Giffords: What should be the legislative reaction?

[Coito ergo sum]

A legislator is preparing legislation in response to the Giffords shooting. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -lawmakers

Interestingly, the headline refers to "threatening" legislators and judges. But, the first paragraph of the article expands on that to a prohibition on the "use [of] language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress."

Of course, the "could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against" language tends to open the door to a lot of enforcement difficulties - for example could someone say, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.” (words spoken in a speech by President Obama: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/1 ... ing-a-gun/ And, of course, there are the Palin "cross hairs" complaints....however, the Palin camp says the symbol used on Palin's image is a "surveyor's" symbol, not a gun crosshair.

So, is it to be everyone's responsibility when they use a metaphor, or employ a symbol used on maps, to make sure that there isn't someone, somewhere that will "perceive" it a certain way?

The wording of any law on this topic has to be very carefully done. We had a "sedition" act a long time ago, and any "perceived as threatening" type prohibition is absolutely going to run into the same problem that the Sedition Act faced.

Prior restraints on speech are always thorny issues...

EDIT: interesting point made by Byron York, too: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... palin-afte Journalists urged caution after Ft. Hood, now race to blame Palin after Arizona shootings

And: http://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/ ... 3068634112 DailyKos scrubs "Gifford's now DEAD to me" post: http://is.gd/knZNE

Here is the Daily Kos' article in cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is dead to me now. I won't lift a finger, make one phone call, nor will i EVER vote for her in the future. And why did she do this? Giffords never told me she was conservative Democrat.

[drl2]

Isn't there already a body of fairly settled law about what constitutes "terroristic threatening", etc? I'm not sure I buy rules and regulations as a solution to violent political rhetoric.

[RuleBritannia]

None.

[HomerJay]

Ban guns

and stupidity

[GreyICE]

I'm going to assume this is an emotional overreaction based on what happened to a colleague, and it'll go away. Because first amendment no like that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Great quote - even though it's from Roger Ailes, it's balls on accurate:

They knew about this guy (Jared Lee Loughner). The education system knew about this guy...they kicked him out of school and told him until he gets a letter saying he’s not going to kill anybody, he can’t come back to school. The police department picked him up five times and let him go and nobody screened him for getting a weapon...So, by the time he decided to go to a mall and and wanting to kill somebody, he was attached to nobody. He was a flag burner. He just was not attached to the Tea Party.

You know, they’re using this thing...apparently there was a map from one of Palin’s things that had her (Congresswoman Giffords) targeted district. So, we looked at the internet and the first thing we found in 2007, the Democrat Party had a targeted map with targets on it for the Palin district. These maps have been used for for years that I know of. I have two pictures of myself with a bull's-eye on my head. This is just bullshit. This goes on... both sides are wrong, but they both do it.
I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that.
Listen, I have a picture of Sarah Palin hanging from the end of a rope. They made a doll up like her and hung her.

http://globalgrind.com/channel/news/con ... -are-wron/


Sarah Palin hanged in effigy: http://www.zimbio.com/Sarah+Palin+Hallo ... en+Hanging


Democrats using "target" map....

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2010/03/31 ... n-map-too/


Oh, the vitriol! Oh, the "unacceptable rhetoric!" My, the "tone" is just so "uncivil!"



Did the Democrats go too far? Or, do we have to wait until someone gets shot in Ohio, West Virginia or Nevada.....

[Coito ergo sum]

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what's acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.

Clyburn said he thinks vitriol in public discourse led to a 22-year-old suspect opening fire Saturday at an event Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords ...

So Mr. Clyburn thinks we shouldn't be allowed to employ vitriol in public discourse.

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina

Really? Whatever the government thinks is "vitriolic" will now be prohibited? Any more specificity than that, Mr. Clyburn? Or, do we just "know it when we see it?"

Free speech is as free speech does,' he said. 'You cannot yell ‘fire' in a crowded theater and call it free speech and some of what I hear, and is being called free speech, is worse than that.'

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011 ... be-danger/

Yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theater. I wonder if Clyburn knows the context of Oliver Wendell Holmes court opinion in which he coined the FALSELY yell fire in a crowded theater AND causing a panic... line.....

It was Schenk v United States, and the "fire in a crowded theater" line was used to justify the prosecution of a guy guilty of printing, distributing, and mailing to prospective military draftees during World War I 15,000 leaflets that advocated opposition to the draft. He was convicted of violating the Espionage Act, and because he was "inciting" acts of draft evasion and opposition to the draft, he was convicted. The government, of course, said there was a clear and present danger because of the War effort.

