Seems every time the matter of right wing violence is discussed, there has to be included a Bismala like statement such as:
"They have a right to free speech, which I will always defend."
But, folks, incitement has never been a right. Think back to the classic "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater". If someone did something that fit the old, classic scenario, would the columns written about the tragic outcomes constantly chant:
"He has a right to free speech..."
I seriously doubt it. And if it were included, I would hazard that people would actually become upset and accuse the author of trying to excuse the perpetrator.
Let me be clear, I am not talking about some kind of legal "crack down" on the Twit Party types. Sometimes, the best disinfectant is the light of day. People who hate the ACLU never bother to notice how much damage the KKK took from the ACLU defending their free speech rights. Often, bringing these nutjobs out in the public absolutely tanks them. I mean, read the comments at the Hutaree YouTube page. Few supporters. Lots of ridicule.
At the same time, we don't have to unwittingly link free speech (which I adamantly defend) and incitement. I say unwittingly because I do not think people are trying to conflate the two deliberately. But, in context, it rather sounds like they are.
Demagogues scream at people that their government is illegitimate, that their country has been "taken away," that their elected officials are "traitors" and that their freedom is at risk. They have a right to free speech, which I will always defend. But they shouldn't be surprised if some listeners take them literally.
I have a problem right there. I just do not--I repeat do not--buy the surprise routine. For example, O'Really chanted "Tiller the baby killer" every chance he had. Do I think he did not realize the make up of his audience? No, I do not. Especially as Mister "TV is a bad influence" instantly switched to Mister "TV doesn't influence anybody" when it involved him.
The anti-abortion kooks are old news. They're a known quantity. The actions of people like O'Liely strike me much like someone who claims, "I knew there was gasoline all over the place but when I tossed the lit match, I did not intend to start a fire."
Words do have power. O'Really knows that. Even if only on the Eric Cartman "I know enough to exploit it" level. Words are not magical incantations that can control but they do influence and even manipulate (in fact, I firmly believe that the power of words is why the idea of "incantation" exists). Every writer that has sat down to craft even the shortest work is trying to manipulate the reader. I am trying to manipulate you now. To create in your mind images, feelings, and thoughts that I have. Maybe influence you to my way of seeing things.
Mister Robinson does so himself. Here, he manipulates me right into firm agreement with him:
It is dishonest for right-wing commentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist. The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction -- the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day -- and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies -- is calibrated not to inform but to incite.
Exactly so. The words are being calibrated. The audience is known. The end game is not hazy but quite clear. There is malice aforethought. And cowardice. Much, much cowardice. If you, say, truly believe Obama is not a US citizen, that the election of 2008 was rigged by ACORN, that a Marxist revolution is brewing, why are you giving (often paid no less) speeches?
Because you want somebody else to pick up the gun.
I assert the logic is inescapable. If you truly believe these things and are a patriot, you must act. To stand by and do nothing is to be a traitor. But so many of those who incite against Obama and the Dems (and the "libruls" and the "progressives you Marxists you!") don't want to get out of their comfy chairs, leave the A/C, get a gun, and do something heroic. They want somebody else to do it (insert image of Sarah Palin buffing her nails here while whining for a crunch wrap from Taco whatever).
Yet worse still is one who does not believe the incitement coming from their mouth. Because they risk violence and damage to the country for baser purposes. Like cash. Like Beck. Who I am firmly convinced has no motivations beyond, "Money is pretty!"
Or the GOP. Of which every single caucus member knows the "nuclear option" was never reconciliation, that they've used reconciliation more than anybody, that they rammed partisan bills through regularly and with impunity, that recess appointments are normal and ordinary and have been done by GOP Presidents many, many times, that "deem and pass" is nothing new and has been used by their party upward of 200 times, and a lot of the whiners like Mister Spray Tan were there when these things happened and not only cast votes for same but defended the actions.
I do not believe in a "right to lie". I believe there can be a necessity to lie, even a moral imperative. Such as the ethical question along the lines of if you knew A is looking for B to kill them, you know where B is, do you tell the truth to A? Well, nobody's going to die from parliamentary maneuvers everybody uses. What they are committing is more properly called fraud.
But my main point is this: Let us be clear.
There is no reason to append, "But I would defend their free speech..." onto every discussion of incitement to and perpetration of violence. Let's bring up free speech when people are exercising same.
Incitement is not a right.
Never has been.
Comments are closed on this story.