Skip to main content

As the Detroit Free Press reports:

Nugent stood by his remarks on Wednesday, according to ABCnews.com.

Nugent slammed the Obama administration and singled out four members of the Supreme Court as not supporting the Constitution during his remarks at the National Rifle Association's annual conference in St. Louis. Nugent, best known for his hit Cat Scratch Fever, is an NRA board member.

"If you want more of those kinds of evil anti-American people in the Supreme Court, then don't get involved and let Obama take office again," Nugent said Saturday. "Because I'll tell you this right now: If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

Those remarks had consequences.  From the Detroit Free Press again:
Uncle Ted has a hot date with Big Brother today. Ted Nugent, who has made a flurry of statements in recent days about Democrats and President Barack Obama, says he has been asked to sit down with members of the Secret Service today, the Blaze reports.
Lucky that he landed just on the right side of the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" exception to the First Amendment, or he wouldn't have to wait until next year.  The Associated Press headline was Secret Service closes case on Ted Nugent's remarks.  They were right to do so, as Nugent himself poses no threat.  My friend John Henry at LowGenius knows why, as he says that Ted Nugent Is An Enormous Coward.  Here's the video version.


While Nugent himself isn't a danger, his fans just may be.  Join me over the fold for why they might.

After the shooting of Gabbie Giffords last year, Kossack G2Geek coined the phrase stochastic terrorism.  Here's the definition he gave.

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.

This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others do.  And this is what led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically-motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings.
...
The person who actually plants the bomb or assassinates the public official is not the stochastic terrorist, they are the "missile" set in motion by the stochastic terrorist.  The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media as their means of setting those "missiles" in motion.

Here's the mechanism spelled out concisely:

The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts.  

One or more unstable people responds to the incitement by becoming a lone wolf and committing a violent act.   While their action may have been statistically predictable (e.g. "given the provocation, someone will probably do such-and-such"), the specific person and the specific act are not predictable (yet).  

The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability: "Oh, it was just a lone nut, nobody could have predicted he would do that, and I'm not responsible for what people in my audience do."

The lone wolf who was the "missile" gets captured and sentenced to life in prison, while the stochastic terrorist keeps his prime time slot and goes on to incite more lone wolves.    

Further, the stochastic terrorist may be acting either negligently or deliberately, or may be in complete denial of their impact, just like a drunk driver who runs over a pedestrian without even realizing it.  

Finally, there is no conspiracy here: merely the twisted acts of individuals who are promoting extremism, who get access to national media in which to do it, and the rest follows naturally just as an increase in violent storms follows from an increase in average global temperature.

G2Geek has lots of examples of lone wolfs set off by stochastic terrorists over at his diary.  I suggest you read them and think about how Nugent's fans and supporters might react the same way.  In the meantime, contemplate the meme "Ted Nugent, stochastic terrorist."

Originally posted to Neon Vincent's Massage Parlour on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:51 AM PDT.

Also republished by DKOMA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  what I find most odious (10+ / 0-)

      about Nugent, aside from the fact that he is clearly a stochastic terrorist, is the fact that he is a self-admitted and unapologetic pedophile.  Put his politics aside for a moment, why is anyone giving a self-admitted and unapologetic pedophile a platform of any kind?

      As the father of a young daughter, I am well more than outraged that Nugent is given any credibility about anything and is put up on a pedestal by his followers, who are only his followers because of his disgusting politics.  And not only that, he's put up on a pedestal by the traditional media just for having some celebrity.  Never mind that he's a self-admitted criminal of the absolute worse kind, and neither does anyone that props him up take issue with the fact that he's a serial statutory rapist or even mention it.

      What a disgusting waste of oxygen.  If there were any real justice, Nugent would be doing his ranting and raving from behind a nice, strong set of prison bars, rather than from the set of Fox News.

      Further, everyone that give Nugent any credibility or that otherwise props him up in any way are doing nothing more than enabling his pedophilia, just like the catholic priests that, rather than deal with their own pedophile problem, simply moved the offending pedophiles to other parishes where they could continue their pedophilia.

      Nugent is the very worst kind of cowardly scum that walks this planet and I, for one, intend to make an issue out of his criminal pedophilia (for which he has never paid a debt to society) every damn time his name is brought up.  There will never be justice for the children that are Nugent's rape victims but I intend to do my part to help bend that arc toward justice to the extent that I can.

      Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

      by democracy inaction on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:23:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Furthermore (4+ / 0-)

      I take issue with this:

      While Nugent himself isn't a danger...
      Nugent himself is a danger, a clear and present danger to prepubescent girls.

      Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

      by democracy inaction on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:25:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yup, we need to call these clowns terrorists (13+ / 0-)

    when they think using fearmongering and hatred are appropriate forms of discourse. I won't stop Twinkle Toes Ted from using those words, but I'll be damned if I call him a "patriot" for doing so.

    All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

    by ontheleftcoast on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:10:59 AM PDT

    •  Is this the article that made him a patriot? (10+ / 0-)

      Snopes.com message boards is seeking confirmation, but here ya go. A supposedly 1977 High Times Article that Mr. Nugent did explaining how he got out of the draft.  It has been confirmed he had both a medical and student deferments at 2 seperate times.

      TED NUGENT INTERVIEW....1977...have a look inside the mind of a man that
      proclaims himself to be a patriot, but here he tells how he got a
      4F.......Nugent is a self admitted draft dodger.
      _________________ __

      Interviewer: How did you get out of the draft?

      Ted Nugent: Ted was a young boy, appearing to be a hippie but quite
      opposite in fact, working hard and playing hard, playing rock and roll
      like a deviant. People would question my sanity, I played so much. So I
      got my notice to be in the draft. Do you think I was gonna lay down my
      guitar and go play army? Give me a break! I was busy doin’ it to it. I
      had a career Jack. If I was walkin’ around, hippying down, getting’
      loaded and pickin’ my ass like your common curs, I’d say “Hey yeah, go
      in the army. Beats the poop out of scuffin’ around in the gutters.” But
      I wasn’t a gutter dog. I was a hard workin’, mother****in’ rock and roll
      musician.

      I got my physical notice 30 days prior to. Well, on that day I ceased
      cleansing my body. No more brushing my teeth, no more washing my hair,
      no baths, no soap, no water. Thirty days of debris build. I stopped
      shavin’ and I was 18, had a little scraggly beard, really looked like a
      hippie. I had long hair, and it started gettin’ kinky, matted up. Then
      two weeks before, I stopped eating any food with nutritional value. I
      just had chips, Pepsi, beer-stuff I never touched-buttered poop, little
      jars of Polish sausages, and I’d drink the syrup, I was this side of
      death, Then a week before, I stopped going to the bathroom. I did it in
      my pants. poop, piss the whole shot. My pants got crusted up.

      See, I approached the whole thing like, Ted Nugent, cool hard-workin’
      dude, is gonna wreak havoc on these imbeciles in the armed forces. I’m
      gonna play their own game, and I’m gonna destroy ‘em. Now my whole body
      is crusted in poop and piss. I was ill. And three or four days before, I
      started stayin’ awake. I was close to death, but I was in control. I was
      extremely antidrug as I’ve always been, but I snorted some crystal
      methedrine. Talk about one wounded motherf*cker. A guy put up four
      lines, and it was for all four of us, but I didn’t know and I’m
      vacuuming that poop right up. I was a walking, talking hunk of human
      poop. I was six-foot-three of sin. So the guys took me down to the
      physical, and my nerves, my emotions were distraught. I was not a good
      person. I was wounded. But as painful and nauseous as it was – ‘cause I
      was really into bein’ clean and on the ball – I made gutter swine
      hippies look like football players. I was deviano.

      So I went in, and those guys in uniform couldn’t believe the smell. They
      were ridiculin’ me and pushin’ me around and I was cryin’, but all the
      time I was laughin’ to myself. When they stuck the needle in my arm for
      the blood test I passed out, and when I came to they were kicking me
      into the wall. Then they made everybody take off their pants, and I did,
      and this sergeant says, “Oh my God, put those back on! You f*cking swine
      you!” Then they had a urine test and I couldn’t piss, But my poop was
      just like ooze, man, so I poop in the cup and put it on the counter. I
      had poop on my hand and my arm. The guy almost puked. I was so proud. I
      knew I had these chumps beat. The last thing I remember was wakin’ up in
      the ear test booth and they were sweepin’ up. So I went home and cleaned
      up.

