FFS

[cinema_babe]

Some prosecutor needs to step up to the plate and begin charging anyone who maintains anything called a "Hit List" or anything that even vaguely seems to allude to the injury or killing of a person or people with murder or conspiracy.

Come down on them with the wrath Judgment Day; no mercy. Sell all of their assets and half of their joint asses if they have a spouse/partner and give that money to the surviving victims and the survivors of the dead.

And start with Sarah Palin.

The freedom to disagree with someone is a guaranteed right. As is the freedom to be offensive, rude, disparaging, petty, mean, ignorant and a whole host of other unpleasant manifestations of human behavior. However, the right to effectively paint a bulls eye on your opponents' is as good as taking the gun into your hands and pulling the trigger or setting off the bomb. It's depriving people who might disagree with you of *their* First Amendment right through the use of fear and it is not only murder

It's fucking Un-American.

Comments

[mama-hogswatch.livejournal.com]

No. It's not the same as pulling the trigger. It's reprehensible, yes. WRONG WRONG WRONG, yes.

But the hand that pulls the trigger is still the one guilty of murder.

[wherever.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more. It's not free speech, it's sedition.

On an unrelated note, I love your Christmas tree icon. It's purty.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

Political assassinations and bombings are by definition terrorist acts. How about charging them with it? They're so fond of terrorism laws, let's see them levied against white Republican people that engage in politically motivated violence against others that disagree with them. This goes well, well beyond conspiracy or hate speech.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

iawtc

[mama-hogswatch.livejournal.com]

I am completely fine with homegrown assassins being tried under terrorist laws, yes.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

And those that incite terrorism and promote plans for it should go free? Shall we let Interpol know so they can take Osama bin Laden off their lists?

[mama-hogswatch.livejournal.com]

*sighs* This is a hard call, and certainly you've asked a valid question. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea that expressing an idea makes you responsible for another's actions.

On the other hand... when one is a public figure, one is doing it for power. As a (VERY MINOR) public figure, I do feel a certain level of responsibility to express ideas I'd like to see implemented, but would be quite horrified if someone took a remark of mine as justification to do someone direct physical harm.

Ultimately? I think the responsibility for an action resides in the person performing the act.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

I do feel a certain level of responsibility to express ideas I'd like to see implemented, but would be quite horrified if someone took a remark of mine as justification to do someone direct physical harm.

This is why, I presume, you are careful with your words and don't go out of your way to suggest that physical harm would be an appropriate solution for their perceived problems. For example, you don't advocate, and I think would vehemently reject, the notion of non-consensual physical violence as a means of controlling a relationship situation. In contrast, Sarah Palin and others have directly advocated physical violence, using firearms, as a means of "solving" the problem of losing an election. That is what they advocated, because that's what they wanted to happen. Someone has taken the action proposed. Now, the person pulling the trigger holds responsibility, clearly, but can you honestly say that the public figures that advocated a "second amendment solution" and the like are free of responsibility in this situation?

[mama-hogswatch.livejournal.com]

Well, I believe in some jurisdictions incitement to murder and the like are crimes, and yes, I'd be quite happy to see Palin tried on those charges.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Sarah Palin and others have directly advocated physical violence, using firearms, as a means of "solving" the problem of losing an election.

Where has Palin done that? The bullseye map thing really isn't what you're saying, no matter how much bad taste it was. Angle's talk of "Second Amendment remedies" talk was far worse than anything I know of that Palin said, but even that's a borderline case, because she wasn't actually advocating that people do that in the circumstances we live in.

Even advocating the eventual violent overthrow of the government is not illegal, and nor should it be, IMO, so long as one doesn't say that now is the time and get specific about how it should be done. and Angle didn't even go as far as saying that we would necessarily reach a point where such a course would be desirable.

I do think both Palin and Angle bear some moral responsibility. But I think things have to be much more clear cut before you want the government saying whose speech will be subject to penalties and what speech will not.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

"If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies....I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." Those were Sharron Angle's words, uttered in a nearby state during the last election, a few short months ago. Of course, Angle identified Harry Reid as a direct target, not Gabrielle Gifford, but can you really say that Gifford's re-election is not a sign that Congress "kept going the way it was?" That's substantially worse than bad taste, and it's rather more immediate than advocating an "eventual overthrow of government." Furthermore, Angle directly identified herself as part of the group responsible for these "second amendment remedies." She was, in fact, advocating exactly such actions, in exactly the conditions that we actually live in. Personally, I'm tired of extending the benefit of the doubt to persons that advocate armed government takeovers because they lose an election, and then define themselves as "real Americans" thereby. The threat of violence as a means of coercion should not have a place in the American political system, full stop.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

I was unaware of the second part of that quote. I mostly agree with you about Angle, then. It is still ambiguous, as the "taking out" is most plausibly referring to her own electoral campaign against the same Harry Reid, Majority Leader. She was saying that her race to of overriding importance. But to use that phraseology in the same sentence that she alludes to shooting politicians in general is at least skirting the line of legality.

