babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
"insightful speech", North Report? Really? From the Guardian?
Also, you're quoting large tracts of articles, which may be violating copyright.
Also, the way you post articles without any quote marks or tags makes it confusing to understand where your commentary begins/ends in relation to the article you're reproducing.
Perhaps this could be applied to everyone, not just elected Congress members or federal officials.
My base answer to the question in the thread heading is NO.
Why, of course! And then we could also support a law allowing first use of nuclear weapons by the U.S., but only if it's really truly necessary as a last resort!
I'm sure with the right wording, such a law will be used wisely by the U.S. government and judicial system, and certainly never to suppress popular movements.
The question is not freedom of speech, and Brady's legislation would violate it.
The problem is the media, specifically talk (hate) radio. No one has the right to have a radio show where they can say anything they want. Lack of standards and consequences, including firing and loss of license, has caused these right-wing hatemongers to proliferate. In the U.S., up to the late 80's, there was a fairness doctrine, requiring the presentation of opposing viewpoints on the theory that because the airways were owned by the public, there should be a broad spectrum of viewpoints. Once that was ended, the rise of the Rush Limbaughs began.
I cringe whenever something like this happens and people immediately start calling for limits on free speech and pointing blame where it doesnt' belong. Accoring to everything presented to date, this man had serious mental health issues. This is based on his writings, videos on youtube, myspace, etc. It keeps getting mentioned that one of his favourite books was The Communist Manifesto...should we blame commununists or ban that book?
Josh, a "fairness doctrine" wherever implemented works both ways. Left-wing media would also be forced to present the right-wing perspective. Who judges whether a perspective is actually being represented? Have you seen the threads around here about what actually is Progressive? Also, in the 80s, there was no internet. This guy obviously spent a lot of time on the internet, so would every single website be required to present an opposing view? Would you want rabble.ca forced to present or tolerate right-wing views?
In Canada, we have laws against inciting violence. I am not sure about the situation in the US in regards to these, but in my view this is the legal approach to take. As unionist alludes to, there is also violence as portrayed in culture. Movies, TV, video games, etc., etc. problems are solved by violence. Something I have not heard anyone else mention is the current fame-obsessed culture. Perhaps some of this guy's motivation was instant fame?
As to cringing- maybe at the misguided thoughts. But don't worry about this going anywhere. What minimal legs it would have [with much less in the US, because of stronger civil libertarian sentiments that bridge the ideological polarization]... no one could even write a workable piece of proposed legislation around this.
And josh is right that as far as discourse goes talk radio is a huge problem- with the caveat that even elected officals say plenty of grotesquely inflamatory things that they dont need talk radio for a bully pulpit.
But the notion of a fairness doctrine is a civil society understanding- not something amenable to legislation. And that particular genie is long gone out of the bottle.
Radio and television are different than other forms of media. Only there do you need a license to operate and, as least in the U.S., you're supposed to operate in the "public interest." I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and it worked fine. There was still point of view "talk radio," and it still skewed right. But you the hosts were more restrained, and round the clock campaining for or against a candidate, without an opposing candidate being given the right of some time to respond, did not place. As it does now in many places. I've never come across progressive commercial radio. The only stations that were, or are, were noncommercial.
Regulation through the FTC control of licences would be easier than trying to control through banning inciting speech.
But the better term would be the oxymoronic- less impossible to do.
I don't think it means presenting someone else's perspective at all. And end to personal attacks and intimidation would suffice, I think. You can say pretty much anything, and put forward completely slanted ideas without resorting to those tactics.
For me there are two levels that breach proper discourse:
First, is refusing to recognize the legitimacy of people you disagree with. While I don't think that is criminal I think it undermines social order and threatens all of us, because how do we expect to listen to someone if we aren't willing to do the same. I think it is particularly dangerous when applied to public figures - again, not just politicians, journalists and community leaders as well. The example most in my mind, which I mentioned already, is Harper's painting elected Bloc members as traitors whom no one should deal with.
