GOP Spokesman: Hurl some acid at those female Dem senators

[Erik von Nein]

No, I mean, how would you put the correct pressure on the authorities to actual begin formal charges. They're not going to do it, because quite frankly it would be a difficult case to prove. Are you saying you should call the relevant authorities and say "You should charge this guy with terrorism"?

[General Zod]

No, I mean, how would you put the correct pressure on the authorities to actual begin formal charges. They're not going to do it, because quite frankly it would be a difficult case to prove. Are you saying you should call the relevant authorities and say "You should charge this guy with terrorism"?

All of the media coverage that this is getting so far is a nice start. Or are you being intentionally obtuse? It's not like the police or Secret Service are just going to sit on their hands and do nothing with as much publicity this is getting.

[UnderAGreySky]

"Listen to Tom. What a little bee he has in his bonnet. Buzz Buzz. My question today … when is Tommy boy going to weigh in on all the Lilly Ledbetter hypocrites who claim to be fighting the War on Women? Let's stab some knives in those female democratic Senators who won't abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector."

(edits mine, grammar will look warped since I want to preserve the structuring).

It's still a call to action with specific instructions on using a weapon. There should be at least one charge that will stick.

[Erik von Nein]

No, but it's not as if the people who put targets on the democrats back when were convicted or even charged of anything, and that was more obviously threatening and widespread. Public figures aren't usually legally brought to task for making incredibly stupid or dangerous statements, let alone charged for terrorism. So, I mean, you'd need pretty good reasons for getting them to bring them up in the first place.

I sincerely doubt the police, FBI, or Secret Service (?) realistically looks into every public person who makes idiotic comments that could possibly incite violence.

Personally, I think putting pressure on his employers to fire him is a better route. He'd probably just get work with another campaign sometime in the future, but costing him his job because of public backlash from stupid comments looks worse when you're finding someone to head up your campaign. Obviously it'd be more meaningful for people who live in the district to complain vocally and call for his resignation, but it wouldn't hurt to hear the same from other people, especially if you attempt to keep it news worthy.

[Simon_Jester]

No, I mean, how would you put the correct pressure on the authorities to actual begin formal charges. They're not going to do it, because quite frankly it would be a difficult case to prove. Are you saying you should call the relevant authorities and say "You should charge this guy with terrorism"?

All of the media coverage that this is getting so far is a nice start. Or are you being intentionally obtuse? It's not like the police or Secret Service are just going to sit on their hands and do nothing with as much publicity this is getting.

This reminds me of SpaceMarine93 wanting to call the Supreme Court about a bad provision in the defense budget...

People are only charged with such crimes when there is some realistic chance of making them stick. Here, there is not- because there is no evidence of that level of criminal intent.

And I'd be very nervous about any country where the law made it this easy to be convicted of incitement to violence, or terrorism- that you could get years in prison for a single phrase. Are you sure you've never said anything horrific to someone, that could be used to find an excuse to accuse you of such a crime? I'm not, and I'm usually pretty restrained about insulting people.

So while firing him and trying to get him fired is quite reasonable, it's absurd to be huffing and puffing about accusing him of terrorism, unless some broader pattern of crime emerges.

The man's a disgusting piece of misogynistic slime with the sense of humor of a bully and a brute. That is not, after all, illegal.

[General Zod]

This reminds me of SpaceMarine93 wanting to call the Supreme Court about a bad provision in the defense budget...

People are only charged with such crimes when there is some realistic chance of making them stick. Here, there is not- because there is no evidence of that level of criminal intent.

Did you actually read the legal code I posted? Intent is not a requirement to being charged for this specific offense.

And I'd be very nervous about any country where the law made it this easy to be convicted of incitement to violence, or terrorism- that you could get years in prison for a single phrase. Are you sure you've never said anything horrific to someone, that could be used to find an excuse to accuse you of such a crime? I'm not, and I'm usually pretty restrained about insulting people.

So while firing him and trying to get him fired is quite reasonable, it's absurd to be huffing and puffing about accusing him of terrorism, unless some broader pattern of crime emerges.

