For all of our rationality and our civilized society, human beings are instinctive creatures, susceptible to the same survival instincts that cause other animals to panic, to flee, and to fight.
It is perhaps in recognition of this natural principle that the law prohibits speech that may incite others to lawless behavior.
The oft-repeated line about a ban on "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is actually not the state of law today. That quote, from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States (1918), stands for a now-outdated interpretation of the First Amendment. The current test, as laid out by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, is far more protective of First Amendment speech and is as follows:
[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
For a good overview of First Amendment case law on this subject, check out Cass Sunstein's thought-provoking 1995 article in the American Prospect, "Is Violent Speech a Right?". In that article, Sunstein explains that the violent statements of right wing talk show hosts (like Limbaugh back then, and like Glenn Beck now) "unquestionably qualify for protection," as they should. While Sunstein posits that new technology may merit a change in the law, the fact remains that all of the vile, violent, grab-your-gun-and-protect yourself rhetoric flowing freely from Fox News and others is quite assuredly legal, as measured by the constitutional framework of the law today.
But there is a large gap between legal and ethical, between rational discourse and wild-eyed frenzy.
As a result of the tragic shootings in Pennsylvania, FOX's Glenn Beck is being held under a microscope, and is presented as the premiere specimen of wingnut conspiracy theories and paranoid hysteria. In response to critiques about how his inflammatory programming may incite violence, Beck, doe-eyed and feigning ignorance, asks in essence "who, me?" as he defends the indefensible.
That indefensible includes Beck's daily programming, which, if you have decided to spare your ears and eyes, consists primarily of an over-the-top Beck flailing his arms against a photoshopped backdrop of foreboding images while he wails like a banshee about the latest government malfeasance of the day, all in an effort to educate you, his fellow American, about the raping and pillaging of our democratic institutions by evildoers (read: Democrats).
While there is absolutely no evidence that Beck's violent and demented rhetoric itself lead to the Pennsylvania gunman's rampage--either directly or indirectly--the fact that such a causal connection seems so plausible is indicative of just how out-of-control Beck's campaign against the government really is.
It sadly is not surprising that violence can result when Beck proclaims that our government is marching towards fascism, or when he salivates at the thought of the rising up of a militias, or when he warns that "we are a county heading towards socialism, totalitarianism, beyond your wildest imagination". Distrust and hatred of government are not unforeseeable results when Beck tells his audience that "everything" reported on by the traditional media "is a lie", or when he claims that the AmericCorps bill "indoctrinates your child into community service through the federal government". When Beck muses aloud about the various ways he could kill Michael Moore, or lashes out at the "the war against the American way", and when he claims that the president's budget is enslaving and "out and out evil" (more evil than extraordinary rendition, according to Beck), he cannot feign surprise if and when the seeds of hatred and panic he sows bear fruit.
When he flatly and unequivocally states that the "destruction of the West is happening", or when he shows photos of the president transitioning to photos of Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin and asks "is this where we're headed?", he is not merely playing the role, as he puts it, of the "rodeo clown." He is the circus master of chaos, maniacally whipping up the masses, preying on their instincts and stoking them to action against a purported threat to their very being by the government that is supposed to protect them.
Clips of the ringmaster of disaster on YouTube do not do justice to his sustained campaign of anti-government rhetoric. It is this sustained campaign, this parade of paranoia, this sum of all fears that is culminating to a crescendo that I do not think even Beck fully appreciates. He exists in the eye of the tornado he creates, in the muffled and contained stillness of oblivious existence, willfully unaware of the destruction that may result from his verbal gyrations.
It is in that self-absorbed cloud of callous indifference that Beck can think it ethical to call the president and members of the Obama administration "vampires" and "bloodsuckers," and it is there where he thinks it is entirely proper for a national TV personality to culminate his frothy rant with this call to action:
These bloodsucker vampires are not going to be satisfied with just sucking the blood out of GM’s top guy, the AIG executives, or any other business, or business person. Their thirst for power and control is unquenchable. They will not stop. There’s only two ways for this movie to end. Either the economy becomes like the walking dead, or you drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers.
In attempting to defend his dangerous rhetoric, Beck has proclaimed that the Constitution contains not only a Bill of Rights, but also an "implied bill of responsibility." This notion that we must exercise our rights responsibly is a trademark of our civilized society, and is testament to the fact that humans--animals by any other name--are beings of reason and logic. Were Beck to exercise both, were he to finally recognize that he has a responsibility to exercise his First Amendment rights in such a manner as to not drum up irrational fear in the hearts of his audience, then perhaps so many would not be so quick to wonder aloud whether the Glenn Beck bunker mentality had anything to do with the tragedy of the day.