      They took a putty knife to me. I got the street rats out of my hair, ate
      some good steaks, beans, potatoes, cottage cheese, milk. A couple of
      days and I was ready to kick ass. And in the mail I got this big juicy
      4-F. They’d call dead people before they’d call my ass. But you know the
      funny thing about it? I’d make an incredible army man. I’d be a colonel
      before you knew what hit you, and I’d have the baddest bunch of
      motherf*ckin’ killers you’d ever seen in my platoon. But I just wasn’t
      into it. I was too busy doin’ my own thing, you know?

      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

      by wargolem on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:08:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that takes them too seriously (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bill W

      what are we wiling to give up in order to fight these people.  how about nothing.  If we're going to try to enforce laws, then we'd have to treat the fire in a crowded theatre exception narrowly to weed out loosely-connected chains of events (which, by the way, I'm not sure even could be suppressed even using Holmes's logic -- people wouldn't panic since we have fire codes and stuff).  We'd also want to make sure that we're not reading into language things that weren't there (as in Nugent's case, which is most likely a belief he'd be sent to a FEMA reeducation camp than anything else), so the language would have to be an explicit call to violence.  Cross off "Tiller the Killer" and Beck's fulminations against the Tides foundation.  And because accidents happen, rhetoric is often coarse, and hyperbole is part of life when people argue passionately, we'd want to make sure any supposed stochastic terrorist really does intent for his words to be taken literally.  Cross off Sarah Palin's bulls eyes.  That leaves the Brandenburg standard -- it's there for a reason, because other attempts to restrict speech just don't work at the price of values.  It's the only conceivable workable definition of what speech is literally dangerous.

      The definition of stochastic terrorist is fatally flawed -- it's a list of lone wolves acting like lone wolves and taking their stated justifications for their actions far too literally.  

      The irony is that calling some folks terrorists, in addition to sounding like Bush, possibly commits the very same offense. That is, it would, if we take ourselves too seriously as well as the targets.  

      The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

      by Loge on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:57:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How about Timothy McVeigh operating under (5+ / 0-)

        the delusion that the Turner Diaries were a blue print for action? How many "lone wolves" have to act on these sick fantasies before there is something to it? We can't stop their speech, that's not how the Constitution works. But we don't have to sit around and be polite and coy with our treatment of them. They intended to use fear and terror to achieve their political and social goals. That is a pretty damn good definition of a terrorist and it is exactly what they are. Or as Kos himself put it, they are "The American Taliban".

        All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

        by ontheleftcoast on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:16:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  how about that? (0+ / 0-)

          I haven't read the book myself, but that seems more like a description of McVeigh's mind than the authors.  Charles Manson was supposedly inspired by the Beatles' Helter Skelter.  Your supposedly hypothetical question asserts that there is action "on" the fantasies of the author.  Maybe so -- but a lot of speculative fiction is based on the idea that this is what might happen in the long term unless less drastic steps happen in the short term.  Seven Days in May shouldn't be blamed if there's a military coup.    

          But I don't think we should be coy either -- for speech that is incendiary, I propose asking what the person hopes to accomplish.  Make them account for their own speech more explicitly.  Speech either helps or hinders the process of finding reasonable common ground.  Painting a bullseye isn't an incitement to violence, it's just stupid.  Make them reveal that they know nothing.  Of course, these people still will appeal to the ignorant and the depraved, and there are people so ignorant and depraved that they can't be rationally deterred, but I see the problem of damaging political speech more as a demand problem.  This speech isn't just damaging on the basis that it might "lead to" (whatever that means) flying an airplane into an IRS building (why nobody talks about this or Steve King's after the fact justification is an oversight).  It's damaging because it directly leads to an utterly dysfunctional process of debate in this country.  But I suspect Fox News viewers know on some level they're not actually getting news, at least from the shows labeled as opinion.  They're getting rationalization.  (While the supposedly down-the-line news programs are also skewed, they also don't compare anyone to Hitler except on Hank Williams Jr. morning bourbon day.)  

