From Hate Speech to Hate Crime
Ever since the tragic shootings in Tucson last week, people have been discussing the possible link between hateful political messages (nowadays disseminated primarily on the Internet) and physical attacks on public officials. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin denounced such connections as a "blood libel," an unfortunate choice of words. But is she right?
Since the end of World War II, the United States has endured the murder of one President (John Kennedy), the shooting of another (Ronald Reagan), the attempted assassinations of Presidents Truman and Ford, and the shootings of two presidential candidates (Robert Kennedy and George Wallace). Major public figures who never sought elective office (such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and John Lennon) were also shot to death during this period, and several members of the House of Representatives were wounded by gunfire right in the House chamber in 1954.
Of course, there have also been assassinations of national leaders in other countries such as Egypt, Israel, Sweden, South Africa and India during this time, but of these, only India has lost more top leaders than the US (1). Why is the United States especially vulnerable to political assassinations, and are they driven by extremist political rhetoric?
The fact that guns more readily available in this country than in most others cannot be ignored as a factor. All the attacks mentioned above, in addition to the killings of three previous presidents (2), an attack on President-Elect Franklin Roosevelt (3) and the wounding of a former president running for another term in the office (4) before World War II were all committed with guns. (Significantly, some of the foreign assassinations did not involve guns. Prime Minister Verwoerd of South Africa was killed with a knife and Prime Minister Ragiv Gandhi of India with a bomb.) The Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees access to guns, and political violence is one price that we pay for it. As Nevada Republican senatorial nominee Sharron Angle put it last year, some people she knows are looking at "Second Amendment" solutions to political problems not solved to their satisfaction by elections.
Hate-filled political rhetoric is not new in this country; the history books are full of it. Actually major American newspapers today are more moderate in tone than some that were published in the 1800's, which carried vicious cartoons and attacks on Abraham Lincoln and subsequent presidents. But not everyone gets quoted in the newspapers; if you are not a prominent current or former official, the best you can hope for is a letter to the editor, which will be purged of incendiary language.
The difference today is the Web: anyone can write on it, and anything can be published (like the Glazerbeam!) The blogs and tweets and other electronic messages are subject to no quality or even sanity control, so the most irresponsible and outrageous stuff goes out and gets read.
But do hateful messages on the Web inspire actual violence? Although there is no known connection between the shootings in Tucson and any political rhetoric anywhere, the general answer is that it can. Although American assassins are usually characterized as "deranged loners", even deranged loners are often affected by what they hear and read. A message that a certain politician is a traitor, a baby-killer or whatever evil monster may focus the rage of a psychopath on a particular target For example, there is no question that Timothy McVeigh in the US and Yigal Amir (who shot Yitzchak Rabin) in Israel were influenced by the vitriolic rhetoric of others.
Today's Internet facilitates contact between like-minded people, so that no matter how absurd their conspiracy theories may be, they are comforted by the knowledge that they are not alone. A person is more likely to commit a violent act if he (or she) believes that many others will approve the crime.
Those who spew vile verbiage about public figures on TV, radio or the Web are not legally liable if some nut with a gun acts on it. But they should be considered morally accountable if their words lead to criminal deeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Although Mahatma Gandhi never sought or held public office, he had hundreds of millions of followers in India at the time of his murder in 1947. Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and her son Ragiv were also assassinated.
(2) Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and William McKinley.
(3) A bullet fired at Franklin Roosevelt in Miami in early 1933 instead killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, who was seated next to him in an open car.
(4) Theodore Roosevelt, who was shot in Milwaukee during the 1912 presidential campaign, died in 1919.
Since the end of World War II, the United States has endured the murder of one President (John Kennedy), the shooting of another (Ronald Reagan), the attempted assassinations of Presidents Truman and Ford, and the shootings of two presidential candidates (Robert Kennedy and George Wallace). Major public figures who never sought elective office (such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and John Lennon) were also shot to death during this period, and several members of the House of Representatives were wounded by gunfire right in the House chamber in 1954.
Of course, there have also been assassinations of national leaders in other countries such as Egypt, Israel, Sweden, South Africa and India during this time, but of these, only India has lost more top leaders than the US (1). Why is the United States especially vulnerable to political assassinations, and are they driven by extremist political rhetoric?
