I devoted a lot of thought to this post. Read it when you have the time and ability to concentrate on something that I take very seriously.
I won't re-hash it. We already know the situation. We know what Jim Adkisson did in that Unitarian church in Knoxville, Tennessee. We know that he was a fan of right-wing radio hosts and blamed liberals for the country's problems.
I. The Language of Dehumanization
Some of us, notably DJShay, have drawn comparisons between right-wing talk show hosts and the hate radio broadcasts that came immediately before the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.
I could also quote extensively from Nazi-era propaganda such as "The Eternal Jew" and others, but you can look that up on your own time and see the similarities in the language.
"Vermin." "Cockroaches." "Rats."
This is the language of dehumanization. Before atrocities can be committed, you have to dehumanize the victim. If you take away someone's personhood, then anything you do to them is justified -- even praiseworthy. And you do it with language. The language chosen is intentional.
It's the language shared by the Rwandan radio hosts who called for the extermination of the Tutsi in that country. It's language also used by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and most of all Michael "Savage" Weiner.
II. The Connection
The common thread that runs between all these merchants of hate speech is clear. What is less clear is the connection between Adkisson and the hate speech he apparently consumed.
This is where my better angels come in. The world is full of sick, disturbed people. These are people who need help but are either unable or unwilling to get that help.
These people sometimes go about their lives without incident. But sometimes they snap. What is that catalyst? For Adkisson, was it really right-wing radio?
At the risk of appearing to defend the hate speech of Weiner, O'Reilly and Hannity, the catalyst that these disturbed people needed to send them over the edge can come from anywhere and nowhere. The Son of Sam said that his dog told him to kill people.
I have no doubt that Adkisson was a deeply disturbed person. On his own he was a dangerous. But so were the words of the people he was listening to. These two dangerous things combined in a way that I can't pretend to understand, and people died.
What happened inside this man's mind I will never know. But we have a lot of similar people out there, dangerous minds all. And we've got hours and hours of hate radio being broadcast in this country every day. Fuel thrown on a thousand bonfires.
III. The Consequences of Hate Speech
Am I advocating that these radio stations remove this programming? No, I can't do that.
There is a thing called the "safety valve" theory of free speech, which holds that some amount of nonviolent hateful speech should be tolerated -- Klan rallies, Fred Phelps, Michael Savage, etc. -- because this speech allows extremists on the fringe to blow off their steam harmlessly.
The theory holds that if a society were to crack down on these forms of nonviolent speech, then the pressure would build. As the fringe groups felt more and more targeted and censored, they would stop talking and start acting -- violently.
IV. Where is the line?
In the end, I understand that the Adkisson story makes O'Reilly, Hannity and Weiner look bad. I have already heard people (from liberals to moderates) call for more strict control on radio outlets that broadcast their shows.
As I have spelled out here, I understand their argument. I understand the impact that hate speech can have on a society that allows it to go unchecked. However, to crack down on these radio hosts and others would be to cause something far worse.
There are thousands of potential Adkissons out there, and I don't know what is keeping America from becoming like Rwanda in 1994. It's the same kind of hate speech, and the same kind of prejudices and divisions exist.
Like I said, we've got thousands of bonfires and plenty of gasoline being thrown on them. I hope what Adkisson did was an isolated incident.
If it is not, then we'll have to revisit the pressure valve theory of free speech and decide as a society whether it's in our best interest to allow hate speech to continue, or whether the costs to us are too great.
V. Conclusion: What do we do?
As for we ourselves, we must guard against the language of hate and dehumanization. Even as we are targeted by the right -- both literally and figuratively -- hate cannot be our response. Adkisson's crime shows that hate breeds more hate.
We must resist this. Never, ever dehumanize someone else with your words. Demonizing a person or a group of people is always the first step toward an atrocity.
UPDATE (final conclusion): OK, well after extensive conversation in the comments, I think I have come up with the best answer possible for where the line really is when it comes to dividing nonviolent hate speech and an incitation to violence.
Until the day someone like Glenn Beck gets on the radio and tells his audience to stop what they're doing, go to some specific location and start killing liberals (or whoever), we're going to have to concede that everything up to that point is protected speech that should not be infringed upon.
Until that day (and I hope it never comes, of course), we can only resist hate speech by targeting the broadcasters that make it possible. There is a difference between the right to free speech and the privilege of having a radio audience that you are paid to speak to every day.
Thanks for reading and for commenting.