          I also understood American Taliban to refer to republicans' social views, but I didn't read that book either.  Was it a blueprint for killing republicans?  As for the definition of terrorism, I don't agree that it's a good one.  For one thing, I can't tell from your statement whether you're referring to the actors or authors -- if the latter, it assumes an intended and explicit connection to violence that I think is an unwarranted assumption.  If the former, then nobody's debating that people who burn a church or what have you are terrorists (use of randomized but targeted violence to advance a political goal by fear), but what does it add to the discussion to say that people who wouldn't have met the second two parts of Brandenburg are?  (If in fact they didn't explicitly advocate or intend the violence, as with fiction, as with just about all hyperbole.)  

          So, I'm all for calling them out, but doing so by not just calling them terrorists but acting like they have already committed (in some sense) acts of violence, doesn't actually serve a purpose other than red meat of our own.  First, because as a concept it take a simple and circular argument and gilds it with pseudoscience.  Second, because it doesn't illuminate any new phenomena.  The line of argument made by Ted Nugent didn't help me accomplish any of my goals, and whether it helped him depends on what they are which we yet do not know.  Probably just to feed his own ego.  Calling him a terrorist stochastic or otherwise rewards his persecution fantasy, nothing more.  

          IN this day and age people do select media sources that confirm their own views, which leads to those views being more intensely held and further polarized, but nobody's so isolated that they can get access to only one set of arguments.  Put another way, why did McVeigh pick the literature he did, and is someone who believed the federal government put a microchip in his ass the best source of information about his own brain and body?

          The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

          by Loge on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:21:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You've got your definition of terrorist backwards (0+ / 0-)
            but acting like they have already committed (in some sense) acts of violence, doesn't actually serve a purpose other than red meat of our own
            A terrorist doesn't have to commit an act to be a terrorist, they just have to rely on fear they might do it. Not everyone in the NRA or even the Taliban has committed acts of violence. But that doesn't mean they're not terrorists.

            And I hope this was a typo

            I also understood American Taliban to refer to republicans' social views, but I didn't read that book either.  Was it a blueprint for killing republicans?

            All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

            by ontheleftcoast on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:31:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  let's see (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radical simplicity, IreGyre

              second point first -- fix your snark meter.  I assume Kos knew perfectly well that comparing republicans to a group of people we are actively fighting in a war was deliberately incendiary.  Our state policy is to shoot them over there, after all.  But of course nothing in the book suggests or implies -- I am assuming based on Kos's existence as a mostly-respected person in the political world -- what the logic of the title does.  That's the point about the danger of slippery slopes.  It's a bait and switch; maybe you should ask for your money back.

              To the first point, part of the problem with your argument is it presses even further -- the terrorist act that doesn't happen can still be blamed on the political figure because it created a climate of fear that it might.  The definition is deliberately indifferent to the actual violence.  That's the point.  also, that's not the place where I provided a definition of terrorist.  I came up with and stated:  "use of randomized but targeted violence to advance a political goal by fear."  Not all people have to commit violence themselves to "use" it (verbs being the most important part of any sentence), but there has to be some connection.  At minimum, it should require explicit advocacy of violence with the intent that it be carried out.  Which is the legal standard -- the court didn't pick the legal standard by accident, it arrived at it through trial and mostly error.  It reflects a policy judgment more than a legal one.  But your argument, by both my definition and the one you updated ("rely on fear" of violence), require bootstrapping to get Nugent or anyone else into that category.  He may "rely" on violent reactions of others, we don't know.   I assume not, as a matter of fact, as his only interest in the world seems to be Ted Nugent so actions of other people have little purchase with him.  But what did he actually do to get anyone to rely on what he said?  

              The problem is less with the definition of terrorist and more with the notion of causation.  The word stochastic (as if all terrorism weren't stochastic), does not mean that anything goes.  Even if we're not talking about literal causation but a looser notion of moral culpability, you still don't get there.  The very nature of a stochastic process belies the very idea of holding anyone responsible -- it's just a fancy way to call someone we don't like, with good reason, a name.

              The problem with Sarah Palin wasn't that she put a target on Giffords and someone shot her -- it was that seeing her metaphor acted out literally prompted no reconsideration of the appropriateness of the metaphor.

