Maybe this is sufficiently close to enough homes to make it sink in.

[Stinky The Clown]

Rep Giffords is a Blue Dog Democrat. She could as easily have been a liberal Democrat or a moderate repubican, or even a hard right repubican.

What she is, first and foremost, is a US Representative who was out in her district openly meeting with her constituents. This is exactly what US Representatives do. It is how they stay in touch with their district; with reality. It is how they get reelected.

Maybe now they'll be willing to consider some limits on hate speech. Maybe now they'll lean on the purveyors of such speech. Maybe now they'll dial it back.

It would be in their own best interest to do so.

[still_one]

1. They would need a brain first in order to see the connection. The truth is, this isn't hate speech

this is incitement to commit violence against specific people, along with sedition

[SoCalDem]

4. Yep.. They are too chicken to actually USE "hate speech"

They get others in the audience to yell out the hateful words, and then they hire staffers to create the suggestive subliminal (yet not too subtle) advertising.. and then they just walk it back & feign innocence when one of their minions shoots someone.

[randr]

2. We have a Costitutional Right to peaceful assembly

Are we willing to call out those who use violence or the threat of violence as a political ploy?
Are all the nuts with guns at political rallies stomping on this basic American right?

[still_one]

10. It depends. If you are in a crowded theater and yell fire when there is no fire, that is not an

exercise in free speech

During the campaign, and after, Obama being identified buy certain groups as not a citizen, and in some cases an enemy of the state

Palin and others have have come very close to encouraging her crowds to commit violence

[localroger]

18. Schenck standard was overturned

The Schenck standard of "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is no longer accepted by the Supreme Court. Since Brandenburg the standard for proscribing free speech is "likely to incite imminent lawless action," such as a riot or perhaps an assassination. But it does appear that if you think it's a cool practical joke to shout "Fire!" you might have a protected right to do that even if it provokes a stampede.

[still_one]

19. and the Supreme Court used to also accept slavery as Constitutional, doesn't make them right /nt

[localroger]

21. It's not about what is right

I was just trying to gently correct the widespread misperception that the Schenck standard prevails; it's the kind of pithy one-liner people like and easily remember, and no matter what our personal preference would be it has not been the law of the land in the US since 1969.

And this is not entirely a bad thing; the specific "theatre" in which Schenck was accused of shouting "fire" was World War I, and what he was actually doing was distributing pamphlets that argued against the draft. When you look at the case itself Holmes' metaphor is a lot less compelling, and Brandenburg (which was about the KKK) was about specifically allowing this kind of political speech.

[still_one]

22. You are correct /nt

[dave29]

3. She is also Jewish.

And it's starting to look like this guy was associated with pro-white anti-semitic groups.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I know ..... but that may well be simply tangential

There are many flavors of tools, kooks, and useful idiots out there. Every single rep has some reason or other to be targeted by some group or another.

My point is, they're *all* exposed.

[mopinko]

5. i think it will be like post-oklahoma city. they will crawl back

into their hidey holes until the heat goes down. then they will be whistled up again by a new generation of political idiots.

[RKP5637]

6. There's big MSM money in promoting hatred and violence 7x24 on

air and cable. The 'real' terrorists in this country, some of the MSM, get a free pass and lots of $$$ in the process. I certainly believe in free speech, but with that IMO goes responsibility for the consequences of inciting violence across the country. And a number of politicians fall into this same category IMO.

[mmonk]

8. For people in their world, all Democrats are progressives, liberals,

and socialists. In their black and white world, there are no shades of gray. That is why they have hit on a propaganda that produces delusion in their way of thinking. I think there is also a lesson for blue dogs in this when they add to it in the rhetoric against the "left". It has taken on a life of its own at this point.

[RegieRocker]

9. Small groups of Democrats telling other Democrats what a

Democrat is and should be and their views are wrong is also a big problem.

[mmonk]

12. Progressives and liberals are the ones being targeted for hatred

and violence. This has nothing to do with differing views of a group of Democrats. It's about the dehumanization of people associated with words liberal and progressive.

[RegieRocker]

13. I agree and was not diminishing the op's post.

just so you know.

[mmonk]

14. That's cool. No problem.

I just hope all the rhetoric in American politics can be toned down and replaced with reason and people aren't scape goated anymore for our country's problems. I know I'm probably just barking up a tree but one can hope, eh?

