When political rhetoric become dangerous (Ricin laced letters)

[colourwheel]

 

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?

 

It's not a question of who should determine what is true and what is false. The thing i am trying to stress is people need to stop the false political rhetoric that is indirrectly leading to people being harmed.

 

Political pundents who use false political rhetoric that is generating such fear and hate leading to nut jobs doing dangerous things has to stop. This isn't just to pick on the right wing so much as to start holding anyone accountable either on the right or the left which lead to people being harmed based on false rhetoric.

 

Should they be punished? I would want them to be atleast held accountable and atleast make public statements to correct themselves.

Edited June 5, 2013 by colourwheel

[bben46]

 

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.

That mail is handled by many common postal workers before it gets to the specially trained and better paid people in the congressional and presidential mail rooms - They are not paid any extra to handle toxic mail. But, yes, the presidential mail room people did their job just as they are trained, but that doesn't mean they don't rate recognition for what they do.

 

As a 66 year old, things that happened just 20 years ago are - to me - fairly recent. I remember well the White only water fountains of the 1950s, The race riots of the 1960s the anti war protests of the 1970s and many other things that you kids think are ancient history. :whistling: ( And I hope they stay ancient history) so things that happened in the 1990s are not that far removed for me.

 

Inflammatory rhetoric is nothing new - The Spanish American war in 1898 (before even my time :P ) was mostly caused by inflammatory rhetoric in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer ( of the Pulitzer prize) wanting a war with Spain to increase their newspaper circulation (see Yellow Journalism )

[TRoaches]

It's not a question of who should determine what is true and what is false. The thing i am trying to stress is people need to stop the false political rhetoric that is indirrectly leading to people being harmed.

 

 

Political pundents who use false political rhetoric that is generating such fear and hate leading to nut jobs doing dangerous things has to stop. This isn't just to pick on the right wing so much as to start holding anyone accountable either on the right or the left which lead to people being harmed based on false rhetoric.

 

Should they be punished? I would want them to be atleast held accountable and atleast make public statements to correct themselves.

 

 

If you are stressing that people need to stop the false rhetoric then we must first define what the false rhetoric is, so that is certainly a part of question that we are discussing. If we are not willing to label some points of view as false then we cannot stop those views from propagating. If we ARE willing to label some points of view as false then we are diving right into censorship issues, and the next question that must be answered is who will hold the power to censor the views of others.

 

If the standard of what should be censored is that the belief has the potential to generate a few nut jobs then plenty of other things, outside of politics, that become potential targets for censorship. The Manson family murders were carried out because Charles Manson thought that the Beatles were prophets, therefore the Beatles were producing indirectly dangerous rhetoric according to the logic that you propose. There is a solid and undisputable history of people doing horrible things because they believed that their religion compelled them to do so. In fact, there are far more religious crazies than there are political ones, so if we are going to censor rhetoric in the name of safety then religious rhetoric should be an obvious and much higher priority than political rhetoric. Which religions should be permitted? Who should determine which beliefs are valid, and which are false?

 

A more balanced way to look at it would be that 99.99% of theists and Beatles fans are peaceful, there will always be a few crazies, and we should just focus on the crazies instead of unfairly demonizing those who influenced them but had no direct involvement in their actions.

 

Once again, what does "held accountable" mean as you are using it here?

[colourwheel]

 

Once again, what does "held accountable" mean as you are using it here?

 

 

If you ask me people who are political pundents that constantly keep repeating the false narrative generating this fear and hate that their guns are going to be taken away should make offical public statements in light of recent events leading to these dangerous letters. Would be nice if they could atleast bring to light that no one is going to come take their precious fire arms away. They should take their "personal responsibility" to address their public audience that what they have been preaching is not the truth.

 

And if they persist they should be arrested for continuation of promoting false dangerous political rhetoric that has lead to domestic terror and harm to average american people.