              The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

              by Loge on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 02:51:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ivory towers have nothing on you (0+ / 0-)

                In the real world words have the power to cause actions, whether directly "Bob, I want you to go and kill John Doe at 3:07 PM in the coffee shop on Madison" or indirectly "Obama isn't like Kennedy or Lincoln. Yet." That someone can hide behind a law is fine, laws are shields and should be a protection. But don't tell me or others we can't reasonably determine those words are designed to make someone think it's a call to action, even without knowing who would do it or even where/when it could happen. We don't need to arrest Ted Nugent for his words, we don't need to arrest Burke to his either. But we can call those things terrorism, because that's what they are. Or was "Won't someone rid of me of this meddlesome priest?" a completely innocent remark?

                All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

                by ontheleftcoast on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 03:17:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you can call them whatever you want, (0+ / 0-)

                  you'd just be elastic about it.  I love the "oh in the real world" arguments, as if an argument that was from the first moment a question of semantics and discussion of morals lends itself to one side or another having a closer connection to the "real world."  I think in the real world, we have to make distinctions and be precise in how we use language, or else the world doesn't reveal itself to us in its full complexity.  Either way, it's a disguised way to repeat your conclusion without arguing for it.  

                  When we studied the first amendment in my ivory (rather, gothic) tower, we did talk about the Murder in the Cathedral problem.  Or the Mark Antony, they are honorable men speech.  Winks and nods by a person in direct authority is a bit different from the tasteless and vile.  Further, where there is a meeting of the minds, as there was in both cases, the language was every bit as explicit as it needed to be.  Bin Laden had some position of authority in certain cultures and circles, even if he didn't have the ability to directly command anything, but I think most people would blanche at calling Sayd Qutb a terrorist, though he every bit as much as Bin Laden called for people to commit acts of violence against the West.  His words had an effect (and it's particularly ironic to invoke the ivory tower -- a term usually describing people who tend to think that only words have effects), but the actual terrorism aspect came from the independent decision-making powers of a third party.  So, like Burke's line, there was a call to action -- necessary, but not sufficient.  

                  The point is always what do you hope to accomplish by calling them terrorists.  I've laid out a case that distinguishes people like O'Reilly from those who are, but even if it's thought of as points along a continuum versus category differences, what is the goal?  For people to think the language is unacceptable?  I don't disagree -- but rather than building an elaborate argument that connects them to hypothetical crimes committed by other people, how about it's unacceptable because it, well, tasteless and vile.  

                  I don't foreclose the prospect that people who don't pull the trigger can be criminals, but since it's dealing explicitly with political speech, I am not going to equate even the worst examples of rhetoric to documented physical atrocities.  But since terrorism is an actual crime, I think it makes a lot of sense to apply legal standards even to colloquial use, but it doesn't matter that much because the reasoning behind how the prevailing legal standard came to be already addresses these policy points.  To use past examples only, either Bernard Goldberg is morally responsible (bracketing the law) for a bombing of a Unitarian Church, in which case it requires stronger proof than the bomber's say so, or he's not a terrorist.    Calling him a terrorist, or a stochastic terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer, doesn't (a) make it so or (b) deter people on the political fringes (which we call the center) from using the rhetoric.  

                  Using the word "terrorist" as an intensifier is both inappropriate and hypocritical.  

                  The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

                  by Loge on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:02:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  excellent information-thanks! (12+ / 0-)

    Thank you for linking G2G's diary. I think it's extremely important for law enforcement and the mental healthcare community to give Stochastic Terrorism some professional study (if they aren't already).

    Also connection the dots from bin Laden-Limbaugh-Beck is not just incendiary left-wing spew. It's the psychological method of terrorists.

    Warning: That light at the end of the tunnel just might be an oncoming train.

    by history first on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:20:15 AM PDT

    •  In addition to what you suggest, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Vincent

      I think it's important that this sort of terrorism be labeled as such and understood by our culture as such.  G2's diary is brilliant and so spot on.

      I admit, I had to look up "stochastic, and I think many would have to do the same.  This is a bit of an impediment when wanting to communicate something clearly and quickly. At the same time, the term is perfect once you understand the meaning.  So I'm a bit torn.

      But I do think that it's crucial that people come to understand that the Ted Nugents of the world ARE terrorists, but in a sense that needs to be defined, as folks don't see this sort of behavior as terrorism.

