely troubled individual, whose views were all over the map, rather than tied to any particular prevailing viewpoint.So I'm troubled by reports that the quick, knee-jerk reaction from some politicians following the shooting is to pass laws to restrict forms of speech, especially the exceptionally vague plan of Rep. Louise Slaughter to "better police language on the airwaves." Don't get me wrong: even if this shooting had nothing whatsoever to do with the level of political rhetoric and childish bickering we see everyday in Congress and among the chattering pundits, it would be great if the end result were to lead to more reasoned debate, rather than ridiculous hysterics and blatant overstatement and exaggeration. But passing laws are not the way to do that. Telling people what they can and cannot say is not going to fix the level of discourse in American politics today. Outlawing certain forms of speech on the airwaves will not stop crazy people from shooting others.
Are there crazy people out there? Absolutely. Is the level of political discourse in this country somewhat ridiculous and often counterproductive? Almost certainly. Are those two things connected? That seems like a huge stretch, with many people jumping to some unproven and unsubstantiated conclusions, leading to knee-jerk responses that limit speech based on nothing but an unproven hunch. That's not the way law making is supposed to work. And isn't making unfounded accusations against your political oppoents to try to squeeze some political advantage from such a tragedy just compounding the hysteria already present in the debate? Why not start by setting a good example, rather than threatening to force everyone else to shut up?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: discourse, free speech, garbrielle giffords, jared lee loughner, politics, shooting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Daily Show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Daily Show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Daily Show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Daily Show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For being willing to encourage people to think about the actual situation instead of leaping into misplaced action.
"my god, she was shot. Quick, we need laws that.. police.. airwaves.. or something. because the bullet flew Through the air, so, its obvious"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
DISCLOSURE : I'm a libertarian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ms. Palin, rather than even possibly consider that placing 'bullseyes' (her word) over this very Congresswoman's district or comments like "Don't retreat, reload" might be just might be, something to reconsider - she decided to attack people criticizing her as the ones inciting violence.
No word on whether she sees the sad irony in her attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/democrats-have-their-own-target-map-and-bull s-eye-map.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, you might want to take a look at it. Because they're very different.
First of all, the Democrats were targeting states where they needed to focus future campaign efforts. Palin's map targeted individuals, and did so after the voters could have any impact on the legislation mentioned in the graphic. There's also a difference between an archery target and scope hairs.
It's a stretch to interpret the Democrat's map as an advocation of personal vengeance. It's hard to see Palin's map in any other way (even if that "vengeance" is only symbolic).
Any objective observer can see that the "tea party" conservatives are far more focused on incendiary rhetoric and spreading falsehoods than even the extreme left. They both do it, of course, but that doesn't mean they're equally guilty.
...Having said that, regulating "incendiary speech" is terrible, terrible legislation. Fortunately, I doubt it will even come close to getting passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I don't buy your convoluted argument to justify the Dems and condemn the Repubs. If you have to split hairs to justify your view, you probably have the wrong view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are more than reasonable to say Dems have done this too. I don't discount it. I'm just saying that rather than Palin saying, "Yes it was wrong, both sides have done it, but that didn't make it right", she's simply gone into victim mode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed Shultz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ed Shultz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We don't call it "shooting" a demographic, we call it "targeting." So it doesn't seem like such a stretch. In fact, what is a stretch is thinking the two are roughly equivalent.
So if a Republican is shot with a crossbow will you change your mind?
No. Quite obviously, I will blame anyone who shops at Target. :)
Sorry, I don't buy your convoluted argument to justify the Dems and condemn the Repubs.
I won't condemn mainstream Rebupblicans. I will condemn "tea party" Republicans. They are to conservatives as Fred Phelps is to Christianity.
And I have many problems with the Democrats. I disagree with them about gun control, "victim feminism," their one-sided view of racism, and their tendency to try to pass anti-speech laws like this. I think Michael Moore often lies, and that Hillary is a power-hungry political zombie.