Secondly is the threat of violence. Which I think is far worse, and is in spirit, criminal. While I would hope people could restrain themselves from that kind of rhetoric without the threat of law, I think it is completely unacceptable anywhere.
And before I get responses that this will restrain people from responding in kind from violent attack from opponents, do we really want or need to go there in the context of party politics? If we don't want to make it more of a war zone, let's try not to add to the notion that it is a war, or it will become a self-fulfiling prophecy.
First thing I would do before passing any restrictive laws? Get the cameras out of the house of commons and they would have a lot less reason to act like they needed to upstage one another.
I don't think there should be limits to free speech.
BUT,in the media whether it be open mouth radio or any other political commentary on our air waves or newspapers,hateful,inciteful rhetoric should be dealt with much in the same way as a 'nut' writing out a manifesto or confession in a social media site or publicly calling for the assassination of someone.
In the latter part of the preceding paragraph,we all ready have heard from Tom Flanagan on a national news show call for an assassination without any criminal charge....But someone shows a nipple on television and the outrage ripples on for a decade.
If I,or anyone else,were to publicly call for the murder of a politician,a policeman or a private person,I'd be arrested.
But I guess it all depends on WHO you are calling for their heads.
It reminds me a bit of television,movies,video games and music where you have groups of people in government who want to blame violence as residual effects from that media.
Sort of like how Judas Priest was almost thrown in jail because of a couple of losers who listened to a song,claimed to hear a message which doesn't exist in the song,and proceeded to shoot themselves.
In a sane world,Flanagan and the mouth breathers who have a soap box in people's living rooms and kitchens,would be criminally charged with inciting violence.
Just as an experiment,make up a web site with pictures of the men and women of the extreme right with their faces in targets and type in the word 'assassination' under it and see how long it takes before a SWAT team kicks down your door.
Just to add something.
The fact that Harper has been silent sends a message,to me anyway,that he doesn't see much wrong with this...Maybe if the victims were Israeli soldiers,it would be a different story
I'm convinced that,whether they admit it or not,they believe that this will 'scare' dissenting voices.
Didn't I hear somewhere where King Harper was quoted as liking to see the fear in the eyes of his opponents?
there IS a limits to freedom of speech in Canada. People would not be shooting other people if they had more stability and positive attention in their lives, including mental health care and a job. Thats what it comes down to, i will repeat it 1000 times if i had to.
And for the most part, that is a good thing.
@ alan smithee
While the SWAT team is an overreaction, I wouldn't want to attempt your proposed online experiment because I think it is over the line of what SHOULD be done. And the fact that some people get away with it does not make it right.
Last I heard though, police did open an investigation into Tom Flanagan's statements.
Is it?
I have much more to fear from the unambiguously 'sane' people than I do from people like the Arizona killer.
Let alone the biggest dangers being posed by the well known certifiably sane people like Sarah Palin and Tony Clement... even if we are talking about the potential of more 'foot soldier' killers out there, we've got more to worry about from the ones that do not have mental health issues.
The more I think about it, the more I think that progressives who are tying the shooting to political speech are wrong.
I don't believe this is about speech, it's about access to guns and gun control. People with mental health problems exist everywhere - but in the US, they live in a culture and society with easy access to deadly weapons. That's a problem.
I didn't buy it when people blamed the Columbine School shootings on Jim Carroll (author of the Basketball diaries). In the book, Carroll writes about fantasies of going into school and shooting a machine gun in the air. In the move (which I've not seen) apparently, the gun is pointed at students. The shooters at Columbine referenced Carroll's work, and he got blamed. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now that Republicans are responsible.
Even if political speech leads to violent action, it's near impossible to police and control.