[RegieRocker]

17. I hope for the same thing but what I was trying to express is

that it starts here. All too often I see communication here that is appalling. No adult conversation without a correlated response to the facts posted. A ignoring of the facts, a complete disregard for the type in front of them and insulting the person. A run around so to speak. They are so convinced that their opinion is right so that nothing could convince them otherwise. Sound familiar? Even hard facts. I know, I myself didn't stay completely in line with the op's post but I felt it was important to bring this up. I am not talking about myself only. I have come to the defense of others even though I might have disagreed with them in the past. I do not hunt down people and give them a hard time because they offended me in a past post. I take everything at face value. I do not keep a list of names so to speak. I am here to be enlightened, to enlighten and have meaningful conversation. All posts do not require many words nor do they require perfect grammar.

[WiffenPoof]

11. I Agree...

I wonder if this will have any effect on the Fair Use Act.

-PLA

[Gregorian]

15. You can't say "shit" on the radio. But you can aim metaphorical guns at one's head.

I was just replying to another thread about this. How America has it's priorities messed up. What damage did Janet Jackson do? Yet Fox un-news serves as the amplifier for those who wish to do harm to individuals and to the country at large. Giving a pinhead who thinks Alaska should succeed from the country a platform to act like a little dictator.

So while we're bleeping out expletives on air, and spending enormous sums trying to keep people from smoking joints, the remainder of the country is dying from lack of health care, dental care (ask me, I just spent $80k on my mouth because I didn't have dental insurance), paying for depleted uranium to be dropped on countries (causing massive health problems to their young), and allowing much worse things than expletives to go over the air.

I just have to rant at how messed up Americans must be to not revolt against this stupidity. And now we begin to see the fruits of their labors.

I don't know. I feel like I need to reply. We've reached the lowest denominator, and where do we go from here? Do we just keep doing the same thing? This is going to take more than just muting the bad voices. Or changing the First Amendment. There is a common sense that is missing in America. We've managed to survive using brute force the entire way. Now we have to sober up from our stupor and learn.

[DCKit]

16. Yes, but the right believes they're in control of their tea party nutbags.

However, the right is already (since the recent election) a huge disappointment to same nutbags, so all bets are off. Boner, et al, keep referring to their recent gains as a "mandate" and the teahadists take them at their word. They're expecting a seismic shift in policies, politics and the direction of "their" country. When that doesn't happen (and it won't), there will be consequences. Probably for everyone.

[tblue37]

20. After McVeigh they were shaken enough to dialed the rhetoric back a bit.

But after Dr. Tiller was murdered, they ramped it up. I don't think they will dial it back this time, either--I think they will go on the attack, figuring the best defense is a good offense.

[localroger]

23. It's about their own vulnerability

I think McVeigh shook them up because, let's face it, most of these clowns work in a building McVeigh might very well have targeted too. Since bullies tend to be cowards the idea that he might have bombed the Capitol or the skyscraper their network broadcasts from got their attention.

I think this will get their attention in more of a McVeigh than Tiller way, because the loose cannon they set off actually knocked off one of the most conservative Democrats in the House -- someone whose voting record could easily be confused with any of the more sane Republicans. The Republicans have made many promises, and when those promises aren't met it won't just be Dems with crosshairs on their faces, mark my words.

[TheKentuckian]

24. Nope, these same nuts think of McCain and Graham as "liberals"

These fuckers are over the rainbow, look at how they went after Bennett and took him out with extreme prejudice and he's a far right winger by about any definition other than Teabagger and I say he'd at least be a "moderate" in their ranks.

[localroger]

25. Well, that's my point

The Tea Party didn't really exist in its current form when McVeigh struck, and the voices that dialed back were what we today consider the mainstream (Hannity, O'Reilly, and co.) There really weren't any Palins back then to not dial back.

What I think will probably happen here is that you won't see the Tea Party put on the brakes, for your reason, but you will see the media echo chamber which the Tea Party depends on to remain visible and relevant put on the brakes for mine.

[TheKentuckian]

26. Maybe but since they are a willful creation, if it serves the interest of the media or their

string holders and pullers then there will be no pull back and a pull back leaves the underlying issue simmering for future use.

They will have to be actively dealt with. You depend on conscience over-riding naked avarice and lust for power.

This was all stoked up with purpose.