So, both the Left and the Right have good and bad points to make. But there's no question that at the moment, the Right is more aggressive, vitrolic, and spiteful in making them.
But let's stop fighting, and find something we can both agree on: that Louise Slaughter is an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OMFG libtard, the dems want someone to shoot entire states and you think that's fine? that's genocide!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you honestly believe in this, you scare me.
Because you might as well be arguing that video games, movies, music, books, etc. cause violence.
I think that you just hate Palin, so everything that's done by her or in her name is an excuse to demonize her.
Granted, I don't like her either, but I don't need to look for tempest in teapots for reasons not to like her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think for a second that Karl was saying that Palin was responsible for this guy's actions. But, it's very difficult to see anything other than violent connotations in that image, even if they weren't intended to cause real violence.
They didn't cause or influence the shooting, IMHO, but it's a great example of the violent and divisive rhetoric regularly spewed out by her and her ilk ("don't retreat; reload, talking about "real Americans" - implying that non-rednecks are not, "death panels", "second amendment solutions", "we came unarmed this time", etc.).
It's a symptom of a disease that's infected your political culture, and Palin is one of their most prized figureheads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you might as well be arguing that video games, movies, music, books, etc. cause violence.
To be clear: I do not think that the map caused violence, in any way.
The message, however, was that since these politicians voted for the health care bill, they should be shot. No, that message wasn't literal, it was rhetorical, and people have been using similar rhetoric since before our country was founded.
But it should be viewed in the same way as burning an effigy of a politician. Think of the images of Islamic fundamentalists burning effigies of Bush. Do you think that contributed nothing to anti-American sentiment? If the leaders of those Islamic people were truly against hurting Americans, wouldn't they at least publicly decry that kind of symbolism?
That's really all I'm asking the "Tea Party" conservatives to do. Admit that the rhetorical message is inappropriate, and stop using it. Not because of the shooting, but because it's bad in and of itself.
Or if they won't, they should stop being cowards and admit they have no problem with the shooter's actions.
Either is fine with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One thing that sickens me about American politics is the reasoning for such extreme behaviour. The Muslims in the Middle East who held such demonstrations were protesting against a perceived anti-Islamic policy of the US. They were protesting the murders of innocents, the occupation of two Muslim countries and the fear that their religion was under attack. Whether you agree with their viewpoints, this is a fairly valid reason to imply the murder of the man responsible, if such a thing can truly be validated.
Americans were protesting... what? Taxes, even though they're objectively low? The idea that they'd have to provide for people who couldn't afford healthcare (even though they're already doing so)? That a black man had the audacity to be elected? Whatever the reason, the protests are hardly comparable, and so the violent imagery in the supposedly more "civilised" country is rather misplaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What something like the graphics should do is either get you to realize the metaphor being used - or simply discredit the organization using such idiotic propaganda.
Sarah Palin's rhetoric is that of fear mongering - irrational - semi-violent expression. Likening her crosshair metaphor to a more literal translation isn't a far stretch but is itself irrational.
The Democrat's graphic expresses the metaphor of drawing focus - aka targeting - to the states that needed attention is the proper interpretation.
How you interpret the metaphor being used is the critical issue, and if you allow yourself to be influenced by the rhetoric of violence you will see violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly where is this line drawn, though? Obviously, if someone walks up to me on the street and says "Go on a killing spree," then the blame is placed on me if I do so.
However, if a large group of people is shouting "We need to attack these people," and I do so, is it the same situation? (I'll concede this as, probably. But read on). More importantly, if I'm mentally limited (as it appears the shooter in this case was), then can the blame still rest with me?
If you have a subject who, due to his or her own limitations, is extremely suggestible, then is it really their fault if they're motivated by the actions of others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Map
Also, not accompanied by incendiary rhetoric of the "2nd amendment remedy", "don't retreat-reload" "fire an automatic weapon to defeat Giffords" variety. Instead, the Democrat webpage analyzes political strengths & weaknesses & urges political organization.