As the court said, and as the modern day "liberal" seems to agree wholeheartedly, "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Thankfully, clearer and more liberal heads prevailed in 1969 with Brandenburg v Ohio., which replaced the clear and present danger test with the "imminent lawless action" test. Since Brandenburg v Ohio, the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In other words, just because someone is vitriolic and just because there is an "uncivil tone" of discourse doesn't mean people don't get to say what they want - if your speech is not DIRECT TO - repeat that DIRECTED TO inciting -- not that it merely does incites - but that it is DIRECTED TO inciting, and - there is a second part here - AND - it is actually LIKELY to incite IMMINENT lawless action.... that means that just being pissed off and railing against politicians ain't enough. If you're not calling for imminent lawless action AND your calls are not LIKELY to incite that action - then you can be as angry and pissed off as you want.

And, that should be fair and clear enough for everyone.

I can't believe we have liberals talking like Clyburn...I mean...come on. It's like a surreal role reversal here. The liberals call for speech laws....

[maiforpeace]

It's probably just me, but I find it hugely ironic that you are beating this drum about 'vitriolic rhetoric". If you haven't noticed, you have driven away quite a few people with your own rhetoric. I seem to be the only American left on this board with a liberal viewpoint who is willing to discuss this with you.

What a shame since it is a very interesting subject. So I'll give it a shot (I'm not sure I'll last long either), but only after you address this link I posted earlier that you conveniently just rolled right over.

DHS Reported in 2009 and Warned of “Lone Wolf” Attacks, Long Before Tucson

Two years before the Tucson massacre, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report that right wing extremism was on the rise and could prompt "lone wolves" to launch attacks. But the agency backed away from the report amid intense criticism from Republicans, including future House Speaker John Boehner.

The report, which warned that the crippled economy and the election of the first black president were “unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment,” described the rise of “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology [as] the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

In the wake of last weekend’s attempted assassination of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, which left six dead and 14 wounded, the report’s warning of a lone wolf attack from someone with extremist tendencies seems prescient.

But when the April 2009 report was issued, it was overwhelmingly criticized by conservative commentators and lawmakers who derided it as political propaganda from the Obama administration. Some experts worry that its findings were ignored due to political blowback.

Within days of the controversy erupting in April 2009, Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to war veterans for the way they were cast in the report and had the report removed from the department’s website. Weeks later, Napolitano faced questioning during a homeland security appropriation meeting about who had been fired from the little-known division for issuing the report. While she declined to list any names, Napolitano did say that “appropriate personnel action has and will be taken.”

“Not only was [the report] buried, the actual unit which created it was disemboweled,” said Brian Levin, a professor of criminal justice and the director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. He noted that DHS is congressionally mandated to study long-term trends among extremist groups.

Levin worried that political fallout rendered the report’s findings “impotent,” as well as future reports from the department profiling extremist groups. “Rather than the report being a hit piece, the hit piece was what was done in the wake of the report.”

“Was there some awkward language in one section? Sure. But it was a very well done report.”

The awkward language he refers to was a section in the report warning that returning veterans could be prime targets for recruitment into extremist organizations. Then-Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio was one of many Republicans who called on DHS to apologize.

“Furthermore, the Secretary of Homeland Security owes the American people an explanation for why … her own Department is using [“terrorist”] to describe American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation,” said Boehner, now House Speaker.

Leading conservatives claimed the report was a White House-directed hit piece — commentator Michelle Malkin derided it as “propaganda.”

Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to issue a statement defending the study, stating that “we do not — nor will we ever — monitor ideology or political beliefs.” When asked about the report at an event in late 2010, Napolitano described it as “ancient history.”

The report’s primary focus was the fear that if the economy continued its downturn, it could mix with racial and political opposition to the election of Barack Obama and the ongoing debate about immigration. The report was especially concerned that these factors paralleled those that led to several incidents of domestic terrorism during the Clinton era.

“The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers,” it said.

Unlike the 1990s, however, “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.”

Threat analysts within the department’s Extremism and Radicalization Branch, which produced the extremism report, also produced a “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” in late March of 2009, just before the controversy began. The lexicon, which defined different extremist groups, was recalled quickly after being issued. When the lexicon came to light a few months later, it received criticism for including anti-immigration and anti-abortion groups on its list of extremist organizations.

Giffords, a Democrat, had been the target of violent threats over the past year. In March, her Tucson office was vandalized hours after she voted in favor of President Obama’s health care reform bill. Other Democrats experienced similar threats or vandalism.

The third-term congresswoman has received generally poor ratings from pro-gun groups. Gun Owners of America gave her a D in its 2010 candidate rankings, and the NRA gave her a D+ in 2008. Giffords has described herself as a gun owner, and she joined the NRA’s amicus brief regarding the Washington, D.C., gun ban. After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ban, she described the decision as “a common sense decision that reaffirms the Constitutional right — and Arizona tradition — of owning firearms. I commend the Court for ruling in favor of restoring our right to bear arms.”

The U.S. Capitol Police, which is in charge of security for members of Congress, does not disclose statistics on threats to sitting representatives. The Sergeant at Arms for the Senate has said that threats of violence against senators went from 29 in 2009 to 49 in 2010. Speaking to reporters following a moment of silence at the Capitol today, Terrance Gainer, the Sergeant at Arms, said that direct threats against members of congress are “very low.”