 

Freedom of speech should only be valid until it starts to hurt other people and infringe on other peoples freedoms...

Edited June 5, 2013 by colourwheel

[saadus]

 

 

Once again, what does "held accountable" mean as you are using it here?

 

 

If you ask me people who are political pundents that constantly keep repeating the false narrative generating this fear and hate that their guns are going to be taken away should make offical public statements in light of recent events leading to these dangerous letters. Would be nice if they could atleast bring to light that no one is going to come take their precious fire arms away. They should take their "personal responsibility" to address their public audience that what they have been preaching is not the truth.

 

And if they persist they should be arrested for continuation of promoting false dangerous political rhetoric that has lead to domestic terror and harm to average american people.

 

Freedom of speech should only be valid until it starts to hurt other people and infringe on other peoples freedoms...

 

Okay, I am going against my better judgement and stepping in here.

 

Every (wo)man is responsible for her/his actions. The News is slanted (There isn't a news station that ISN'T IMO) but it is not their fault this guy decides to poison some letters and mail them. Saying it is means just because I heard my girlfriend cheated on me, I dump her without investigating it. (Which, sadly, I guess that does happen often)

 

Point is, don't blame the news. Blame the man who refused to do research and decided to take a life on the CHANCE that it may happen.

 

Or, another way to look at it, if it is the news fault that the man sent the letters, it is Obama's fault for starting such a controversy that gave more than enough ammunition to any journalist. If he hadn't mentioned getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, then the news wouldn't have reported it, and the guy wouldn't have sent letters.

 

**EDIT**

Feel free to add to the chain of blame. I'm sure it can be somehow extended.

Edited June 5, 2013 by saadus

[colourwheel]

 

 

 

Once again, what does "held accountable" mean as you are using it here?

 

 

If you ask me people who are political pundents that constantly keep repeating the false narrative generating this fear and hate that their guns are going to be taken away should make offical public statements in light of recent events leading to these dangerous letters. Would be nice if they could atleast bring to light that no one is going to come take their precious fire arms away. They should take their "personal responsibility" to address their public audience that what they have been preaching is not the truth.

 

And if they persist they should be arrested for continuation of promoting false dangerous political rhetoric that has lead to domestic terror and harm to average american people.

 

Freedom of speech should only be valid until it starts to hurt other people and infringe on other peoples freedoms...

 

Okay, I am going against my better judgement and stepping in here.

 

Every (wo)man is responsible for her/his actions. The News is slanted (There isn't a news station that ISN'T IMO) but it is not their fault this guy decides to poison some letters and mail them. Saying it is means just because I heard my girlfriend cheated on me, I dump her without investigating it. (Which, sadly, I guess that does happen often)

 

Point is, don't blame the news. Blame the man who refused to do research and decided to take a life on the CHANCE that it may happen.

 

Or, another way to look at it, if it is the news fault that the man sent the letters, it is Obama's fault for starting such a controversy that gave more than enough ammunition to any journalist. If he hadn't mentioned getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, then the news wouldn't have reported it, and the guy wouldn't have sent letters.

 

**EDIT**

Feel free to add to the chain of blame. I'm sure it can be somehow extended.

 

 

Obama has made it clear in the past on the record. No one is not going to come to their home take away anyones fire arms... (public statement on his part.) :ohdear:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrxUBMlCyiE&feature=player_embedded

Edited June 5, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

If you ask me people who are political pundents that constantly keep repeating the false narrative generating this fear and hate that their guns are going to be taken away should make offical public statements in light of recent events leading to these dangerous letters. Would be nice if they could atleast bring to light that no one is going to come take their precious fire arms away. They should take their "personal responsibility" to address their public audience that what they have been preaching is not the truth.