The man's a disgusting piece of misogynistic slime with the sense of humor of a bully and a brute. That is not, after all, illegal.

There's a difference between insulting someone and calling for a specific act of violence. Frankly I'm more nervous about living in a country where calling for acts of violence are trivialized as an insult.

[Edi]

Muslims have been convicted on terrorism charges in the US merely for linking or posting pro-jihadist propaganda videos on Youtube and voicing agreement with the sentiment that US attacks in the Muslim world are the cause of radicalization and anti-American hatred even when there was zero evidence of them having any intent to personally commit crimes.

So there is no excuse not to prosecute this asshole on terrorism charges and lock him away for 25 years for exactly the same reasons.

[The Romulan Republic]

Edi, just because Muslims have been mistreated does not mean someone else should be. Jesus Christ, that's a bad argument.

[Zaune]

Edi, just because Muslims have been mistreated does not mean someone else should be. Jesus Christ, that's a bad argument.

On the contrary, if the United States government insists upon imposing such absurdly disproportionate sentences for shooting your mouth off without thinking (and I say that as someone who strongly believes there's grounds for pressing charges here), then the least they owe their citizens is to impose them consistently, without fear or favour.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm.

At least it would vindicate Jefferson, assuming Jefferson actually said that people get the government they deserve.

[The Romulan Republic]

Edi, just because Muslims have been mistreated does not mean someone else should be. Jesus Christ, that's a bad argument.

On the contrary, if the United States government insists upon imposing such absurdly disproportionate sentences for shooting your mouth off without thinking (and I say that as someone who strongly believes there's grounds for pressing charges here), then the least they owe their citizens is to impose them consistently, without fear or favour.

Consistency is good, but I'd rather we consistently not violate peoples' rights than consistently violate them.

[General Zod]

Edi, just because Muslims have been mistreated does not mean someone else should be. Jesus Christ, that's a bad argument.

On the contrary, if the United States government insists upon imposing such absurdly disproportionate sentences for shooting your mouth off without thinking (and I say that as someone who strongly believes there's grounds for pressing charges here), then the least they owe their citizens is to impose them consistently, without fear or favour.

Consistency is good, but I'd rather we consistently not violate peoples' rights than consistently violate them.

Since when do people have a right to call for violence against political opponents?

[The Romulan Republic]

They don't, and I never claimed that they do.

Its possible this person didn't mean it literally, although its still an offensive thing to say. And my understanding is that under US law, it takes something very extreme for someone to be arrested for this sort of thing (or its supposed to). Also, Edi's argument sucked weather this guy should be in prison or not. Maybe this guy belongs in prison, but if so, there should be a better argument than that.

I don't think people have a right to call for violence. In fact, that is one of the very few limitations of free speech I support. I hope I've cleared that up.

[General Zod]

They don't, and I never claimed that they do.

Its possible this person didn't mean it literally, although its still an offensive thing to say. And my understanding is that under US law, it takes something very extreme for someone to be arrested for this sort of thing (or its supposed to). Also, Edi's argument sucked weather this guy should be in prison or not. Maybe this guy belongs in prison, but if so, there should be a better argument than that.

Go back to the last page. I quoted a very specific law that fits what this asshole did to a tee.

[ArmorPierce]

Edi, just because Muslims have been mistreated does not mean someone else should be. Jesus Christ, that's a bad argument.

On the contrary, if the United States government insists upon imposing such absurdly disproportionate sentences for shooting your mouth off without thinking (and I say that as someone who strongly believes there's grounds for pressing charges here), then the least they owe their citizens is to impose them consistently, without fear or favour.

Consistency is good, but I'd rather we consistently not violate peoples' rights than consistently violate them.

Applying the laws equally would make it more likely that such a law would be revoked if it was felt to be unjust.

[Surlethe]

I can't believe you guys think he's actually advocating violence. This is an inappropriate metaphor, not a call to violence. It's like when a dickface tells a woman to "get raped" or a racist fuckhead says "lynch Obama" or Sarah Palin says "lock and load!" or when a shit on Xbox Live threatens to "assrape" you. Nobody believes Dickface is calling for the woman to be raped, nobody believes the racist fuck is going to go lynch someone, nobody believes Sarah Palin is calling for targeted assassinations, nobody believes the other Xbox Live guy is actually going to come anally violate you. That's why everybody in the abortion movement was so surprised when Roeder assassinated Tiller and that's why they all deny affiliation when people bomb abortion clinics or shoot abortion doctors.

