MB Civic

Most people seem to forget that our First Amendment rights are not absolute. This is why one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater (unless, of course, there is a fire…), why one cannot “assemble” if doing so presents an immediate danger to others, and why one’s freedom of religion is “defined” by the (dangerously eroding) “wall” between church and state.

In this regard, there are also laws against certain types of “hate speech.” For example, speech that “incites to riot” is actionable. So is speech that “incites to violence.” Of course, it is the interpretation (by the judge or court) of what is said that determines whether certain speech is actually found “inciteful.”

That said, the question here is not whether Beck, Palin et al have a right to say what they say. They probably do. (Though I wonder what would happen if a lawsuit was pressed in a case like this…) What matters is whether it contributes to a “climate” that can lead to violence. It does.

Consider how few examples the right has found of people on the left making similar comments. Yes, they have found quite a few – over a period of many years. But on the right, that type of speech is virtually 24/7/365. That is the difference.

Nothing excuses the comments made on the left, many of which are as obnoxious as those on the right. But one does not create a “climate” by making a single comment at a particular time, or even stringing together dozens of comments over many years. A “climate” is created when such speech (and/or symbolism) is constant. And when that speech (and/or symbolism) includes blatant nods to the “gun culture,” it becomes disingenuous to suggest that it cannot or does not have an effect on unstable, impressionable or desperate people who own guns.

In this regard, it doesn’t matter whether Loughner was a left-wing nut or a right-wing nut, or somewhere in between. It doesn’t even matter what his politics were at all. (Though he clearly had it in for Giffords, so suggestions that his act was not “politically motivated” are just so much hooey.) What matters is that he was unstable, lived in a state where it was easy to obtain a handgun (and has the laxest gun ownership and carrying laws in the entire country) – and, whether he read newspapers, watched television, or saw/heard it on the Internet, was bombarded daily by the gun-crazy right-wing echo chamber of demonizing, incendiary and inflammatory language. Any psychologist will tell you that the constant repetition of a phrase or idea is going to effect people – even otherwise unimpressionable people. (Remember how often the claimed “connection” between Saddam and Al Qaeda re 9/11 was stated by the right? Even though it has been debunked even by many center-right news orgs and sites, 17% of the public still believes such a connection existed!)

Thus, the argument here is not really about free speech (though, as noted, it is entirely possible that at least some of the rhetoric on the right crosses the legal line…). It is about values that the right – far more than the left, based on its constantly demonizing and incendiary rhetoric – is blind to: civility, humility, polity, courtesy.

Peace.