The fact that guns more readily available in this country than in most others cannot be ignored as a factor. All the attacks mentioned above, in addition to the killings of three previous presidents (2), an attack on President-Elect Franklin Roosevelt (3) and the wounding of a former president running for another term in the office (4) before World War II were all committed with guns. (Significantly, some of the foreign assassinations did not involve guns. Prime Minister Verwoerd of South Africa was killed with a knife and Prime Minister Ragiv Gandhi of India with a bomb.) The Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees access to guns, and political violence is one price that we pay for it. As Nevada Republican senatorial nominee Sharron Angle put it last year, some people she knows are looking at "Second Amendment" solutions to political problems not solved to their satisfaction by elections.
Hate-filled political rhetoric is not new in this country; the history books are full of it. Actually major American newspapers today are more moderate in tone than some that were published in the 1800's, which carried vicious cartoons and attacks on Abraham Lincoln and subsequent presidents. But not everyone gets quoted in the newspapers; if you are not a prominent current or former official, the best you can hope for is a letter to the editor, which will be purged of incendiary language.
The difference today is the Web: anyone can write on it, and anything can be published (like the Glazerbeam!) The blogs and tweets and other electronic messages are subject to no quality or even sanity control, so the most irresponsible and outrageous stuff goes out and gets read.
But do hateful messages on the Web inspire actual violence? Although there is no known connection between the shootings in Tucson and any political rhetoric anywhere, the general answer is that it can. Although American assassins are usually characterized as "deranged loners", even deranged loners are often affected by what they hear and read. A message that a certain politician is a traitor, a baby-killer or whatever evil monster may focus the rage of a psychopath on a particular target For example, there is no question that Timothy McVeigh in the US and Yigal Amir (who shot Yitzchak Rabin) in Israel were influenced by the vitriolic rhetoric of others.
Today's Internet facilitates contact between like-minded people, so that no matter how absurd their conspiracy theories may be, they are comforted by the knowledge that they are not alone. A person is more likely to commit a violent act if he (or she) believes that many others will approve the crime.
Those who spew vile verbiage about public figures on TV, radio or the Web are not legally liable if some nut with a gun acts on it. But they should be considered morally accountable if their words lead to criminal deeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Although Mahatma Gandhi never sought or held public office, he had hundreds of millions of followers in India at the time of his murder in 1947. Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and her son Ragiv were also assassinated.
(2) Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and William McKinley.
(3) A bullet fired at Franklin Roosevelt in Miami in early 1933 instead killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, who was seated next to him in an open car.
(4) Theodore Roosevelt, who was shot in Milwaukee during the 1912 presidential campaign, died in 1919.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 11:11 AM
10 Comments:
There is abolutely no data or evidence at all presented by Mr Glazer that hate speech leads to assasinations. In fact, Mr Glazer has actually presented evidence proving just the opposite.
None of the assasins listed by Mr Glazer ever indicated or were shown to have killed as a response to hate speech. NONE OF THEM.
Also, Palin's use of the term "blood libel" in this case was supported and defended by the liberal, Alan Dershowitz.
Also Mr Glazer seems to be against the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. I find this strange that a Jew would be against the legality of gun ownership when one of the first things the Nazis did was to disarm the Jews. In fact the first thing all despots do is to disarm the populace. Our founders knew this very well which is why they made sure that gun ownership was legal in the USA.
This post by Mr Glazer is just one more example of exactly what Palin was referring to. It is pure political bull crap.
Palin's suggestion of targeted violent attacks against those who see her as anything but adequately wise, intelligent or informed, can not be causally demonstrated as a contributing factor to the criminally insane act of political terror that occurred in Tuson, any more or less than the song lyrics of those such as Marilyn Manson had on those criminally insane people who successfully suicided as consequence of their perception that such anti-social discourse gave their act of hate legitimacy.
Mason is a depraved whore, who along with his corporate pimps can hardly be expected to know better or care in any way how the lunatic fringe would internalize his anti-social rant. The former governor of Alaska, as a publicity seeker, demonstrates to my mind that she is anything but different with regard to her sense of moral responsibility for the hate-filled messages that she puts out.
As for her use of those who question her judgment as engaging in a blood libel: I believe that she discloses her both her contempt for Jews and our tortured history by cheaply trying to hide behind such a phrase, while at the same time as she righteously declares her totally lack of culpability she shamelessly employs the very same tactics of victimization that the PLO has used for decades against Israel.
Ivan ought consider removing his head from his anus occasionally before he speaks, that way he might be able to have by a less myopic perspective.
I would like "Anonymous" to provide just one example of a "hate-filled message" that Sarah Palin has uttered or written.I'm not holding my breath.