But Palin is not Angle. And it sure looks to me that interpreting the targets in any way other than clearly intended symbolically is blinding ourselves to a clear truth in the name of demonizing someone we already have very good reason to despise and some reason to fear, but not to label an accomplice to murder.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

Placing a crosshairs target on one's enemy is, functionally speaking, the prelude to levying direct and violent action, with the firearm being the primary tool used to levy this violent action. Symbolically, the crosshairs target is also used to indicate that a person has been targeted for direct action as an enemy. This is not an ambiguous rhetorical device or a cutesy symbol included in Powerpoint, and it's a symbolic device familiar to anyone that's ever watched a film about a sniper, an assassin, the army, and so on. It has quite a clear and specific meaning. I find it quite difficult to consider that the crosshairs target has a symbolic place in civilized political discourse, or that it could be used incidentally by someone who claims to be an ardent hunter and second amendment supporter. If Palin did not, as you claim, know how that would be interpreted, she is dumber than a box of rocks and really needs to fire her PR manager.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

See http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/01/regarding-giffords-gunman-being-crazy-is-not-an-ideology especially the latter of the Democratic examples.

As the poster (whose politics I probably disagree with much more than I agree) says, "Both sides utilize this type of rhetoric, and every rationale person should understand that the only violence they want done to those targeted are at the polls – not literally."

I'm not saying that the violent rhetoric is harmless. It isn't. And Angle, as you showed, really was inciting, even if she only meant to excite in a non-violent way.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

No, sorry. I'm going to absolutely and categorically reject the "both sides" argument. It's not "both sides."

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

What's not both sides. Some things are and some aren't. Using target graphics demonstrably is. The way our language works is that examples from extreme situations, usually physical violence and sex, become analogs used to represent other situations. That happened with targeting and pictures of bullseyes decades ago. And is used by both sides.

The actual inciting rhetoric, OTOH, is not coming from both sides to anything anywhere approaching the same degree. What the right is doing is shameful and destructive of democracy. There are examples on the far left and the blogosphere that could be found to make it seem like it's a 'both sides' thing, but as a true face of the movements, it is not.

[cinema-babe.livejournal.com]

But if I and an associate mug someone and my associate, unbeknownst to me, has a gun and kills the victim, I could be charged with the murder as well.

I am willing to accept the point that the person inciting the act did not in fact have the gun in their hands. I'm willing to accept the point that every human has free will and the murder acted of that free will (after all, the vast majority of the people reading a given "Hit List" do not commit murder). I do not think that prosecuting the inciter should in any way minimize the responsibility or guilt of the actual perpetrator.

However, I do believe whomever made that list is at the very least guilty of conspiracy and I still believe that this is an act of terrorism designed to deprive ideological opponents of the First Amendment rights.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

To put this in cinematic terms, as befits your moniker, I implore you to have the presence of mind to be Luke, rather than Anakin. In context, although Palin is guilty of much inflammatory rhetoric at other time, the supposed hit list is relatively benign. If you see past your own anger and look at it from the perspective of her political operation, not only is it reasonable to see it as intended symbolically, it's pretty far-fetched to see it any other way. Nor do I think it at all likely that the assassin was motivated by it, even if he was motivated by actual talk of non-symbolic violence by those such as Sharron Angle.

If it has more credibility coming from someone else, see the Olbermann clip I posted for what I think is the correct response.

[1cmf.livejournal.com]

Like.

[1cmf.livejournal.com]

My primary aim with this post is to point out that not every sooting related term is a clear call for violence. Broadly classing an entire set of terms because they might be interpreted by someone not reasonable as inciting violence is not any solution to anything. Banning speech is not only bad, it's innefective as anyone who's studies the origins of 733T speech should know (just one recent example of bans rapidly becoming innefective).

If you honestly believe someone incited this, then talk about them specifically and apply a reasonable man test.

But please, don't go calling for more sacrifices of liberty yo gain safety: I side with Franklin on that.