While discussion has swirled around possible ties between accused gunman Jared Loughner and right-wing extremists, DHS on Monday said department officials “have not established any such possible link”. Levin doesn’t believe extremism was the sole driving factor. “This guy is a mentally deranged person first,” he said, and noted that the mentally ill often latch on to conspiracy theories to layer over their already “obsessive and aggressive template.”

A press officer for the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment for this story.

[mistermack]

The problem was that nobody was wearing their guns. They were no use back home in a drawer. There will have to be a law to make it compulsory to wear your guns when you go out. It's the only thing that will keep America safe.
.

[maiforpeace]

The problem was that nobody was wearing their guns. They were no use back home in a drawer. There will have to be a law to make it compulsory to wear your guns when you go out. It's the only thing that will keep America safe.
.

Several congresspersons are already carrying. I'm curious what my congressperson will be doing when she goes out in public.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's probably just me, but I find it hugely ironic that you are beating this drum about 'vitriolic rhetoric". If you haven't noticed, you have driven away quite a few people with your own rhetoric. I seem to be the only American left on this board with a liberal viewpoint who is willing to discuss this with you.

What a shame since it is a very interesting subject. So I'll give it a shot (I'm not sure I'll last long either),

Other than not agreeing that there's a reason to blame the general tone of political discourse - well specifically only one side of that political discourse - what in the world was inappropriate about what I've posted? Did I personally attack anyone? Have I even been "vitriolic" or "uncivil?" I mean - I've analyzed the issue. What's did I do wrong?

but only after you address this link I posted earlier that you conveniently just rolled right over.

DHS Reported in 2009 and Warned of “Lone Wolf” Attacks, Long Before Tucson

Two years before the Tucson massacre, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report that right wing extremism was on the rise and could prompt "lone wolves" to launch attacks. But the agency backed away from the report amid intense criticism from Republicans, including future House Speaker John Boehner.

Jared Loughner was not right wing, was he? He was reported as being left wing and radical. Is the right wing extremism giving rise to violent left wing radicals who believe in mind control over grammar and 2012 predictions?

And, speaking of "glossing over" - how come you've not expressed a view on the martial metaphor used by Democrats?

The report, which warned that the crippled economy and the election of the first black president were “unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment,” described the rise of “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology [as] the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

In the wake of last weekend’s attempted assassination of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, which left six dead and 14 wounded, the report’s warning of a lone wolf attack from someone with extremist tendencies seems prescient.

How in the world does it "seem prescient?" He doesn't fit the profile of a right wing extremist, didn't rail against president Obama, and didn't seem to have any particular interest in the economy other than some delusional desire to create his own currency. So, he was a "lone wolf" (probably). That makes the DHS "prescient?"

But when the April 2009 report was issued, it was overwhelmingly criticized by conservative commentators and lawmakers who derided it as political propaganda from the Obama administration. Some experts worry that its findings were ignored due to political blowback.

Within days of the controversy erupting in April 2009, Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to war veterans for the way they were cast in the report and had the report removed from the department’s website.

[/quote]

LOL! "Forced?" "Forced????" Really? Appointed by the Democrat President, and confirmed by the Democrat controlled Senate, and also with a Democrat controlled House of Representatives, Napolitano was "forced" by Republicans to apologize? As I recall, the reason people were pissed was because it seemed odd that the DHS would cite as the major source of terrorism "returning veterans." It seems she apologized because nobody - not even Democrats - wanted to be on the side of calling our returning soldiers "terrorists."

And, that has nothing at all to our boy Jared, who never served in the army and was rejected by the Army as unfit to serve.

And, you posted this DHS article - but, you didn't connect it up with what you actually assert it to prove or show or demonstrate or evidence. What's the import of it in your mind? So what? Since Jared was not a member of any extremist group we're aware of, yet, and was not in the military or even sympathetic to the military, what in the world is the relevance?

[PsychoSerenity]

Democrats using "target" map....

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2010/03/31 ... n-map-too/

Yeah but those are harmless archery targets, like peace loving Native Americans might have used, quite different from the evil and violent cross-hair gun-sight targets.

[maiforpeace]

Do you want to fix your quotes so it's a little easier for me to respond? Sorry, I'm not willing to.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you want to fix your quotes so it's a little easier for me to respond? Sorry, I'm not willing to.

I'm confused - the quotes seem dead on....what's not right about the quotes?

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

I keep seeing this crap about him being left wing because he believed in 2012 conspiracies or whatever. Get a grip, the left-right political spectrum is purely economic and in term of political discourse is regarded by most academics as completely outdated. Certainly, you can't place a man who owns both Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto on a purely economic spectrum...

Anyway, banning guns would be the most straightforward way of fighting this kind of thing.