      I really think G2 should send his essay to every news outlet out there, including and particularly Rachel Maddow---this seems right up her ally to me.  I'd like to hear a lot of people start talking about this kind of terrorism, because it's on the rise and likely to get worse as the election heats up.

      I really do fear an incident, seems it's a miracle one hasn't occurred yet with the incendiary language of the right at molten heat.

      •  Does it cheapen the term, though? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loge

        Do we really want to draw an equivalence between someone engaging in inflammatory, but Constitutionally protected, speech and someone who sets off a truck bomb next to a federal building filled with men, women and children?

        •  I understand what you're saying. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sylv, Neon Vincent

          But what's "constitutionally" protected under the free speech amendment is not absolute.  There has long been a caveat in terms of when your free speech is harmful to someone else.

          I would say that threats against the president are more than equal to yelling fire in a crowded theater.  Nugent has also suggested Obama put a shot gun in his mouth.  This is incendiary to the point of endangering the president, as well as other liberals.  And as we know, Nugent isn't the only one guilty of this.

          Say some right wing nut takes his shot gun to a democratic rep's town hall meeting and levels 30 people.  Then tells us he's  he's carrying out Nugent's orders to "shoot those liberals like they're coyotes."  For me, it's hard to see that as any different than Bin Laden inciting violence in a stochastic manner, which he did.

          Whether it's one or thirty, or 3,000, killed, does that change the definition of the problem?

          •  The legal standard, VA v. Black (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            history first

            True threats are "those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals."

            I think you have to consider the word "serious" in this context.  Glib, tossed-off lines don't cut it, nor does an expression of something other than an intent to commit an act of violence.  The threat itself can be criminal even if someone wouldn't carry it out, but a threat has to be conveyed by the language.  I don't think Nugent's or Burke's comments meet either standard.

            If someone tells us he's carrying out Nugent's orders, than his opinions are presumptively not to be taken seriously.  And Bin Laden didn't incite violence, he ordered it.

            The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

            by Loge on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 04:11:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for the background info! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              StellaRay

              This is truly a tough area constitutionally. But I think the notion of "stochastic speech" or "stochastic rhetoric" is worth exploring.

              Limbaugh calling into question a woman's virtue is one thing. Nugent telling an audience he wants Hillary Clinton to "ride" his machine gun is something very, very different.

              Warning: That light at the end of the tunnel just might be an oncoming train.

              by history first on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 05:13:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Hearing you. (0+ / 0-)

              Do I think Ted Nugent is going to "do something."  No, I don't.  I think he's a coward with a big mouth.  And I understand his oblique threat won't stand up to legalities. Nevertheless, it WAS an oblique threat.

              But, my point is not whether Nugent was "serious," but who he might influence that is serious. And if someone says he's carrying out Nugents orders, why would we not take that seriously?  Not in the manner of actual orders, but in the manner of, well, "stochastic terrorism."  After all, the guy said liberals should be shot like coyotes.  

              MY GOD.  Are we so inured to the crazy right that all we have to say is, well, free speech, you know?

              And, I do NOT agree that Bin Laden "didn't incite violence, he ordered it."  Yes, perhaps the "order" part is right concerning 9/11.  But there can be NO doubt that before 9/11 and after 9/11, when his wings were so severely clipped, that Bin Laden engaged in "stochastic terrorism" whenever he could.  He could no longer order anything, but that didn't stop him from trying to incite violence, which he did for years after 9/11.

              These are tough questions.  And I'm not in a hurry to make new laws or knee jerk just because Ted Nugent is a jerk.

              But I do think there is a very slippery slope here, and by the time you've defined the problem, much damage has been done.

              I'm NOT In favor of making what Ted Nugent said and did illegal.  I AM in favor of having a label for people like this, for having an awareness of their poison---an understanding amongst the community. Labels can help with this.

              Because without definition, or consideration---just a "well, it's his right to say it"---we rob ourselves of the chance to understand better and define what threatens us.  When we discuss and understand, we don't need laws to stop guys like Nugent. They simply become shunned.

              We're not there.  America is SO divided right now, that it seems there are no cultural mores here that can hold up against a political campaign.  That has not been true for most of my life time, but it's true right now.

              My end point---people like Ted Nugent need a label, in the sense that we must decide as a community, how we feel about guys like this. We must arrive at a consensus about what's over the cliff---not necessarily legally, but certainly, socially.

