Timothy Egan's essay in The New York Times is typical of many philosophical musings by liberals now that seem to incite a call to "do something" about the First Amendment, but stop short of actually prescribing policy, or looking at the Second Amendment -- or for that matter, policies to treat and restrain the violently mentally ill in an effective and humane manner.
Like others striking a thoughtful pose and remaining content to let their readers bray in the comments to bridle freedoms of campaign speech and political association, he isn't saying what exactly he means when he implies in fact there *is* some legal remedy here involving the First Amendment:
Neither amendment, of course, killed a 9-year-old girl or put a bullet through the head of that bright soul, Gabrielle Giffords. But both amendments, when abused, can have lethal consequences, as the congresswoman herself said so hauntingly in March. The sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, who is already under Tea Party attack for speaking his mind, had it mostly right when he said Arizona had become “the Tombstone of the United States.”
As I have, he notes the plea of Congresswoman Giffords herself last March, when Palin came out with the infamous crosshairs map:
“We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” said Giffords. “Crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences.”
My response in the Times comments:
And what are those consequences, do you think, Timothy Egan? Rep. Giffords didn't say in March -- and we may never know what she meant.
I'll tell you what I think the consequences should be -- that such politicians should not be elected. That's all. *Not elected*. Not entrusted with power to represent the American people. The consequences *surely* shouldn't be that they are silenced. If in March you could not find any way to bring Sarah Palin to court over a campaign image with target crosshairs, then there is no more reason to bring her to court today, as the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that to be actionable, speech must rise to the test of "incitement to imminent violence".
And if you can concede that there isn't a legal remedy here via the courts in invoking "abuse" of the First Amendment as you imply, when are you suggesting that we be bound by some politically-correct coercive code of conduct shy of such a legal remedy? Then say so.
If you are not implying in fact that we need private institutions everywhere to instate codes of speech conduct (and they have already done so on many Internet forums, college campuses, and workplaces), or you're not calling for public confessions and recantations of rightwing figures (as CREDO and Daily Kos are), then..that's it.
And all the sly incitement that Paul Krugman engages in at the New York Times to delegitimize the left; all the opportunistic calls for bullying campaigns by CREDO and the Daily Kos; all the smug and pious rallies for sanity by Jonathan Stewart and Steven Colbert, even as they, too, annihilate the right from existence by cultural ostracism -- none of it will achieve their goals. Unless they mean to turn rhetoric into coercion and violence themselves.
If you don't like what Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Fox News are saying, change the channel, and don't elect them or those whom they recommend. Meanwhile, let's recall that they and those they recommend were not elected as president. The right *isn't* in the White House -- and it's been two years. Can you handle it?
So...Deductions, Timothy? Do you in fact mean imposing some sort of civility code instead of keeping the First Amendment? This tragedy isn't an "abuse" of the First Amendment, nor is it a lawful exercise of that freedom that killed a 9-year-old girl (and a judge, too) -- although we *do* appreciate your effort -- as sly as Krugman or Rich -- to try to jerk our tears here. This tragedy is a result of the inability of society to care for and restrain the mentally ill in a timely, humane and appropriate manner, and to control guns. While I quite understand your desire to read more into it -- your reading more implies there's some change regarding free and unfettered democratic politics, rather than change in procedures for registering the mentally ill and guns. Difference. And shame on you for not making that difference and implying that all our freedoms have to be threatened.
And shame on you for trying to take the horrible story of Senator Murray into yet another coercive lever to extract policies by fiat. Those angry at this policy obviously don't see it as "giving others a chance to get well" but find that it threatens to take away some economic freedom they previously enjoyed. Can you stand that some people have a political difference about this with you, without ascribing to them deadly intentions?! Why would a public policy change that happened to spark a murder threat require that such a policy change has to be rammed through?
As for your rehashing and parcing of all these other rhetorical excesses from the overheated rightwing at home that also don't rise to the Supreme Court test of actionable behaviour, I suggest you get busy at something more realistic: addressing our Nobel Peace Prize laureate president about two wars abroad where more people have been dying, both our own soldiers and innocent civilians, since he received it.
It sounds like *when* the law-enforcers find people who threaten violence in language that they claim comes word-for-word from Glenn Beck," they act and put away such offenders promptly. They don't "put away" Glenn Beck. Or are you suggesting they should? Let's hear you answer that question rather than whiplashing legions of your readers to bay for it themselves.
And...we are to think about...what? Don't be coy. Say what you mean. You hinted you want to change or remove the First Amendment. Would that not also risk silencing your own purported words of insight and peace?
Words matter. And fortunately, we have a way to respond to words we find matter -- at the ballot box.
Recent Comments