Recognize these names:
Forde, Popalowski, Von Brunn, Roeder, Hutaree Militia, Kane, Williams?
All right-wingers involved in gun violence in the last two years. Not a left-winger in the bunch. Mainstream Left-wing rhetoric does not inspire left-wingers to violence. Mainstream Right-wing rhetoric does. Ignore facts at your own peril.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A commenter posted the following at 18:12:
"It's ok. Christina Taylor Green was probably going to end up a left wing bleeding heart liberal anyway. Hey, as 'they' say, what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler as a kid? Exactly."
I think I literally gasped when I read that. Remember, Christina Taylor Green was the 9 year old girl killed by the shooter. Apparently she had been brought there by her mom, who thought she might get a kick out of meeting Rep. Giffords, having recently been elected to her student council.
I assumed, as a matter of course, that this particular comment would be deleted with greatest possible speed.
So I kept hitting refresh, hoping to use this as an example to say, "You see, Palin's Facebook editing at least has the good judgement to remove clearly offensive content such as this." But it didn't come down.
Yeah... It just goes downhill from there. Apparently, Sarah Palin's Facebook is biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you look at the reaction to that shooting with the reaction to this one, you have to admit they're not being consistent when placing blame...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pot meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Going down the road of "RIGHT SIDE SAID RARRR" and "LEFT SIDE SAID BLARG" is missing the point: both sides are doing something bad. Now, please note, I did not say "both sides are to blame". That rests with the shooter (as Chrono said in a different thread here). While I do believe the blame is with the shooter, this event should still be looked at as an example of how the vitriol seeping from Washington can influence bad behavior.
Instead of saying "oh wow, ol' Lefty is sure being a hypocrite about this", why not say "Hey, you know what... maybe both parties need to tone it down a lot". Pointing out how the left would have reacted in a hypothetical is doing nothing but keeping the LvR hostility alive and keeping the focus on the side instead of on issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you. I was seriously getting frustrated to the point of blasting most everyone else on this thread for missing the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of Mike's article and start going on and on with the left vs. right crap, until you provided this ray of hope.
Seriously, anytime anyone says "the left/right are wrong because of..." I immediately stop listening, because I know that person is an idiot....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So I noticed ;)
You're welcome. There isn't a single part of the bipartisan, left/right-wing bullshit in this country I don't hate. And I do mean hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course there will be people who say that it isn't "Islamic teaching regarding treatment of infidels"; the average Muslim shuns violent acts like suicide bombing. They will point out that instead it's the crazy rhetoric of a few sociopaths that pushed a mentally unstable person over the edge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is a vast vast difference between a blog calling for violence and hateful actions and duly elected/nominated government officials spouting about 'second amendment remedies' or 'don't retreat, reload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[DISCLAIMER] I am not commenting on the political views of either Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter. From what I've heard, I do disagree with them. But here, I am only commenting on their past use of violent rhetoric in their public addressing, interviewing, etc, and the legitimacy of their place in the political limelight since neither is actually doing anything for the country through an elected or appointed position. If you want to debate how right or wrong either of them is, please go somewhere else and talk to someone else. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I'd say this is less of a reason to legislate away the first amendment than to practice a bit of self-censorship ourselves. You know, ask yourself if something is plainly stupid or inflammatory before you say it. Granted that's not likely to happen when politicians rely on inflaming their base to win primaries but still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I severely disagree with Ann Coulter's tactics of sensationalism. I have an even bigger disagreement with the fact that the media eats it up and spews it out there for the rest of America to suck up with a straw. I don't think there should be any new laws to damper the flames, but we can take away the matches from elected officials. We can't do that when the person causing the fire is, essentially, no one except for the fact that people (media) keep letting them talk.
I don’t know what the answer is… These blowhards have proven themselves incapable of censoring themselves. New laws are not the answer. The media really doesn’t care if some of us don’t like it… they’re just going to keep on keeping on. Boycott activism is useless in this day and age because it's inconvenient and we as a people are too damned lazy to do it.