              •  I agree broadly, (0+ / 0-)

                But to the extent we need a label it shouldnt be one describing something rather different, like terrorist.

                 his rhetoric has tangible harm already in that a cheapened discourse makes it harder to love problems.  The trouble rests on the issues he felt he was advancing by running his mouth.

                The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

                by Loge on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 06:14:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  He was, though, one of the best guitarists... (0+ / 0-)

    ...of the garage band caliber who jumps around and makes lots of faces.

  •  lone wolves (11+ / 0-)

    often quote their Media Heroes

    as their motivation for committing their heinous acts.


    their Media Heroes feign ignorance,

    when confronted with their vile rhetoric:

    "Nobody could have known this would happen ..."

    is always their pathetic excuse,

    for continuing inciting violence.


    What is necessary to change a person is to change his awareness of himself.
    -- Maslow ...... my list.

    by jamess on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:28:51 AM PDT

    •  two examples (6+ / 0-)


      NBC Suggests Bill O'Reilly Fueled Murder of Dr. George Tiller
      --6/2/2009

      In the piece from reporter Janet Shamlian, viewers then heard from O'Reilly in a Web video clip from an un-dated episode of O'Reilly's FNC show: "In the state of Kansas there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000."
      O'Reilly went of rants for weeks calling Dr. George Tiller:  "Tiller the baby-killer".


      Will Fox News kill Beck's show after assassination plot?
      -- 10/18/2010

      A criminal was encouraged by Beck's show to plot an assassination against Tides staff.

      The Tides foundation, was an evil "Soros foundation" that had be stopped, according to Beck.


      What is necessary to change a person is to change his awareness of himself.
      -- Maslow ...... my list.

      by jamess on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:45:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  O'Reilley & Tiller (0+ / 0-)

        I find the connection there pretty weak -- I'm not aware that Roeder ever mentioned O'Reilley as an influence, and the antis have been rhyming "Tiller" with "killer" since probably the seventies.  Nobody even tangentially involved in the anti-choice movement needed Bill O'Reilley to whip up hatred for George Tiller; he'd been the highest-profile abortion provider in the country for years.

        •  that's the whole point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          deniable.


          still the inflammatory words, hang in the air.

          If Roeder never watched O'Reilly,

          I'd bet other in Operation Rescue, were aware of it.

          who repeated the phrase.


          What is necessary to change a person is to change his awareness of himself.
          -- Maslow ...... my list.

          by jamess on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:04:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The point I was making... (0+ / 0-)

            ...is that Bill O'Reilley has no known connection to Scott Roeder.  And "Tiller the Killer" is not something O'Reilley made up, it's a fairly obvious construction that's been around since before anyone ever heard of Bill-O.  

        •  even if he had (0+ / 0-)

          so what?  What does it mean to hold O'Reilly responsible.  Not legally responsible, but morally responsible.  It's an argument that he shouldn't have said the things he said, at minimum.  But why not -- if I think Scott Walker is a baby killer for his budget cuts is whether that's acceptable dependent on whether or not someone misconstrues that meaning? (The definition of stochastic terrorism seems to want it both ways -- it's an argument against speech that could incite violence based on similarity to speech that has supposedly incited violence.  It commits the fallacy, as well, of saying if P then Q; Q, therefore P.)  

          I think the better approach is that arguments are either well-constructed or not.  A calm, measured argument that says "abortion is the greatest evil of our time, and in that circumstance in order to prevent it and to punish those who carry it out, an individual would be morally justified, if not legally justified, in killing an abortion practitioner" is in some way scarier because it isn't shouty.  And it's in bounds.  O'Reilly's problem, by contrast, is that he's an idiot.  The response to him is that even if one disagrees with Dr. Tiller's actions, the goal of debate is not to rhyme.  Ask him what he hopes to accomplish by name calling.  Let's see if he really wants to own "stop him by any means necessary."  

          I would posit the same question:  what is the goal of calling him or Nugent a terrorist, stochastic or otherwise?  

          The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

          by Loge on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:11:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Religion operates in much the same way . . . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess, Jonathan Hoag
  •  Appealing to mentally inferior lone-wolves (9+ / 0-)

    The mass media can have an incredible effect on those people out there who just don't get it.