The idea that gun confiscation is a "false narrative" is itself debatable. Weapon confiscation is a well documented historical fact, and it has happened throughout history. The historical precedent of oppressive governments confiscating weapons from citizens is the is the reason why the 2nd amendment was included in the constitution, much like the historical precedent of oppressive governments suppressing controversial speech is the reason why the 1st amendment was included. It has even happened recently here in the US. Many people in powerful positions have stated publicly that they would like to make guns illegal, and even the Vice President stated publicly that the President may enact gun controls through executive order. Such proposals are usually qualified by the use of the phrase "assault weapons", as in "we support gun rights, but assault weapons should be banned." However, there is no real clear definition that exists of what an assault weapon is and any weapon is an assault weapon if it is being used to assault someone, so declaring assault weapons to be illegal is to open the door to declaring any other weapon illegal as well.

 

In other words, what you think is a "false narrative" may be considered a very real possibility by another person. To declare the discussion of gun confiscation enacted by the president through executive order a false narrative is flawed, because there is plenty of written and spoken evidence that such a desire does exist by the president and others in power.

 

 

And if they persist they should be arrested for continuation of promoting false dangerous political rhetoric that has lead to domestic terror and harm to average american people.

 

 

And there it is! You are proposing that we should arrest people for expressing their beliefs, because you consider their beliefs to be false! Once that precedent is set, what happens when someone from the right becomes the censor? Should advocates of abortion rights or gay marriage be arrested for promoting a "false narrative" that can potentially lead to extremism? This is the danger in censoring the beliefs of those that you disagree with. If you allow others to be censored you are creating a situation where you or someone you support will later be subjected to censorship after a new censor is appointed or elected who happens to disagree with your point of view.

 

Obama has made it clear in the past on the record. No one is not going to come to their home take away anyones fire arms... (public statement on his part.)

 

As the old saying goes, you can tell that a politician is lying because their lips are moving. That statement was made while campaigning, and anything said while campaigning should be taken with some doubt. Personally, when forming my opinions about our political leaders I ignore all speeches, promises, and statements and look instead at who they surround themselves with as advisors and financial supporters, in the case of the President who they appoint to executive and judicial positions, and above all else, their actions. In that video he says "I will not take your rifle away", but he would have been more truthful if he had said "I will not take your rifle away unless it can accept a high-capacity magazine, is made from light-weight composite materials, utilizes a gas-ejection mechanism, can accept rail attachments, and generally looks scary" because that is the position that he now advocates, and what Biden himself said that they were considering enacting through executive order.

[colourwheel]

 

The idea that gun confiscation is a "false narrative" is itself debatable. Weapon confiscation is a well documented historical fact, and it has happened throughout history. The historical precedent of oppressive governments confiscating weapons from citizens is the is the reason why the 2nd amendment was included in the constitution, much like the historical precedent of oppressive governments suppressing controversial speech is the reason why the 1st amendment was included. It has even happened recently here in the US. Many people in powerful positions have stated publicly that they would like to make guns illegal, and even the Vice President stated publicly that the President may enact gun controls through executive order.

 

Your example you linked of confication is hardly justified as a national wide spread incident. The cities around New Orleans at that time was under a state of emergancy. :rolleyes: Even tho local police, U.S. Army, National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals did what they did and took peoples fire arms away I am sure they thought they legally could. It was only recently before that time HB 760 was signed into law in 2006. when your example happened less than two years later during a national disaster. I doubt back then many even knew that before 2006 it was legal for authorities to take away your fire arms during a state of emergancy.... Also this was during bush administration. Can't blame Obama for this one. :psyduck:

 

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration which usually suspends a few normal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, alert citizens to change their normal behaviors, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if guaranteed under the constitution. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural or man made disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war or situation of international or internal armed conflict. Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law.

 

Also the Vice President stating publicly that the President may enact gun control through executive order hardly is a threat to people coming to your home and taking the precious fire arms away ...

 

The president doesn't have much power in policy making when it comes to Executive order... The most extreme thing he did was appointing new dirrector for the ATF... Hardly a huge threat if you ask me.... And The president has that right no matter who is in power.