Honestly, I was most moved by John Stewarts monologue when he was talking about how hopeless the political system seems… I feel the same damned way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If anyone ever hears about me shooting up some political folks, please let everyone know that I'm against both major parties and the great majority of the minor parties. I don't think I have it in me to shoot folks that aren't shooting at me so I doubt the good people of TechDirt are ever going to have to worry about that, but I wanted to say that on the record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They seem to have some fucked up priorities in that state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What do you mean? As a neighbor to the west, I think we pretty much take the cake for screwed up priorities. After all, we thought it was a good idea to sell our power generation capabilities to other states, which meant that when we needed to buy power, we had to do so at inflated rates from our neighbors because even though we had enough power generation capabilities, we gave them away. We also suck when it comes to finances (our governor just announced that he's raising our taxes, and if we are really good, he won't raise our taxes as much the next time,) and we tend to pay more for housing and gas then just about anyone else in the nation (except maybe Hawaii.) Then of course, you have the free health care, education, and food stamps to illegal immigrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Hate California Firster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Hate California Firster
I am just offering perspective for the Anonymous Coward that said Arizona was all screwed up. I am looking at Arizona right now and all I see is far more sanity beyond the border (sure, grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.) Now if there were jobs that I could work there, and I could afford to sell my house, I'd be heading east.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They seem to have some messed up priorities in that state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
Where is the line? I don't know, but I'll know it when I see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
Just like pornography!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Passing laws for these kinds of occurrences should only be done with careful deliberation. Knee-jerk reactions is what give us abominations like the USA Patriot act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
PSA: The coffee you order will be hot and crazy people will do crazy things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give credit where credit is due
This is the same crap that got Jack Thompson disbarred. He tried to take blame away from where it was due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give credit where credit is due
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyways is just a matter of time for nutjobs to start getting out of the woodwork, this government is not popular and people are just fed up with them. There is an anger that is growing and that will lead to violent demonstrations eventually if they keep curtailing everything and don't pay attention to their constituents not that I'm condoning anything, I'm noting the natural development of things, people are not happy and for now is just the nutjobs continue to act like there is no population and soon it will not be just crazy people doing violent acts,
Free speech will be greatly threatened at that point and we will see what the people is made of then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People Hurt my head
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The TEA Party terrifies me with Sarah Palin talking about using your guns, I feel I have to defend myself just to vote. I got so sick of the rhetoric I had no choice but to turn it off.
Of course the TEA Party will raise hell and get everyone riled up with their hate speech and then take no responsibility for their actions.
I blame the TEA Party and Sarah Palin personally for this horrific act. I also blame the past actions of the GOP in the state of Arizona. They are promoting violence with their policies. Arizona terrifies me even more than Texas and I'm white.
PS. No matter how you look at it, rewrite it or sugar coat it. Mr. Boehner, Your name is not pronounced Bayner, It's Boner. I learned English in American schools and cannot pronounce it any other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then you're a moron....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morans
That would make you a moran.
Also, remember that guns dont kill people, people kill people (often with guns).
Both Sarah & the TEA Party are at least partly to blame - though I don't know which is the match & which is the gasoline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HATE speech to the rest of the civilized world is not Terrorism, hell it's not even "hate speech" it's just called an opinion. See, we sane people who can exercise self regulation know that words are harmless. They in and of themselves cannot do anything - they are intangible modes of conversation.
It is crazy, insane, or otherwise mentally compromised individuals that give words physical merits - such that they can influence or directly cause action. If you honestly believe a 3rd-party is responsible for the actions of an individual you can count yourself amongst the crazies. I most certainly will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ultimately we are all responsible for what we do (or choose not to do). However, to say that words have no influence over one's actions is to underestimate the power of words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First, I agree with your conclusion.