The speech is wrong because if you're crazy and don't pay attention to context, you could interpret it as a call to violence, because if it's overused it gets locked into the language and then people start thinking it's actually (like has happened with abortion), because there are women who actually have been splashed in the face with acid and it's really unsympathetic to use those terms in a public statement, and because it's symptomatic of virulent misogyny internal to the Republican party. It's not wrong as a call to violence because he's not calling to violence. I mean, look at the context; it's obviously behind-the-scenes tough-guy hurf hurf hurf bullshit.

[General Zod]

I can't believe you guys think he's actually advocating violence. This is an inappropriate metaphor, not a call to violence. It's like when a dickface tells a woman to "get raped" or a racist fuckhead says "lynch Obama" or Sarah Palin says "lock and load!" or when a shit on Xbox Live threatens to "assrape" you. Nobody believes Dickface is calling for the woman to be raped, nobody believes the racist fuck is going to go lynch someone, nobody believes Sarah Palin is calling for targeted assassinations, nobody believes the other Xbox Live guy is actually going to come anally violate you. That's why everybody in the abortion movement was so surprised when Roeder assassinated Tiller and that's why they all deny affiliation when people bomb abortion clinics or shoot abortion doctors.

The speech is wrong because if you're crazy and don't pay attention to context, you could interpret it as a call to violence, because if it's overused it gets locked into the language and then people start thinking it's actually (like has happened with abortion), because there are women who actually have been splashed in the face with acid and it's really unsympathetic to use those terms in a public statement, and because it's symptomatic of virulent misogyny internal to the Republican party. It's not wrong as a call to violence because he's not calling to violence. I mean, look at the context; it's obviously behind-the-scenes tough-guy hurf hurf hurf bullshit.

So how come Nan Hayworth hasn't come out to denounce it? How come Townsend's been silent about what he's said?

Given the sheer amount of political violence in the country's history politicians should be held a lot more accountable for this type of bullfuckery.

[Surlethe]

Of course they should be held accountable for using outrageously inappropriate, violent, and misogynistic language that could be (unreasonably) construed as a call to violence. They just shouldn't be held to account for intending to incite torture and mutilation.

[General Zod]

Of course they should be held accountable for using outrageously inappropriate, violent, and misogynistic language that could be (unreasonably) construed as a call to violence. They just shouldn't be held to account for intending to incite torture and mutilation.

How the fuck is it unreasonable? If someone said they thought it was a good idea to throw acid at the President should the Secret Service let it slide as a metaphor? Compared to half the bullshit they investigate this is about as clear-cut as you can get.

[Zaune]

Of course they should be held accountable for using outrageously inappropriate, violent, and misogynistic language that could be (unreasonably) construed as a call to violence. They just shouldn't be held to account for intending to incite torture and mutilation.

The words, "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?" weren't intended to incite anything either.

[Surlethe]

Of course they weren't intended to incite, and nobody nowadays thinks they were intended to incite. That's the entire point I'm making.

[General Zod]

Of course they weren't intended to incite, and nobody nowadays thinks they were intended to incite. That's the entire point I'm making.

Except per the law you don't actually require intent to prosecute someone for this type of thing.

[General Zod]

Well I guess I shouldn't say Nan Hayworth has been completely silent, it seems there's been a post on her Facebook page.

Oh, and she's rather deliberately erasing comments that don't support her.

[Surlethe]

Except per the law you don't actually require intent to prosecute someone for this type of thing.

Except you'll observe that I didn't make any claims about legality.

[General Zod]

Except per the law you don't actually require intent to prosecute someone for this type of thing.

Except you'll observe that I didn't make any claims about legality.

Then why bother responding at all? Legality is the only thing I've been talking about this whole time. Otherwise there's not much of a discussion.