 

 

You are proposing that we should arrest people for expressing their beliefs, because you consider their beliefs to be false!

 

You keep leaving out the part about that this false narrative has lead to people being harmed and this is reguardless if I consider their beliefs to be false...

 

As I said before if it is harming others it should stop... not because I may believe it's false. When freedom of speech leads to other being harmed why should they have the right to persist?

 

"Freedom of speech should only be valid until it starts to hurt other people and/or infringe on other peoples freedoms... "

Edited June 5, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Your example of confication is hardly justified as a national incident. The cities around New Orleans at that time was under a state of emergancy. :rolleyes:

Your mention of a national state of emergency as some far-fetched and rare circumstance is much more laughable, because the entire United States has been in a formal state of emergency for many years now. The federal government entered a state of emergency on 9-11-2001 by order from the President. This order has been extended one two three four times by president Obama. If a state of emergency is justification for suspension of rights then gun advocates, free-speech advocates, and any other advocate of the civil rights that are affected by such orders are acting rationally if they are concerned about the protection of our civil rights due to the current and seemingly perpetual state of national emergency.

 

 

Also the Vice President stating publicly that the President may enact gun controls through executive order hardly is a threat to people coming to your home and taking peoples precious fire arms away ...

 

I don't understand your logic here. If the executive branch is publicly discussing doing something via executive order why would you not interpret that action as a real possibility? Why would they mention it if they have no intention of doing it? If an executive branch member said "We are considering revoking abortion rights via executive order" don't you think that would worry abortion rights advocates? I doubt any of them would say anything like "Just because they are discussing it publicly does not mean they will really do it". Quite the opposite, there would be an uproar of opposition and rightly so.

 

 

The president doesn't have much power in policy making when it comes to Executive order... The most extreme thing was appointing new dirrector for the ATF... Hardly a huge threat if you ask me....

 

It would be more accurate to say that the President is not supposed to have much power via executive order, but the last few presidents have ignored that premise and abused executive orders to advance policy agendas. If the President gives an order to the FBI, ATF, ICE, DHS, or any other alphabet agency or military branch they do not sit around debating the legal merits of his order. They are compelled, as organs of the executive branch, to follow those orders. If someone wants to challenge the order through legislation or judicial action they can do that, but in the meantime the order will be carried out by the people it is given to, immediately and without question. I don't see how one could argue that this amounts to anything less than an immense level of power, with huge potential for abuse and a very real record of being abused.

 

 

You keep leaving out the part about that this false narrative has lead to people being harmed...

 

And you persist in labeling opposing political positions and criticisms as "false narratives", thus ignoring the fact that nearly anything that you believe to be true is considered false by someone else, and that both you and that other person are entitled to your disparate opinions and your expressions of them. Just because a President says that something is true does not make it true. Each individual citizen is permitted to make that determination for themselves, and to disagree if they choose to. This freedom of dissent is a fundamentally important aspect of a free society.

 

 

As I said before if it is harming others it should stop... not because it's just false. When freedom of speech leads to other being harmed why should they have the right to persist?

 

The legal standard by which a person can be convicted of a crime is that they be considered guilty beyond doubt. There is no way to prove beyond doubt that any public statement made by any person directly correlates with the actions of another unrelated person, with the possible exception of specific incitations to commit crime. No widely recognized pundit that I know of has advocated poisoning government officials, or doing anything else illegal.

 

Can you name one? I have asked several times that you specifically name who it is that you think should be blamed for this besides the actual culprits but you have yet to do so, instead repeating vague references to pundits and their "rhetoric".

[colourwheel]

 

Can you name one? I have asked several times that you specifically name who it is that you think should be blamed for this besides the actual culprits but you have yet to do so, instead repeating vague references to pundits and their "rhetoric".

 

 

You never asked me several times but here you go... Wayne Lapierre!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5jAPzXJx50

Edited June 5, 2013 by colourwheel