Let's be honest, some progressives are thinking that blaming Sarah Palin and the Republicans for this will result in some kind of partisan gain. It won't. It may even backfire. People who vote for the Tea Party will not be swayed by the arguments being made. They will see right through them and likely just get madder at the left for making them. All Palin and the Republicans have to do is say "We are horrified by this tragedy. We can't be held responsible for the actions of one person. We are disgusted by the attempts to politicize this event." I bet the fundraising letters are already drafted.
And that's before anyone even digs up all the examples of the media and the Democratic Party using battle terms in political discussion.
It would be smarter, and would do more good, for progressives to talk about the shooting in terms of it being a gun control issue. When Ronald Regan was shot, it resulted in the Brady Bill. When Dec 6th happened in Canada, we got the gun registry. Shootings like what happened in Arizona are exactly why the US needs better gun control. Shootings like that happen all the time in the US, but seldom with the kind of attention paid to them like this one.
If the left in the US use this to push gun control, I suspect they would ultimatly get the partisan boost they are attempting to gain after the Republicans push back.
They would also be doing the right thing.
So I'd like to see the Democrats push for better gun control (even if just an incremental measure) rather than use this as an ill advised (and doomed) tactic to gain political traction against Sarah Palin.
You mean like here:
See this blog post for use of the bulls eye and targeting rhetoric by Democrats:
<http://tinyurl.com/yeduszv>
Social convention in Canada keeps folks from expressing murderous urges.
Where/when did social convention in the U.S. find it acceptable...even humorous?
Canada didnt have a civil war over slavery either... we didnt segregate white and black people up till 1950s....we dont have a second amendement that guarantees the constitutional right to bear arms..
Canada and the U.S are different in those particular ways...we have people shooting one another on the street because of drugs/unemployment, but our politicans are so boring, very few young people even know their names.
You could say they are two distinct issues.
But the deliberately generated hate in the US has an enormous impact. It would be something that would have to be dealt with even if it resulted in no shootings.
The interesction is that the people who actually and unambiguosuly celebrate gun culture, are virtually the same people who celebrate this overarching diviseiveness.
But the access to guns problem is not same thing as the celebration of gun culture.
They two things overlap, but the first problem you get into in the legalistic approach to gun control and gun access, is that there are MANY very opposed to you who are not at all part of the celebration of the gun culture. But that should not just be seen as a practical problem. That practical/'tactical' problem is obscuring how much of the problem is the celebration of gun control. And now we are squrely back at the political problem, or the huge political-cultural divide in the US.
are you sure its the celebration of gun culture? maybe its a celebration for the U.S military also. The U.S is always glorifying the military and their soldiers; they can do no wrong as far as most Americans are concerned. How can heroes be wrong? And even if they were wrong, there's a goddamn righteous reason for it.
I am sure it has alot to do with being a military superpower, and mixed with a lot of over hyped masculinity and misogyny.
And there you are just absolutely wrong to see this is primarily an instrumental thing to do. And while I can see how people here come up with these ideas, putting on my ex-pats hat, I take exception deeply.
The primary reaction to this is visceral.
The incident correctly understood or not, this not an instrumental reaction by people in the US.
Time to put to rest the mythological 'drug related' violence.
Gang warfare is about MONEY,not drugs...It just so happens that their bread and butter is in the capitalization of prohibition.
As for guns...Up until 2010,I thought most Canadians WANTED gun control.
I don't know if it was the media making a minority look like the vast majority during the right to bear arms issue the Tories were using as a wedge issue or if Canadians are just as much a people of gun 'nuts' as our demented neighbours to the South.
This is where I agree that the roots in the US are old. Slavery and the Civil War were mentioned. That left a 'living heritage' of black people barely franchised, who had to be "kept in line." I would add the aptly named 'Indian Wars' that stamped the West, with national cultural influences. Canada was able to seize the West from First Nations without as much militarization [my personal sense is that the Candian state was able to hitchhike a ride on the US military conquest of the West... where First Nations on this side of the border could see what resistance was going to get them]. The conquest of the southwest quarter of the US from Latinos [who had conqured it from the Indians] required less violence, but was just as bloody when required. Entire families of Californios were lynched if they got in the way of American seizures of land.
