In the aftermath of the San Bernardino shootings, it’s all too easy to find right-wing wingnuts to trash for saying untruthful, racist and stupid things. Gaius Septimus has posted an excellent diary focusing on some of them, with the excellent title: “Like Vile Colorless Things Covered in Slime, They Creep Out in the Sun, Again”, where he focuses on ex-FEMA director Michael “Brownie” Brown. But Gaius also pulls out a particularly absurd posting by ex-Congressman-turned-right-wing-radio-host Joe Walsh that puts a new spin on the stupidity.
The vileness of Joe Walsh before, during and after his one term in Congress needs little recounting here. His Wikipedia page tells you all you need to know about his Congressional career: openly spurning bi-partisanship, accusing President Obama (who, he said, was elected only because he "because he pushed that magical button: a black man who was articulate, liberal, the whole white guilt thing”) of ‘bankrupting the country’, swearing at a constituent at an open house, being charged with ethics violations, accusing Tammy Duckworth (his ex-military, double-amputee opponent in the 2012 elections) of not being a ‘true hero’, saying that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother, courting French and Indian anti-Islamic extremists, being sued for $117,000 in back child support payments, driving with a suspended license, and, finally, losing his re-election effort to Duckworth by ten points. Since then, Walsh has been no great charmer, taking the path of B-list wing nuts by hosting a right wing radio show, with mixed success – at one point getting kicked off the air in mid-show for using “racially-charged” language (apparently the N-word) on his show and having his shown pulled from its New York affiliate.
But Walsh always had a special place in his heart for Muslims and their alleged monolithic threat to this country, charging back in 2012; as Salon reported from a videotaped recording of him:
““And it’s a threat that is much more at home now than it was right after 9/11.... It’s here,” he continued, referring to “radical Islam” in the suburbs of Chicago. “It’s in Elk Grove, it’s in Addison, it’s in Elgin. It’s here.” He added that radical Muslims are “trying to kill Americans every week,” and that “it’s not a matter of ‘if’ – it’s a matter of ‘when’” a 9/11-like attack will happen again.”
So, the San Bernardino shootings must have been a long-awaited wet dream for him as a vehicle to get his name back in the spotlight. And, he found just the key to start up that vehicle: Attorney General Loretta Lynch. At a December 3rd dinner meeting before a Muslim group – much in the vein of an appearance that then-President George W. Bush made with a group of Islamic religious leaders within a week of 9/11 - Lynch said regarding anti-Muslim rhetoric, “My message to not just the Muslim community but to the entire American community is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.” Nothing new here: a message of comfort from a key government leader. But, she also said, “When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.” (Emphasis added.) So, let’s be clear here – she was talking about actions – not rhetoric – being prosecuted. And, at a press conference on Monday, December 7th, she emphasized “Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words.”
What got her into trouble was another, poorly-articulated passage in her speech taken out of the context referenced above, where she said:
“Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action."
Again, you’ve got to read this passage both in the context of her other comments and with a little care, but it seems clear that she’s talking about going after those who pick up (or “lift”) the mantle of extremism and actually act upon it. And, of course, this was not a policy speech made at the scene of the crime or from her office, but simply a dinner speech designed to let Muslims know that — when the law is actually broken and they’ve been the targets — she’d have their backs.
Well, the wingnut-o-sphere – not known for its ability to parse the English language - went apeshit crazy, claiming that she’d asserted that she was going to criminally prosecute everyone who spouted anti-Islamic comments, with such comments that she would federally charge anyone who “gawd forbid, should say something to a Muslim that offends them”. Of course, Lynch – being black, female and an Obama-appointee – was immediately suspected of being a leftist, politically correct Muslim-lover, notwithstanding her career as a tough, pro-death-penalty prosecutor.
Joe Walsh had finally found the parade he could get back in front of, and he posted the following nonsensical trash:
“What the hell does that mean? I have a 1st Amendment right, Ms Lynch, to say whatever I want about Muslims.
You want to try and prosecute me for what I say? I dare you. Here goes:
Most Muslims around the world are terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Sharia Law. They are our enemy. I don’t want them in America. Any Muslim that won’t assimilate should get the hell out of America. Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed. If “Moderate” Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country. I hope there is a backlash against Muslims because Islam, as practiced by most Muslims, is not a religion of peace, and all of us who do live in peace should do whatever we can to defeat Islam.
There Ms. Lynch. As an American, I have a right to say everything I just did. And I will continue to speak the truth about Islam in the hopes that others will wake up to this truth and do what we can to defeat this evil in our midst.
Is that “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.” Go ahead and prosecute me. I dare you.”
Needless to say, idiocy is rampant throughout his speech. First, - under even the most strained construction of her speech - she of course didn’t say that “anti-Muslim rhetoric” would be prosecuted. Second, as a brilliant, Harvard-educated lawyer and the sitting Attorney General, she full well knows the limits on prosecution of hate speech – which would bar any such prosecutions in the absence of proof that someone is inciting people to commit particular actions against particular individuals.
Even there, the bar is high: As the American Bar Association has encapsulate one key case:
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), involved the juvenile court proceeding of a white 14-year-old who burned a cross on the front lawn of the only black family in a St. Paul, Minn., neighborhood. Burning a cross is a very hateful thing to do: it is one of the symbols of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has spread hatred and harm throughout this country. The burning cross clearly demonstrated to this family that at least this youth did not welcome them in the neighborhood. The family brought charges, and the boy was prosecuted under a Minnesota criminal law that made it illegal to place, on public or private property, a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse “anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional because it violated the youth’s First Amendment free speech rights.
And, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), a case involving a Westboro Baptist Church protest at a dead serviceman’s funeral) that not even civil actions (e.g., for infliction of emotional distress) may be brought for hate speech with political overtones.
So, Walsh won’t get prosecuted for his anti-Muslim rants and become a martyr for his hate-spewing cause. But, it makes him a courageous-sounding hero in the eyes and hearts of his hate-harboring community and presumably will direct them to his website (which I will NOT link to here) and to his sponsors: shipping supplies, right wing publishers, luxury leather goods and TransCanada!
Second, Walsh’s rant is factually unsubstantiated and, indeed, inaccurate. Perhaps forgetting his similar but inaccurate forecast in 2012 that “assured” his constituents that there were Muslims on every block committed to committing dire acts in America, he again charged that “most Muslims around the world are terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Sharia Law.” Since he’s no longer privy to inside Homeland Security reports, one wonders where he got this insight into the mindset of over a billion Muslims worldwide. But, hey, if the leading Republican Presidential candidate can get away with saying this nonsense, it must be true, right?
But, finally, what is most eye-watering about Walsh’s rant is its internal inconsistency. He falsely but vociferously objects to being threatened with criminal prosecution for making the most vile of false comments about a religious community whose safety is at risk, as it was after 9/11. But, then, he asserts that anyone who simply “supports” Islamic terrorism should not only be prosecuted but killed – oh, excuse me, he just said that only Muslims who support terrorism should be killed, so I guess Christians and Jews can support it with impunity under his version of the First Amendment. And, second, he not only thinks Americans of the Muslim persuasion should be prosecuted for deportation not only for what they DO say, but also for what they do NOT say; he directly asserts that “Muslims [who] don’t speak out against terrorism … are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country.”
So, there you have it – Joe Walsh, Protector of the First Amendment.