    While getting my advertising degree, I had a professor tell stories of misdirected outcomes of ads that were put on TV. Even little innocuous announcements like, "We'll have the Bears game right here on Sunday at noon."

    Well, some guy showed up at the downtown Springfield television station with his Bears beanie, bench cushion, and ice chest ready to see a football game. It had to be explained to this guy that the Bears game was actually taking place in Chicago at Soldier Field.

    These situations are easily extrapolated to people who can be dangerous when told things meant to project fear.


    i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

    by bobinson on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:47:43 AM PDT

  •  I'll tell you what is dangerous. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bill W, Loge

    Its dangerous when liberals are constantly using the "fire in a crowded theater" to pretend that the 1rst amendment doesn't apply to those that disagree with them.  

    I find Ted Nugent's remarks despicable as do I much of what Rush says, but the do have a right to say it.  Note that I am not arguing against those that would boycott Rush but rather against those (and there were some here) that actually said that Rush's speech was illegal (fire in a theater).

  •  Ted Nugent cut from Fort Knox concert lineup! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, ajr111240, Sylv

    Well, Uncle Ted. What can I say? What goes around comes around, punk.

    http://www.wave3.com/...

    "To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships." ~W.E.B. DuBois

    by rovertheoctopus on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:02:47 AM PDT

  •  Nugent. An ass yesterday, today, and tomorrow (6+ / 0-)

    What the worthless Nugent said today:

    I'm a non-violent guy, I don't threaten.
    What the worthless Nugent said in 2007:
    Decked out in full-on camouflage hunting gear, Nugent wielded two machine guns while raging, "Obama, he's a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary," he continued. "You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch."
  •  Nugent is a sad, sad little man (5+ / 0-)

    who literally shat himself for a month over Vietnam and has been compensating for his lost manhood ever since.

    Texas is Texas, you know. The second you think you got it figured out, it will switch on you. Just ask Rick Perry in 2012.

    by Patience John on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:31:22 AM PDT

  •  What a minute! (3+ / 0-)
    think about how Nugent's fans and supporters might react the same way
    Ted Nugent still has fans?!

    Bumpersticker: GOP. Cheering Death. Booing Soldiers. Join Us.

    by LeftOfYou on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:47:28 PM PDT

  •  He's also a goddamn child molester... (4+ / 0-)

    ... and he should be in prison for that all by itself, never mind him running his mouth like an idiot.

    Ted's got a long history of statutory.  He once tried to become the guardian of a 13 year old girl so he could start having sex with her.  His own daughter complained that he used to bring home girls younger than her and Ted would keep dragging them back into the bedroom while they wanted to play basketball with her instead.   On the Howard Stern show Courtney Love claimed she gave Ted oral sex when she was twelve, and he was around 28 at the time.  He used to brag in rock magazines that he could set up enough amplifiers to blast a hole through to another dimension where there were nothing but naked 12-year-old girls.  

    He was so into the underage that he made an anthem for it, called "Jailbait" and including lyrics such as "I don't care if you're just thirteen, I just know that you're probably clean and there's one lil' thing I gotta do to you" and "Wait a minute, officer, don't put those handcuffs on me, put 'em on her and I'll share her with ya!"  Here's a link to the song on YouTube if you have any doubts:  http://youtu.be/...  

    I'll always hate Ted for that stuff... all he's doing by making his stupid horseshit threats is building up even more reasons to despise him.  I wish the Secret Service had run a check on his computer caches instead of just talking to him, because some adults are stupid enough to send their children to "Uncle Ted's Kamp for Kids," and I don't fucking trust this creep to be around children.

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:55:44 PM PDT

  •  Cenk Uygur on Nugent avoiding the draft (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Vincent

    Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

    by J Edward on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 05:29:40 PM PDT

  •  Who will rid me of this turbulent priest? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Vincent

    one of the best known early stochastic terrorists...

    King Henry the second of England said something along those lines and some knights of his who overheard him got all excited and went off and hacked the Archbishop Thomas Beckett to death...

    A bit more direct link but the principle is the same... "gee wouldn't it be better if someone got rid of ____ (fill in the blank)"

    Works even better in an age of mass communications... with the internet adding an even wider dimension.

    Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

    by IreGyre on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 09:50:25 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site