When political rhetoric become dangerous (Ricin laced letters)

[rizon72]

 

My thought is Radical Right wing rhetoric is to blame for this persons extreme to commit domestic terror and making threats to end the lives of Obama and bloomberg.

 

You forget all the threats to kill Bush by the left, the book, movie, t-shirts. Signs at rallys stating to kill the President, yet the left was silent, that was more harmful. Yet it seemed all right to have those signs under Bush, but even protest Obama and the left goes bonkers. I actually witness such signs against Bush in person, and the attitude of the people, its all right to and some were actually hopeful it would happen.

 

This rhetoric isn't just from the right, but left does it as well. Don't forget Jared Loughner, the liberal who went wacko. Just because a threat isn't carried out, doesn't make it right.

 

I've said my peace, not going to reply back. The left has their idiots who are violent or promote violence just as much as the right has their idiots. To ignore one side is to ignore half of the threats.

[colourwheel]

 

You forget all the threats to kill Bush by the left, the book, movie, t-shirts. Signs at rallys stating to kill the President, yet the left was silent, that was more harmful.

 

You know what happens to these people? they get arrested and investigated... :rolleyes:

And i have never read or seen any political movie advocating for people to kill the president.

 

 

This rhetoric isn't just from the right, but left does it as well.

 

 

There are always nut jobs in the world but for this particular situation it is Radical Right wing rhetoric to blame if anything. Nothing to do with the the left wing rhetoric in the persons letter...

 

 

Just because a threat isn't carried out, doesn't make it right.

 

Was never claiming anything to be right or wrong. But to actually execute domestic terror over someone who doesn't there is a huge difference. This is why it is not equally dangerous.

Edited June 3, 2013 by colourwheel

[JimboUK]

Are you seriously suggesting people should stop criticising Dear Leader because it might make a lone nutjob do something like this? the only person responsible for those letters is the bloke who sent them, no one else.

[colourwheel]

 

the only person responsible for those letters is the bloke who sent them, no one else.

 

I would agree with this if there wasn't a strong political message in the letter theatening Obama and Bloomberg or anyone who would show up at their door.

 

You have to ask yourself how many political pundents on TV and radio have you heard trying to make people scared Obama and his Radical army are going to come and take everyones fire arms away? I can honestly say I have heard this false narrative come back to me reading web articles and watching cable news many times over.

 

You honestly believe this person made up this idea in his head alone that Obama and Bloomberg are some how connected to authorities going to come to their house and take away their fire arms?

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting people should stop criticising Dear Leader because it might make a lone nutjob do something like this?

 

Criticising is one thing, but to keep having political pendents in media constantly keep making false claims and statements to generate fear and hate focused towards political leaders is another thing.

 

And yes, I think that could be a good start that people should be held accountable for repeated false political rhetoric that leads to nut jobs executing dangerous and harmful things such as this person who send out Ricin laced letters. When you think about it who did these letters endup harming? The people who handled the mail...

Edited June 3, 2013 by colourwheel

[JimboUK]

Of course the attacks are political, he's a politician. You can't hold people responsible for the actions of others, to try and do so would lead to people self censoring for fear of prosecution, that's the end of freedom of speech.

[colourwheel]

 

Of course the attacks are political, he's a politician. You can't hold people responsible for the actions of others, to try and do so would lead to people self censoring for fear of prosecution, that's the end of freedom of speech.

 

Yes there is freedom of speech but just because you are free to speak your mind doesn't mean you cant be held accountable for your actions no matter what you are speaking about.

 

Saying pundents who constantly keep repeating the same false hate rhetoric should be held accountable by either correcting themselves to the public or being fined a huge fee when their rhetoric specifically lead to people doing dangerous things.

 

I think this would also help people to be more careful what they say in the political world so we never endup with another michael bachman... :rolleyes: Almost everything that has come out of bachman's mouth has just been stuff she made up in her own head it would seem.

 

Just a hypothetical example:

 

Say I had a popular radio show and kept brainwashing my audience with hate and fear spreading complete nonsense and lies aimed towards Jim_uk. Then say all of a sudden one day Jim_uk starts getting letters laced with toxic material in the mail by some nut jobs stating the same kind of false rhetoric you would hear on my radio show all the time. You really don't think there should be any consequences for me or be held accountable for the lies i was speading that lead to these nut jobs sending Jim_uk theatening hate mail laced with toxins because i have the freedom of speech?

Edited June 3, 2013 by colourwheel

[Beriallord]

That is the problem with leftists, they see free speech with a big "IF" in the middle. The way I see it is freedom of speech doesn't grant someone the right to not be offended. And nobody should be accountable that speaks and influences what some crazy person does.

 

Freedom of speech also means you have the right to lie and mislead people, publicly or otherwise. Infringe on that right means you would be infringing on free speech. If you hate freedom of speech just say so.

 

People say a lot of things I find despicable, but that doesn't mean I don't support their right to free speech, even if I adamantly disagree with it, or even if I think they are outright liars looking to mislead people.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Beriallord

[colourwheel]

The way I see it is freedom of speech doesn't grant someone the right to not be offended. And nobody should be accountable that speaks and influences what some crazy person does.

 

Freedom of speech also means you have the right to lie and mislead people, publicly or otherwise. Infringe on that right means you would be infringing on free speech. If you hate freedom of speech just say so.

 

I would have to disagree with you. Just because a person has the freedom to speak their mind still doesn't mean that they can't be held accountable for what they say no matter what. A person can't go around making bomb threats or screaming fire in a crowded public place. A person can't make threats to assassinate the president.

 

Even if you walk into a public place and start swearing at the top of your lungs for hours most likely the 1st amendment isn't going to protect you from getting kick out of the place.

