When political rhetoric become dangerous (Ricin laced letters)

[colourwheel]

 

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.

 

Umm this is 2013 not 1999. Some of these groups haven't even existed for over 2 decades... :rolleyes: What ever far left rhetoric you believe is far more damaging was left in the mist of the popularity of the x-files tv show.... *whistles the x-files theme song* "I want to believe"

 

 

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?

 

Besides the actual person who sent those letters off, every political pundent should stop lying about Obama and his socialist army is going to show up at your door and take away your guns when it is leading to average people getting harmed from these toxic laced letters.

 

 

 

Freedom of speech does mean you have the right to lie and mislead.

 

Again... no it does not... ;D

 

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

 

I'll just repeat what Tidus44 said:

 

"A lie that causes harm (and "harm" is fairly broad in definition) to others is not protected by the 1st Amendment."

 

If you really don't believe this then go on with life lying and misleading everyone and see how far in this country you will get, if you don't eventually endup in jail ... :rolleyes:

Edited June 4, 2013 by colourwheel

[JimboUK]

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.

 

If telling lies were a crime the worlds politicians would all be in jail.

 

The left on this side of the pond have similar issues with free speech, they rarely debate and instead look at ways to silence those who disagree with them.

[colourwheel]

 

If telling lies were a crime the worlds politicians would all be in jail.

 

Libel and Slander

Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

 

Clear and Present Danger

Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

 

Ussually politicians who lie endup paying at the cost of their own political career. Just because you lie doesn't mean you are going to jail but if lies lead to people getting harmed then they should be held accountable for it.

 

You look at Michael bachman who representing Minnesota's 6th congressional district. She did absolutely nothing for her district and has one of the worst records for a congressman in office with only one bill to show for in her entire political career because she tried to repeal obama care like i think 37 times.... Michael bachman thankfully is leaving congress now but her leaving political office will probably put so many fact checkers out of a job. lol

 

Now Bachman is probably going to become just another talking head and get paid millions to bring more hate and fear in the minds of the conservative base. Can't tell you how many times i've her her say how Obama care is going to destroy lives and kill people. lol

 

 

The left on this side of the pond have similar issues with free speech, they rarely debate and instead look at ways to silence those who disagree with them.

 

As much as i will agree with you the left probably has similar issues with free speech. Currently the left doesn't have to debate or look at ways to silence the other side because the right is constantly being called out for their own misleading rhetoric and lies. It would seem there is no reason to silence those who disagree with them because they are too busy trying to back talk thier own false rhetoric most of the time. Most of the politicians who are in office who are misleading the public tend to only care about their own political career and will do anything to stay in power even if it means to purposely disrupt government progress and let the nation suffer.

Edited June 4, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

 

Umm this is 2013 not 1999. Some of these groups haven't even existed for over 2 decades... :rolleyes: What ever far left rhetoric you believe is far more damaging was left in the mist of the popularity of the x-files tv show.... *whistles the x-files theme song* "I want to believe"

 

 

You say this like 2 decades is an exceedingly long amount of time. It is not, and most of the people who were affected by those events are still alive. In fact, it is possible that extremism in general is a cyclic phenomenon and that the reaction against those events contributed to the creation of the current right-wing extremism that you cite, much like the "blow-back" phenomenon caused by US and European intervention is arab states that is often cited as the root cause of arab dislike for Americans and Europeans.

 

Also, the faction that currently holds power is always the one that will draw out enemies. If there were currently a right-wing president the attacks would come from the left. Would you expect the leftists to make threats against Obama? Threats against the current president is a normal part of having the job. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan testified to congress that the number of threats made against Obama is the same level as it has been for the past two presidents.

 

Consider that when Bush was president it was common to see protestors with signs that said "Bush lied, people died" with his picture edited to include a Hitler mustache, a noose, flames, a targeting reticle, devil horns, etc. During Obama's presidency the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan both have increased, but those same people somehow lost the urge to make a correspondingly aggressive "Obama lied" sign. If the wars that they were protesting worsened during Obama's presidency then it stands to reason that they weren't protesting the war as much as they were protesting the person who was running the war, and the political ideology that he was attached to. Similarly, the current right-wingers who protest anything that Obama does were silent while Bush was running the same games, and telling the same lies, that Obama is currently.

 

 

Besides the actual person who sent those letters off, every political pundit should stop lying about Obama and his socialist army is going to show up at your door and take away your guns when it is leading to average people getting harmed from these toxic laced letters.