Then there is the simple fact that policing- broadly looked at- in the frontier of Canada was on the interventionist, centralized and bureaucratic British model... while comnmunity vigilantiasm was the rule on the US fronteir [be that literal vigilantes, or vigilantes with state sanctioned badges].
Whatever cause it, murderous resolution of conflict has a history of acceptance in the US.
Most clearly and viciously expressed in lynchings of black people.
Not to sidetrack the thread, because I do agree with you that the U.S. and Canada have significant historical differences, but we also have our share of invasions, occupations, deportations, racial segregation, and camps. Our history might not seem quite as stark and as universally condemned as slavery, but in many things Canada has been little more than a company town - a few steps up from serfdom and slavery.
My point is that when it comes to unresolved grievances we are no different, and in fact worse in some ways than the U.S.
And KenS
We had our vigilantees too - the Orange Order. For that matter nothing about the Canadian takeover of Red River was legal or orderly, and Wolseleys troops terrorised people like thugs when they first came to Winnipeg.
And from the start Canada was in competition with the U.S. Macdonald hammered that railway through because otherwise 54/40 would have been the new reality.
Sorry for getting off topic. I think there are a lot of reasons in our history why the U.S. has a stronger tradition of freedom of speech, and yet more intolerance of it at the same time. To get into them is probably a topic for another thread.
@Lou Arab... Nice idea but it would never work in the USA. Its about 150 years too late.
I don't know what exactly you have in mind but strict gun control would end up like liquor probation in the 1930s; guns would still be there, criminals damn sure would still have them, most people would ignore the law, it would open up a new niche for organized crime and it would make ordinary people criminals just for owning a gun.
Oh and for the record all homicides make the press in the USA; the local press. Only unique ones (for the lack of a better word) like this one make it to the national/ international level. I'm sure in the past two or three days someone has been murdered in Canada and unless there's something spectacular about it I'm not going to hear about down where I'm at.
The question of limits to "free speech" vis a vis "incitement to violence" is not always a clear cut in my mind and not always white or black but rather a continuum of white-gray-black.
There are, I'd guess, even more people who would find limits to speech acceptable when dealing with the following examples:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/26/eveningnews/main6994245.shtml
The question of what should be legal and what illegal ultimately becomes a difficult issue of nuances of language and image to be sorted out.
For example, the repugnance of the above sentiments aside, one can imagine an anti-abortion website that is civil and non-threatening in its arguments and most think should be legal.
Imagine also a gradual of changes of wording and image to end up with the violence-inciting websites above, which would be illegal in Canada (rightly I think).
....
The political discourse in much of the US is charged, (aided by much of the right wing media and demagogues such as Glenn Beck) as a real assault on America by anti-American leftist, socialist, terrorist loving, infiltrators in the government etc. etc. The question for many of the believers is: How does one fight such a assault on the heart of America?
This patriotic video by the "entertainer" Ray Stevens captures perfectly the spirit of the "defenders of America" in a literal war against it's threats from within the government. "God Save Arizona":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWpOcZVnBrc&feature=fvsr
It is difficult not to see it as a justification for violence in the bewildered minds of a considerable portion of the populace.
The fact that it plays on the irrational fears of a largely ignorant public is key to the general polemic of a managed democracy of the decerebrated.
That said- my responese to Lou above...
This is a good time for agitating about gun control. A case everyone knows about where someone easily got a 9mm Glock with a huge clip. And if he had put easily available soft tip bullet ammo in, most of the injured would be dead as well- definitely including Giffords.
There does need to be a reminder that vigilantiasm happened in Canada as well. [And as I noted, we also did seize from First Nations militarily.]
But when we are talking about effects through history to the present, it matters that it was much more widespread in the US.