Second: Any day we get both the "Fire in a Theater" scenario and Nazi Germany mentioned in comments to the same blog post, then we know a good discussion is underway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Words are Harmless
While they are not all-powerful, neither are they impotent.
This is why your First Amendment Right to Free Speech comes with limitations & is not absolute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Words are Harmless
Cash value 1/20th cent. Not redeemable for cash. Not usable in theatres, cinema houses or auditoriums. Not valid in all areas, including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, or anywhere outside continental U.S. Other state laws may impose additional conditions. Intended only for the private use of our audience. Other descriptions or accounts of the game are prohibited without express consent. Available by prescription only. Seek immediate medical attention for an erection lasting longer than four hours. Consult your doctor to see if this product is right for you. See product insert for full details, additional restrictions and limitations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/troll feeding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. people who draw completely irrational (and patently incorrect) conclusions about who is to "blame" for some event
2. people who constantly live in fear
3. people who have easy access to a gun
4. people who believe that carrying a gun somehow solves a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out Any Amendments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, it might make more of them. This 'pressure' on the people from government is likely the root cause of this whole situation - considering the targets.
Every time the 'take away more rights' answer comes up to a 'problem' - it starts making me wonder about the source of the original 'problem'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing's ever as clear as it seems in these situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Those that make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K.
The mentally disturbed are in less control of themselves, then of course they are going to be the first to react (over-react?)
Since we have lost control of our government long ago, it does not surprise me that someone was going to act out sooner or later.
"Lost control of our government? Mr. Anonymous Coward how could you say such a thing? We have elected officials, voting, checks and balances, etc, etc..."
An easy answer, (not the only one of course), is that laws are passed without consent of the people. Patriot Act comes to mind, so does Obamacare. I don't wish to start a debate/ argument over these two peaces of law, I simply use them as an example of something that I did get a chance to vote for.
We've lost control folks. Pat yourselves on the back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheers to that!
Indeed, the whole 'left/right' spin just keep people from seeing what's REALLY going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as we are free, we will be free to make horrible decisions. Some people will attempt and fail, others will succeed. This is the price of being free.
Let's honor the dead by celebrating our freedom instead of restricting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, loons don't get idea beamed to them from little green men on mars, they get ideas by listening and reading public discourse on the issues of the day. Certain things resonate with them more, such as "setting things right" or "reclaiming America" or 1000 other things that might have triggered their logic.
Combine that with incredibly easy access to guns, insane public carry laws for guns in Arizona (yes, you can take your gun to school or the office). Guns are the answer for many people, and all this loon did was put 2 + 2 together and decide to "fix things".
There is more than enough blame to go around, but certainly the level of public discourse, rhetoric, and venom involved in many of the discussions on the radio, TV, and the like are not helping. For someone with some issues on dealing with reality, these things are the grist for their mills, the energy that encourages them to do stupid things. Most of the time the stupid things are on the level of holding signs up in public or perhaps shouting insults at people in public areas. This dude took it to the next level and took out 6 people and wounded a dozen or so more.
Like it or not, he is a product of your society. Society must accept part of the blame. If the wingnuts on the radio can't control themselves, perhaps it's time to give them a time out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, this asshole is the product of some gene that didn't develop fully giving him the same rational that the rest of us exercise. As you stated - he is a loon - loons are fucking crazy - and there's nothing you can do about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
only in America...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: only in America...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: only in America...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: only in America...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No matter how much reason you throw at some of these people (no matter which side of any aisle the fall on), their views will never change.
Sad really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My post was meant to point out the sad people who are very close minded and simply won't ever realize that they may be wrong, and should at least revisit their views once in awhile no matter how much evidence stands against them just because they think you belong to the opposing group.
I cannot tell you how many times I have been accused of being a Democrat or a Republican for my view on [ random thing ]. I actually find being accused of either to be in bad taste because that just shows me that they are a very close minded person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rant and ramble
Second, the sort of extremist speech we see is an effective tool. I'm going to touch several third rails here but I believe the only solution lies well outside the realm of laws restricting free speech. Only a change of political and religious leaders will reduce the senseless violence.