 

 

Again, who are you referring to that is saying this? What notable journalist or media personality made this statement? Did they follow that statement with an encouragement of violence against the president? I highly doubt it. Are you suggesting that they stop making such statements willingly, or that they should be forced to legally? If you think there should be legal force behind it who do you think should be the judge of what is true and what is false? Who should be the censor?

 

The people who received the letters are far from average. They are government leaders, and their job is inherently dangerous. It is impossible to please all, or even most, of the people and there will always be danger associated with the job. It has been this way throughout history. There has never been a leader who was loved by all and who lived without threat of attack, and there likely never will be.

 

The article that you linked seems accurate, and political opinion or speculation is not mentioned at any point. I did not say that free speech means ALL free speech and ALL lies are protected, but that free speech law cannot declare a political opinion or speculation as a lie. Opinion and speculation are both unambiguously protected forms of free speech. If a political commentator went on the air and encouraged people to storm the white house with pitchforks then that would be a violation of the law, but if all he does is tell some lies and half-truths mixed with a sour opinion then it is absolutely a protected form of free speech. There are defamation laws that apply to some situations but defamation generally does not apply to opinions or speculation, is difficult to apply to criticism of public officials, and requires that the person who told the lie did so despite knowing for a fact that it was a lie. The "rhetoric" that you are so worried about is way outside of the scope of defamation.

[colourwheel]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Umm this is 2013 not 1999. Some of these groups haven't even existed for over 2 decades... :rolleyes: What ever far left rhetoric you believe is far more damaging was left in the mist of the popularity of the x-files tv show.... *whistles the x-files theme song* "I want to believe"

 

 

You say this like 2 decades is an exceedingly long amount of time.

 

Because two decades is a long amount of time... ;D

 

 

The people who received the letters are far from average. They are government leaders, and their job is inherently dangerous. It is impossible to please all, or even most, of the people and there will always be danger associated with the job.

 

The letters never even made it to the people who they were intended for... you don't think these people have their mail screened 1st? The people who ended up getting harmed were average american people just handling the mail... postal workers and office people. Handling Toxic laced letters shouldn't be a common hazard for postal workers and office personnel to be pinned as dangers associated with the job.

Edited June 4, 2013 by colourwheel

[Beriallord]

 

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.

 

There is a difference between sharing a political opinion, or a personal opinion in the public view, and shouting at the top of your lungs to create a public disturbance, or screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater.

 

For example telling someone to **** off isn't a crime, but pursuing someone to repeatedly harrass them verbally is.

 

If lying to the public were to be illegal, every single politician that was ever elected to power in America, would be subject for impeachment. The same goes for the media.

 

The government has admitted in the past it uses false information to sway public opinion in favor of one thing or another. Its called psyops, and its a real tactic used by the military and intellgence community on our own citizens. The lies about Saddam having "WMDs" and the threat being imminent was one example of psyops on the American public.

 

Its each individual's personal responsibility to discern truth from lies. If they don't know the differnece, then it sounds like a personal problem to me.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Beriallord

[colourwheel]

 

 

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.

 

There is a difference between sharing a political opinion, or a personal opinion in the public view, and shouting at the top of your lungs to create a public disturbance, or screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater.

 

For example telling someone to **** off isn't a crime, but pursuing someone to repeatedly harrass them verbally is.

 

If lying to the public were to be illegal, every single politician that was ever elected to power in America, would be subject for impeachment. The same goes for the media.

 

The government has admitted in the past it uses false information to sway public opinion in favor of one thing or another. Its called psyops, and its a real tactic used by the military and intellgence community on our own citizens.

 

Its each individual's personal responsibility to discern truth from lies. If they don't know the differnece, then it sounds like a personal problem to me.

 

 

Oh so now there is a big "IF" in freedom of speech....

 

 

That is the problem with leftists, they see free speech with a big "IF" in the middle.

 

 

I guess i will just agree with you now. ;D

Edited June 4, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Because two decades is a long amount of time... ;D

 

You seem to have missed the other 95% of my post, but that's fine. We'll roll with this thought for a bit...

 

If two decades is a long amount of time then much of the liberal platform should be amended to reflect this. Affirmative action is no longer necessary, since segregation and slavery both ended a long time ago. Gender rights are no longer an issue because the women have had the right to vote for a long time. Diversity efforts in general should be abolished because anti-discrimination laws were passed a long time ago, thus putting an end to any diversity issues that once existed. We no longer need to worry about gay equality because we elected the first openly gay congressional representative a long time ago, thus proving that equality had been achieved.

