These days it seems some folks have forgotten that their rights end where my rights begin.
These days it seems some folks revere their right to bear arms and sneer at my right to peacefully assemble.
These days it seems some folks deny that they are responsible for the actions of others when their words – written or uttered – incite violence.
These days it seems even our political, moral, and community leaders have forgotten that words that fall from their lips can transmute into bullets fired from a gun. Worse, they deny that the First Amendment does not protect inciteful speech.
We all need to keep in mind that just because you can do something doesn’t meant mean you should.
Just because you can use loaded language and ballistic metaphors in your political discourse doesn’t mean you should.
Just because you can bring a loaded gun to a peaceful assembly doesn’t mean you should.
One of the ways we recognize leadership as different from the rank and file, is that leaders exhibit restraint and self-censorship where the would-be mob resorts to riot and chaos within contentious situations. We rightly admire the former and decry the latter.
There’s no question that books and the written word and the authors of them can be held legally responsible for what they say and print. A victim of literary-incited violence can sue for damages under negligence theory or strict liability theory. Both are difficult to prove. First Amendment protections are strong:Victims of "fighting words" and "words likely to incite imminent lawless action" must prove
- The person intended (i.e. desired) to incite violence that caused harm to the victim; and
- The harm resulted was imminent (i.e. arising in a short period of time).
The question is, how can we change America’s current love affair with ballistic rhetoric? In Pakistan, for instance, the government can ban books it deems incite political violence and has done so, in a limited way and not without protest from the free voices of literary guardians in the
press.
To support ban on books - any book - is to support the idea that governments can decide which book people should or should not read. That idea impinges on the fundamental right of the individual to read whatever he or she might like to read. This is part of the freedom of thought that lies at the very heart of secular democracy that the present proponents of the ban claim to uphold. To abridge that right is to kill it.
Do not the arguments that apply when the contention is over the establishment of an Islamist regime by violence equally apply when it is over political advocacy of another kind?
But banning is not the solution; making sources criminally responsible is.
How we look at the question may influence how we respond If one views ballistic language as bullying, intentionally intimidating, then the inclination to indict, try, and punish its practitioners
grows legs, especially when a distinction is made between a lone person on a Hyde Park soapbox who is a voice in the wilderness and unlikely to have accrued credence vs. the public and highly publicized statements of a leader that are likely to gain traction and be perceived as policy, or those originating from an organization, even an informal one that take on the weight of institutional authority. The debate about what is and is not acceptable political discourse and what is and is not provocative language has begun. Diaries are already being written. Laws may be.
If there is going to be meaningful debate, there are two things that cannot be denied and they must be defended from false attacks by strict constructionist "free speechers":
- There are limits on your right to utter and write inciteful language;
- Those who still do write and utter such are responsible for the violence that may result.
As for the outright deniers who claim inciteful speech doesn’t kill people, people do, I have one word for you. Rwanda.
We must all be able to agree that if you lay claim to holding traditional values in this country, then one of those is to respect those with whom you disagree. Inciteful language, hate speech, and ballistic metaphors have no place in the political arena. When applied to an opponent’s candidacy all such forms are disrespectful and exist only in the verbal toolbox of people who do not adhere to our Founding Father’s intention that all men are created equal and the consequential implication that they are all to be equally valued.
Respect is earned not endowed, but respectfulness is required from everyone. Especially leaders. Words have power. As we’ve all been taught, the pen is mightier than the sword. We must remember that it can be more dangerous. We must never allow the employers of "targeted language" to incite violence and plead free speech.