Fred Singer. He gave us the whack job argument that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer because you can't link smoking a specific cigarette to a specific individual getting lung cancer. Mountains of statistical evidence notwithstanding, tobacco companies are free to sell a deadly product because they have cover of "plausible deniability".
Fred Singer. He gave us the whack job argument that because you can't trace a specific weather event to human influence on climate, there is no human influence on climate. Mountains of evidence notwithstanding, big oil companies continue to receive generous federal subsidies with full cover in the form of "plausible deniability"
For decades now we've heard the Republican party allow its members to repeatedly and openly call doctors "baby killers" and "mass murderers". Periodically one of the wild-eyed zealot followers picks up a bomb or a gun and commits murder. We get that same Fred Singer excuse - you can't link their rhetoric directly to the zealot committing the crime, even though statistically it's obvious that there are zero pro-choice activists killing people and there are dozens if not hundreds of anti-choice activists burning down clinics, killing doctors and nurses and screaming amplified versions of the same rhetoric that originated with/is endorsed by officials at the very highest levels of government.
So now we have an out of control element of American politics who thinks anyone and everyone who dares to disagree with them fair game for mock executions by machine gun, and we have political candidates who either tolerate it or endorse it. Even mainstream Republican presidential candidates had multiple incidents of people shouting out loud that their political rivals committed treason and should be killed.
Where have we heard it before? "You can't trace my machine gunning portraits of my political rivals to some specific lunatic actually gunning down the person that I was only *pretending* to kill"
There is nothing wrong (from a first amendment perspective) with allowing people to picket the funerals and say that people should die and that a god wants those people to be killed. There will always be lunatics in the world, that's a fact of life.
What's wrong is the lack of any serious, sustained response by supposedly responsible political and religious leaders to stop the hate at the source.
Try the shoe is on the other foot. How many politicians of every stripe have blamed Muslim leaders for violence specifically because those governments/leaders allow fundamentalist hate speech to go unchecked?
What would the reaction of the tea baggers and Christian religious leaders be to a Muslim pointing his AK47 at a portrait of Sarah Palin as part of his election campaign?
They would of course, endorse the man for high public office, wouldn't they?
US politicians and religious leaders have a standard response whenever they're called on their own wink-wink nod-nod version of hate speech: "We don't endorse that weed, we only planted the seeds and watered them a little bit whenever election time comes around. You can't possibly blame us for it getting out of control in a few places".
There is ample evidence that "plausible deniability" works well. It's not free speech that's the problem, it's political and religious speech (or lack thereof) that's the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rant and ramble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, part of that is how much it costs to feed a family, heat our houses, fill our cars, watching our buying power dive into the toilet, etc, etc.
"hearing over the airwaves"
There you go, cant have an original thought, must have been told to them by the radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can not really understand the mind of an insane person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The peoples rights.
Or ultimately the Second and Forth.
Where it says "the right of the people" that means you and me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy solution: just this.
Expand the exact same level of protection to all 535 members of congress and all Federal judges, district to SCOTUS. Send out the FBI. Criminalize the same, which will not affect any legitimate political speech. Done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy solution: just this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy solution: just this.
Thank goodness you're not actually in any position of power, or our country would be totally fucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are shooters of political figures predominantly identified in the media by 3 names?
Jared Lee Loughner
John Wilkes Booth
Lee Harvey Oswald
James Earl Ray
John Hinckley, Jr. (the Jr. probably threw them for a loop)
Any reason? I know there are exceptions (i.e. Sirhan Sirhan) but still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
words have power and meaning
All through the history of the ages, words have meant something. While it's debatable whether or not the shooter acted upon the "far right" message, what can't be in question that there are people who "do" take this words to heart, on both sides.
We have almost forgotten what it's like to have a true debate without it turning into a he said, she said, type of thing.