 

Or, maybe 20 years is a tiny little speck of time when viewed in historical terms, and these are all still valid issues that are worth considering. I am inclined more to believe this than the idea that "two decades is a long amount of time". In fact, the entire US government is very young when considered next to the much older European and Asian nations, and I think that we should consider events of 20, 50, 100, or 200 years ago to be fairly recent events in the context of world history, and the history of our country.

 

For example, the US and UK both became heavily involved in Iranian affairs back in the 1950's, eventually helping to bring about a coup. The effects of this coup are still being felt to this day, and every time you hear someone calling for us to go to war with Iran you can trace the events that led to the current tension straight back to those covert actions back in the 1950's. If you limit the scope of your observation to two decades you will miss a lot of the relevant context and will lack any true understanding of the current situation.

 

Going back to the idea of dangerous political rhetoric, the current right-wing extremism looks much less menacing when viewed in the context of history. The extremists come out of the woodwork cyclically, just like the politicians do. If you try to silence a viewpoint it will only harden the resolve of those who hold that view, and will swing the cycle even harder. The extremists will become even more extreme, just like in Iran. They had a democratic government that we covertly replaced with a monarch, which in turn radicalized the nationalist Islamists and led to a revolution and a unitary government as a reaction against the monarchy, and to this day that nationalist Islamic government is opposed to any diplomacy with the west. The same sort of thing happened in Afghanistan and Iraq during the 80's, and effects of those actions are also still felt today.

 

 

The letters never even made it to the people who they were intended for... you don't think these people have their mail screened 1st? The people who ended up getting harmed were average american people just handling the mail... postal workers and office people. Handling Toxic laced letters shouldn't be a common hazard for postal workers and office personnel to be pinned as dangers associated with the job.

 

 

Claiming that the president's mail screener is an "average american" or a "postal worker" is like saying that the president's chauffeur is an "average limo driver". That person may indeed work for the post office, but the inherent risk involved in that job leads me to believe they should be considered somewhat above average. It is their job to absorb this type of threat, and they are probably honored to do so in service to their country, just like a secret service agent who unflinchingly steps in front of a bullet. It may be a bit less dramatic, but that doesn't make it less important. They have a dangerous and important job, and they did it well. To invoke sympathy for them as a reason to begin censoring speech is an insult to their sacrifice. It is not a common hazard, it is a rare and extraordinary one that necessitates their profession.

[colourwheel]

 

You seem to have missed the other 95% of my post, but that's fine. We'll roll with this thought for a bit...

 

No! I did read all your posts. just doesn't seem relevant to comment about since it would completely derail the topic more than it already has. If you want to start your own topic about which Radical extreme political group has been historically more dangerous go right ahead.

 

But for this thread if you can think of any recent false dangerous political rhetoric that you can point to that you think has lead to demestic terror maybe I will have something more to say about it.

 

 

The letters never even made it to the people who they were intended for... you don't think these people have their mail screened 1st? The people who ended up getting harmed were average american people just handling the mail... postal workers and office people. Handling Toxic laced letters shouldn't be a common hazard for postal workers and office personnel to be pinned as dangers associated with the job.

 

 

Claiming that the president's mail screener is an "average american" or a "postal worker" is like saying that the president's chauffeur is an "average limo driver". That person may indeed work for the post office, but the inherent risk involved in that job leads me to believe they should be considered somewhat above average. It is their job to absorb this type of threat, and they are probably honored to do so in service to their country, just like a secret service agent who unflinchingly steps in front of a bullet. It may be a bit less dramatic, but that doesn't make it less important. They have a dangerous and important job, and they did it well. To invoke sympathy for them as a reason to begin censoring speech is an insult to their sacrifice. It is not a common hazard, it is a rare and extraordinary one that necessitates their profession.

 

 

These letters were handled by more than just people who screen mail. The person who did this didn't just drop them off dirrectly to their offices. These letters were handled and mixed with other peoples mail. Who knows unofficially how many people came into contact with the toxin before they even reached the screening process.... Handling Toxic laced letters shouldn't be a common hazard anyone should have to deal with even if it's the president's chauffeur.

Edited June 4, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

In the spirit of staying strictly within the rails of the thread topic, I will quote you from the OP:

 

 

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......The point i am trying to make is should people be held accountable for false political rhetoric which ultimately leads to crazy people doing dangerous things like the person who sent these letters off?

 

 

Who do you propose should have the power to determine what is true and what is false, and what speech should be directly linked to actions by someone unrelated to the speaker? In what way should a person be held accountable for their speech? Should they be punished, and if so what should the punishment be?

Edited June 4, 2013 by TRoaches