Employing a campaign of political intimidation that employs the crosshairs of a firearm targeting individual people, rather than substantive alternatives of policy, bespeaks violent rhetoric does it not? If not, what exactly would rise to the level of of being adequately hateful to be recognized as such?
Thannks for your response, "Anonymous." It seems that I did not give you sufficient credit when I predicted that you would not respond with an example, though I'm afraid your example does not make your case.
It seems like you are quoting someone else's description of the "crosshairs" document, rather than actually viewing it yourself, because your description misrepresents it. If that's the case, here's the link: http://photos.upi.com/view/a567f3ee9cf7bdea390ed68f02e15e7a/Sarah-Palins-Crosshairs-Map-has-Different-Interpretations.jpg
In the service of truth, I hope that you will agree that your description of this docuemnt as "the crosshairs of a firearm targeting individual people" is not accurate. It is a map with crosshairs on congressional districts whose representatives are targeted for defeat. Do you truthfully believe that this is an irresponsible provacation for political assassination? If so then, to be fair, wouldn't you say it is as least as true for then-Presidential candidate Obama's speech in which he said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun?” [Note, I do not believe that this statement on his part was meant to be taken literally, anymore than I believe that Governor Palin's artwork suggested murder). The metaphor of "targeting" is used widely in our society in many non-violent contexts.
Your rhetorical question,"If not, what exactly would rise to the level of of being adequately hateful to be recognized as such?" suggests that there is just about nothing that would be more hateful than Palin's use of a gunsight in this context. I was going to provide an example, but I give you the benefit of the doubt that you can come up with such examples on your own with little imagination and effort.
The following column by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, ably refutes Mr. Glazer's contention that Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" was inappropriate.
Not only that but, in the last paragraph, he concisely explains why it is so morally wrong for those who are trying to blame the Right for the Arizona atrocity are.
Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'
By SHMULEY BOTEACH
The term "blood libel"—which Sarah Palin invoked this week to describe the suggestions by journalists and politicians that conservative figures like herself are responsible for last weekend's shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz.—is fraught with perilous meaning in Jewish history.
The Benedictine monk Thomas of Monmouth is generally credited with having popularized the blood libel in his "Life of the Martyr William from Norwich," written in 1173 about a young boy who was found stabbed to death. Thomas quoted a servant woman who said she witnessed Jews lacerating the boy's head with thorns, crucifying him, and piercing his side. While William was canonized, the Jews of Norwich fared less well. On Feb. 6, 1190, they were all found slaughtered in their homes, save those who escaped to the local tower and committed mass suicide.
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.
The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.
Despite the strong associations of the term, Sarah Palin has every right to use it.
Jews did not kill Jesus. As the Roman historian Tacitus makes clear, he was murdered by Pontius Pilate, whose reign of terror in ancient Judea was so excessive, even by Roman standards, that (according to the Roman-Jewish chronicler Josephus) Rome recalled him in the year 36 due to his sadistic practices. King Herod Agrippa I, writing to the Emperor Caligula, noted Pilate's "acts of violence, plunderings . . . and continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, endless, and unbelievable cruelties, gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity."
Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.
Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).
How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.
To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.
The following column by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, ably refutes Mr. Glazer's contention that Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" was inappropriate.
Not only that but, in the last paragraph, he concisely explains why it is so morally wrong for those who are trying to blame the Right for the Arizona atrocity are.
Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'
By SHMULEY BOTEACH
The term "blood libel"—which Sarah Palin invoked this week to describe the suggestions by journalists and politicians that conservative figures like herself are responsible for last weekend's shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz.—is fraught with perilous meaning in Jewish history.
The Benedictine monk Thomas of Monmouth is generally credited with having popularized the blood libel in his "Life of the Martyr William from Norwich," written in 1173 about a young boy who was found stabbed to death. Thomas quoted a servant woman who said she witnessed Jews lacerating the boy's head with thorns, crucifying him, and piercing his side. While William was canonized, the Jews of Norwich fared less well. On Feb. 6, 1190, they were all found slaughtered in their homes, save those who escaped to the local tower and committed mass suicide.
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.
The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.
Despite the strong associations of the term, Sarah Palin has every right to use it.
Jews did not kill Jesus. As the Roman historian Tacitus makes clear, he was murdered by Pontius Pilate, whose reign of terror in ancient Judea was so excessive, even by Roman standards, that (according to the Roman-Jewish chronicler Josephus) Rome recalled him in the year 36 due to his sadistic practices. King Herod Agrippa I, writing to the Emperor Caligula, noted Pilate's "acts of violence, plunderings . . . and continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, endless, and unbelievable cruelties, gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity."
Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.
Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).
How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.
To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.
The following column by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, ably refutes Mr. Glazer's contention that Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" was inappropriate.
Not only that but, in the last paragraph, he concisely explains why it is so morally wrong for those who are trying to blame the Right for the Arizona atrocity are.
Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'
By SHMULEY BOTEACH
The term "blood libel"—which Sarah Palin invoked this week to describe the suggestions by journalists and politicians that conservative figures like herself are responsible for last weekend's shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz.—is fraught with perilous meaning in Jewish history.
The Benedictine monk Thomas of Monmouth is generally credited with having popularized the blood libel in his "Life of the Martyr William from Norwich," written in 1173 about a young boy who was found stabbed to death. Thomas quoted a servant woman who said she witnessed Jews lacerating the boy's head with thorns, crucifying him, and piercing his side. While William was canonized, the Jews of Norwich fared less well. On Feb. 6, 1190, they were all found slaughtered in their homes, save those who escaped to the local tower and committed mass suicide.
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.
The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.
Despite the strong associations of the term, Sarah Palin has every right to use it.
Jews did not kill Jesus. As the Roman historian Tacitus makes clear, he was murdered by Pontius Pilate, whose reign of terror in ancient Judea was so excessive, even by Roman standards, that (according to the Roman-Jewish chronicler Josephus) Rome recalled him in the year 36 due to his sadistic practices. King Herod Agrippa I, writing to the Emperor Caligula, noted Pilate's "acts of violence, plunderings . . . and continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, endless, and unbelievable cruelties, gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity."
Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.
Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).
How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.
To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.
I dont remember Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity , Palin or FOX News being around for the following;
Abraham Lincoln (1865) - killed by John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat
James Garfield (1881) - killed by Charles J. Guiteau, a Democrat
William McKinley (1901) - killed by Leon Czolgosz, Democratic Anarchist
John F. Kennedy (1963) - killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, Communist
Attempts on:Andrew Jackson by Robert B. Randolph, Democrat Liberal
Franklin D. Roosevelt by Giuseppe Zangara, Democrat Liberal
Harry S. Truman by Pedro Albizu Campos, Nationalist Socialist
Gerald Ford by Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, a follower of Charles Manson, Socialist
Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley, Jr., Registered Democrat (or course in Reagan's case, the then left leaning media and democrats went out of their way to demonize Reagan.)
These are the words of Don Surber, but it could have easily been from me as well...
I do not want civil discourse
For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. After voting to support the war to get by the 2002 election, many Democrats quickly soured on the war. The profane protests were cheered by liberals who misattributed “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”to Thomas Jefferson; the words belong to the late historian Howard Zinn.
Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.
For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”
Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.
Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.
Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.
The left suddenly wants civil discourse.
Bite me.
The left wants to play games of semantics.
Bite me.
The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.
Bite me.
There is grown-up work to do now. Liberals ran up the federal credit card, destroyed the American medical system and undermined the rule of law — which is the foundation of capitalism — with a bunch of unconstitutional fiats from the president and his bureaucracy.
The economy is a mess. The president “inherited” a 7.6% unemployment rate. It’s now 9.4% — after we spent a record $787 billion on a stimulus.
I was not consulted on that stimulus. I had a very good argument against it. I said the money supply was too large and printing more money would fail. I said let the economic downturn run its course.
Lefties were too busy celebrating the 2008 election to listen.
When people protested lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.
So screw you and your civil discourse.
I don’t want to hear it.
I have been screamed at for 10 years.
It’s my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say.
My free speech matters more than the feelings of anyone on the left. You don’t like what I say? Tough.
I will not allow people to label my words Hate Speech or try to lecture me on civility. I saw the lefty signs. The left’s definition of civil discourse is surreal.
We have a terribly unfit president who has expanded government control beyond not only what is constitutional but what is healthy for our freedom.
Indeed, this call for civil discourse is itself a direct threat to my free speech.
So screw you.
You don’t like my words? You don’t like my tone? You feel threatened?
Too bad.
No.
Actually, that is what I want. I want the lefties to feel bad. I want them to feel hurt. I want them to cry to their mommies.
That way the field will be cleared so we grown-ups can fix the nation and the economy. If you can’t put up with a little excrement, get the hell out of the barn.
Post a Comment
<< Home