It's time for both parties and the mainstream media and all of these pundits to realize that we are doing no good in behaving this way, we are destroying this country. And the sane rational people out there, are letting it happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or am I just a whackjob?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for Loughner, he didn't watch TV, listen to talk radio, of follow the news, as he considered them to be boring. Also, he first expressed animus toward Giffords after he pulled a TAM on her in 2007. 2007, you'll remember, is when right wing hate speech was at its peak, especially regarding house members in Arizona.
Of course, these are all trivial points when you look at the real issue: Loughner played video games. Specifically, this indicates that he played a text-based empire management game. Last I checked, empires were built through conquest.
Therefore, Loughner's actions can be traced to violent video games. Yet another reason we should work to ban these murder-porn simulators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe democrats are tired of getting death threats
You have the right to swing your arms around all you like, unless you swing your arm into someones nose.
You have the right to say anything you like, unless you utter a death threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not you too!
Jared Lee Loughner was politically motivated. He made YouTube videos ranting about his politics. He talked about his politics. He scared everyone who knew him with his politics. His favorite books were political. He ate, breathed, and slept politics.
The politics he chose to gravitate to were right-wing, hateful, and, well, as crazy as he is.
Do we deny that he was mentally insane? Of course not!
Are we suggesting that we burn all the books that were on his favorite list? No!
Are we proposing a limit of the right to free speech just because of one nut? If you believe that, you have conspiracy theories to rival Jared Lee Loughner!
But when you start out denying "Oooooh no, he wasn't part of our camp! No, he had NOTHING TO DO with politics!" - you become afflicted with a psychological malady we like to refer to as "being full of shit".
Now, look at John Lennon's killer. He had "Catcher in the Rye", pulled it out and read it over Lennon's dead body. It was his bible. Nobody is suggesting that it was J. D. Salinger's fault that Lennon got shot.
Nobody is suggesting that it's Sarah Palin's fault (or Rush Limbaugh's, or Glenn Beck's fault) that Jared Lee Loughner went on his rampage. But that doesn't stop me from thinking that when Palin, Limbaugh, or Beck heard the news, that their eyes might have flickered with a twinkle for a minute when they heard about the main target before they put on their media face. Doesn't mean I'm right, but you have to admit that Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck have done everything they can to make me not put it past them.
As a content producer (I write, draw graphic art, and make software) I try to be responsible for what I put out in the public. There have been ideas I've had that I discarded specifically because I don't want to put ideas into the head of some nut who would not be responsible with them.
No, I do not want a legal requirement to censor myself. Legally, we must have complete freedom. But MORALLY - is that word extinct, or what? - MORALLY, I have a responsibility to society to not create an atmosphere conductive to hate.
It is this morality that is lacking in some political media. That's all anybody's trying to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not you too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not you, tool
Not a self-regulating bone in your body, eh?
BTW, I want take issue with Penguin Pete's contention that "nobody is suggesting" that it's Palin or Limbaugh's fault.
I'm suggesting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not you, tool
I'm suggesting it.
Then you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something I would like to point out
But please be aware that although you can say anything you want, you have to own up to the consequences (good or bad) of your actions. I honestly think that's why our political system is so frustrating. Congress gets immunity to do whatever they want within reason and it hurts us in a negative manner.
Still, if you're a citizen in the US, sometimes, it's best to keep your mouth shut.
I'll stay out of the left/right debate, merely noting that there isn't much differentiating between the two party system. Quite frankly, if we want our political system to work, we need all new parties and election procedures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I heard he played video games...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets bring up gun control too (Bill did on Leno, think his last name is Mauer or something.) Lets ignore the fact that guns are easy to get in Arizona but hard to get in New York and New Jersey. Lets compare shootings in Arizona to New York City or Camden or Newark. Bet there are more in one city in NJ than in the state of Arizona.