 

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to lie and mislead people, publicly or otherwise. The point where something start to infringe on other peoples freedoms or lead to infringment of other peoples freedoms is where this line starts to be drawn. Freedom isn't unlimited.

 

This is going back to what Tidus44 said earlier in the thread:

 

 

I am amazed by how many discussions or excuse for some action point to the constitution and Bill of Rights as somehow the final and absolute answer to an issue. The idea that such things are hard and fast or absolute or somehow so obvious as to be indisputable is both amusing and sad.

Edited June 3, 2013 by colourwheel

[Tidus44]

What the 1st amendment protects isn't lying or anything else, it's about government making laws that prevent free speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

The "right" of freedom of speech neither protects lying nor condemns it. While Congress is not supposed to make laws limiting the freedom of speech, there are compelling reasons to do so and while not specifically part of the 1st Amendment, the Supreme Court does identify exceptions to the right of freedom of speech. These exceptions include defamation (which is actually held in common law) with slander (spoken defamation) and libel (defamation by media other than by spoken words), threats to others, inciting illegal acts or violence (the term used is "fighting words"), obscenity, child pornography and my favorite, no yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

 

Before I go on I have always wondered at the yelling "fire" rule. What if the theatre isn't crowded, its partly or mostly empty or not crowded? Is there a percentage, like 35% empty, where it is OK to yell fire? Of course it does make one wonder what the procedure is if there is a fire in a theatre and it is forbidden to yell "fire". I assume that the proper procedure in the US is to lean over to the person in the next seat and whisper, "Umm, excuse me, I hate to interrupt your viewing pleasure of this movie but there is a fire over there. Please be so kind as to pass it on to the next person. Thank you." or some such similar means other than yelling "fire". Of course, I figure that those individuals compelled to yell "fire" in crowded places find relief in nightclubs, malls or sports stadiums as they are not listed as locations where yelling fire is forbidden.

 

Yes, I'm being facetious, but it leads one to the "community standard" that the Supreme Court has established about lying being protected by the 1st Amendment. One need only look at the recent strike down of the Stolen Valor Act. What the Supreme Court said is it is OK to lie about getting the Medal of Honor because the only harm done is to the individuals reputation, it causes no harm to others. Yelling "fire" where no fire exists is not about yelling fire, it's about lying and the lie resulting in harm to others.

 

If you believe one can lie and be protected by the 1st Amendment, go out and tell people you are a policeman or a doctor and see how far you get claiming your lie is protected by the 1st Amendment and Freedom of Speech. Lie to your insurance agent the next time you file a claim and see how that expedites your claim. Get a web page and start posting that a breakfast cereal you don't like is full of metal shavings and see what happens. Go to your boss at work and falsely report that a co-worker is stealing and see how that works out for you.

 

Sadly, few people understand their "rights" other than through some childish analogy such as the "yelling fire" example. A lie that causes harm (and "harm" is fairly broad in definition) to others is not protected by the 1st Amendment, unless you are a politician, or well known/famous, or rich, or the friend of a politician or well known person or..... I think you may get the drift here without me going further.

And worse, it seems the courts in the US and other countries think in the same simple way. If one were to look for a reason for the moral decline in North America (especially), just look to the courts and their rulings.

 

Anyway, I'm off to the store to pick up a Medal of Honor and some Purple Hearts so I can wear them with my police uniform as I wander about in the local hospital telling people I'm a doctor. Wish me luck.

[TRoaches]

Would be interesting to see an example of far left rhetoric that is just as damaging as far right. As much as i can agree there are crazy people on either side of the political spectrum, I would hardly concided them equally dangerous when people are sending letters laced with toxins threatening to kill people who show up at their door on the far right....

 

 

Weather Underground

Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional

Ilich Ramírez Sánchez aka Carlos the Jackal

Red Army Faction

Black Liberation Army

Japanese Red Army

 

These are just a few of the more notable examples of far-left extremists, but there are many more. Each one carried out attacks that did far more damage to civil society, and presented far more danger to society as a whole, than a few poisoned letters ever could. They shot and bombed civilians in accordance with the far left rhetoric that they believed in.

 

 

 

Just because a person has the freedom to speak their mind still doesn't mean that they can't be held accountable for what they say no matter what. A person can't go around making bomb threats or screaming fire in a crowded public place. A person can't make threats to assassinate the president.

 

I don't think anyone disputes that a person should be held accountable for their actions, but you seem to be arguing that a person who says something controversial should be held accountable for the actions of others. Who do you believe should be held accountable for the letters that thus far has not been? Whose rhetoric do you think should be punished?

 

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to lie and mislead people, publicly or otherwise. The point where something start to infringe on other peoples freedoms or lead to infringment of other peoples freedoms is where this line starts to be drawn. Freedom isn't unlimited.

 

 

Freedom of speech does mean you have the right to lie and mislead. It means EXACTLY that, because free speech law does not distinguish between a lie and a truth as far as political opinion is concerned. One person's lie is another person's truth, and if the government is allowed to define what is true and what is a lie then there is no freedom of speech. From the US government's perspective it was an absolute truth that the Vietnam war was necessary to prevent the spread of communism, and the loss of life was justifiable. From the perspective of the returning soldiers who later protested against that war the government lied about the necessity of the war and the justification of the deaths. Many other vets, my dad among them, thought that the protesting veterans were themselves lying. If their speech was not protected by law the government could have declared their "rhetoric" as untruthful and dangerous. The point here is that the difference between truth and lie is very murky and depends entirely on the observer's perspective. This is an example of why it is important that the government does not have the power to define truth.