To call this wack job in Arizona a right winger is just a joke. He was a nut that followed no normal political thought. To try to blame it on a political party is just the lowest form of politics I can imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Left wing hate speech
I'll not deny that there were plenty of Left wing insults, mockery & just plain hate speech thrown at Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez & the rest of that gang of thieves by common folks, but prominent Democrats of the sort that get in the media were pretty mild in their criticism. (Perhaps you feel differently because you are unusually sensitive. Cite me some examples & we can discuss this further.)
History will judge the "loyal Bushies" to have been the most corrupt administration since Harding & it is a crying shame that Obama did not choose to prosecute them. They **deserve** the opprobrium of the people of this country. If I have any complaint about the Obama administration, it is that they hew too closely to the corporatist policies of Bush/Cheney.
2) More shooting in New York/New Jersey than Arizona?
For 2006 at least, the murder rate was 7.5 per 100,000 in Arizona, 4.9 per 100,000 in New Jersey, & 4.8 per 100,000 in New York.
3) With regard to the deranged Mr Loughner - if he had shot Jan Brewer & wasn't a gold-backed currency freak (Beck influence), then you might be able to make a case that he wasn't influenced by the right-wing cult of violence & paranoia - but, hey, he shot a Democrat, albeit a conservative Democrat.
4) You say "To try to blame it on a political party is just the lowest form of politics I can imagine."
Really? The "lowest form of politics"? No, I think inciting the population to paranoia, delusion & rage is the "lowest form of politics".
And I think that statement of yours is a pretty low form of politics too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Left wing hate speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Left wing hate speech
Hardly twisting a point - making a point is more like it.
Here's another point:
"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.
Zamudio agreed:
I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.
The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."
That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater. "
Get the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Left wing hate speech
I'm not sure. Is your point that some hypothetical catastrophic event that didn't materialize is grounds for gun control? If that is your point, again, you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay some interesting stuff ....
Schizophrenia is a disease that does happen at different times in peoples lives. Some people are born with it some people it comes on later in life. From what I have read of this this guys writings in 2006-2007 Jared Lee Loughner began acting differently. Which was more than likely the onset of the disease.
Now to start a war of words ;) ... perhaps it was obamanomics that caused this event. I mean the guy tried to get a job 30 times or so. Or maybe it was the fact that he couldn't get laid like all those crazy muslims. Or maybe it was sarah palins maps targeting democrats.
Endless speculation about what triggers a psychotic individual doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay some interesting stuff ....
Now, much of that was clearly rhetoric and people will claim that's not to be taken seriously. But, the weight of evidence, from Palin's "crosshair" graphic to the "second amendment solutions" comments points toward a political scene that approves of violence. It's a poisonous and atrocious viewpoint that people have been pathetically trying to distract from or ignore rather than apologise for or address.
I'm not saying that Palin or anybody else on "her side" was directly responsible for this guy's actions. He was clearly mentally disturbed and held extremist positions from all sides of the political arena. But, to pretend that the toxic and violent rhetoric that's been coming from these people wasn't a factor is just plain ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as far as guns are concerned..had the idiot used a car and just run over people would some you now be calling for limiting vehicle use, or outlawing cars....I wonder what the discussion would be then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The anger was there ...
Spread out thru the room to make your numbers appear larger than they are.
Interrupt early & often.
Google it, it's out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sidewinder, explain the fact that Camden is the 2nd most dangerous city in America? Used to be #1 but lost out this year to St. Louis. With police layoffs, probably make it back to the top spot.
My friend is a cop and he doesn't like to go to Camden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camden - we're #2
Why don't **you** explain to me why there are more murders per capita in Arizona that in over-crowded, financially depressed, polluted New Jersey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Camden - we're #2
I'll answer your question with a question. Why do you think Arizona is passing laws to curtail illegal immigrants? Mexican immigrants in particular. Mexico having a small problem with drugs and violence of their own right now.
Get the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Camden - we're #2
So please bring me numbers - surely the local media must be overflowing with stories. The aptly named Fox affiliate KGUN must be livid with outrage that Murdoch's national network is showing such liberal bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]