Gunman attacks political event in Tucson, 12 wounded.

[Broomstick]

If they didn't brag about it on their Wikipedia page their coming I didn't even know about it. Takes the wind right out of their sales. How many of them are there anyway if all the funerals are on the same day miles apart they'll surely become a very miniscule presence.

I usually hear the church membership as being around 70 people – pretty small but they manage to make a big impact even if they shouldn't.

More, and, more the story of Loughner is reading like one big Charlie Foxtrot on the part of everybody involved. The latest people who saw him doing very wrong things . . . his parents..

OK, now what exactly did you expect his parents to do, or the police? His parents call the police, say “our son is acting strangely and ran away from us into the desert”. Well, the police might instigate a search... after a few days of him being missing, but the fact is “running in the desert” and “acting weird” aren't crimes. Loughner is what, 22 years old? He's a legal adult. Unless there is some indication that he is a threat to himself or others the police aren't going to do shit – and unless his plans were uncovered there would be no evidence of intended violence. I don't know how easy it would have been to find those plans – was his room as disordered as this rambling dissertations? Sure, AFTER he shoots a bunch of people and kills six the police will ransack his room and find everything, but you're assuming this would have been something easy to find, something that an upset parent wouldn't miss while frantic about his child. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

Likewise, the local college acted by eventually throwing him out of school... but what, really, beyond that could they do? Yes, he was acting strangely. Again, that's not a crime in and of itself. LOTS of people “act crazy” and never hurt anyone. We don't have a good system to keep track of those whose “acting crazy” sets off multiple alarm bells because all the mechanisms that would confine an individual such as Loughner rely on evidence that he will be violent. Sure, he bought a gun – but did he “act crazy” while doing so? Did anyone else know about the gun? Hindsight is 20/20.

I mean, for fuck's sake, I took a “black bag” out my car just this last Monday. It held a crocheted blanket. Yeah, the kid was acting weird, he had a BLACK bag (OMG!) but how the fuck was dad supposed to know there was (presumably) a gun in that bag, or that his nutty son was on his way to world wide infamy and murder?

Don't start shitting on his parents, please. They did not commit the crime. For all you know they might have tried for years to get help for their son. If he doesn't want to cooperate then you're looking at something like involuntary commitment, which involves lawyers and a judge and going through the courts and is usually quite difficult prior to self-harm or harm to others. Sometimes you can't even get it then.

His prior history with the police involved being “disruptive” enough to have the police called – I'm guessing that means he was “talking crazy” and laughing weirdly, as has been described – possession of “drug paraphernalia” (not actually drug possession), and one count of vandalism. Is there anything in his past indicating he has been actually violent towards other people? Because for the most part that's the actual criteria used for involuntary commitment – the person has been violent. You don't get locked up (anymore) for talking crazy/weird. The vast majority of people arrested for holding “drug paraphernalia” and/or vandalism never go on to hurt other people.

Yes, looking back it makes a mountain of evidence that this guy was a problem, but did anyone have all the evidence back then?. Did the school know about his arrest record? (Mind you, he was never convicted of anything, just arrested – I've heard that over 50% of the adult male population in the US has been arrested at one point or another, that's why we usually focus on convictions when discussing problem children). Did the guy who sold him the gun know how crazy he was acting in school? Were his parents even aware he owned a gun? (He's a legal adult – there's no reason he couldn't have bought it entirely without their knowledge and kept it hidden). Multiple parties had pieces of the puzzle, I doubt anyone had all of them.

That's a major flaw in our public security and safety systems – it's almost impossible to catch the lone lunatic before he does something really awful.

Poor Palin claims she's being the target of a blood libel:

Caribou Barbie can dish it out but she can't take it.

Palin said blame should rest "not with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."

Yes, well, ironically Loughner apparently DID listen to talk radio, DID look at “maps of swing districts”, previously exercised his First Amendment rights all over the internet as well as at a prior meeting with Giffords, and apparently was a regular voter in Arizona (registered as an Independent).

I guess the lesson here is that Loughner really isn't that different from Palin's constituency...?

Well, of course he's different – he's crazy and violent,he ACTS on the verbal incitement to violence which, even now, most extremists don't – but he's not the only one out there. While his is a rare case he's not a unique snowflake.

[Rye]

Palin's clearly never read about the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Milgram Experiment, the Lucifer Effect or any real group psychology from the last 80 years or so, has she? She has a stubborn, perhaps even forced, misunderstanding of psychology and criminality. Terrible organism.

[Simon_Jester]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think Palin can be said to be responsible for the shooting itself in any real sense, crosshairs or no crosshairs. What she can be held responsible for is her blithe indifference to the risk that something like this might happen. To the risk that either one of her own followers, or some lunatic rogue like Loughlin, might decide that modern American politics is an apocalyptic struggle to save the nation from evil and try to purge the traitor/elitist/godless/communist/Nazi/whatever bad guys. The guys carrying guns to political rallies back in '09 should have tipped her off to this risk.

I think that like 9/11, this particular case of terrorism should be a bit of a game-changer: an opportunity for Americans to reassess the rhetoric and policy of the people trying to run the government. To think about whether we really want "Second Amendment solutions," whether the opposition really are traitors, and whether it really is a good idea to listen to people who identify random charity groups and think tanks as the heralds of America's doom.

After 9/11, that was done in a very slipshod fashion, and we wound up reacting in a lot of bad ways that did us no good at all. This time, hopefully we'll learn more of the right lessons.

That would be nice...

[sighs]

[Talhe]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think Palin can be said to be responsible for the shooting itself in any real sense, crosshairs or no crosshairs.

I happen to agree; I was more amused (in a rather tiring, cynical way) that she decided to use 'blood libel'. As someone of Jewish extraction, I was a bit taken aback that she'd use the term in such a casual manner.

[Crossroads Inc.]

This is what I love:

Palin said blame should rest "not with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."

Well who the hell should have blame then? She just goes out of her way to excuse ever last hate speech group on the far right. Again as other have said, I do not think Palin nor her 'map' directly lead to this shooting, but to say that these forms of hate speech don't play some part in the current national hysteria is simply foolhardy.

[General Zod]

This is what I love:

Palin said blame should rest "not with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."

Well who the hell should have blame then? She just goes out of her way to excuse ever last hate speech group on the far right. Again as other have said, I do not think Palin nor her 'map' directly lead to this shooting, but to say that these forms of hate speech don't play some part in the current national hysteria is simply foolhardy.

The only person who should be rightfully getting blamed is the shooter. It seems to me that he would have latched onto any ideology that supported his incredibly fucked up views no matter where it was from.

That's not to say that Palin is dealing with criticism of this event well or that right-wing views didn't contribute to his ideas. But her responses sound more like whining than handling the incident in an even-handed fashion.

[Max]

Reading some of the latest news articles which have interviews (or statements, really) by people who have some sort of incite into this guy, I picked up that he was really interested, possibly obsessed, with words and the meaning of words. Makes me wonder how much a toxic political atmosphere full of aggressive, incendiary symbolism and rhetoric would play into his imbalance...especially in a state where it apparently was over the top.

[weemadando]

If they didn't brag about it on their Wikipedia page their coming I didn't even know about it. Takes the wind right out of their sales. How many of them are there anyway if all the funerals are on the same day miles apart they'll surely become a very miniscule presence.

I usually hear the church membership as being around 70 people – pretty small but they manage to make a big impact even if they shouldn't.

I think that the issue is more to do with preventing there from being a goddamn riot and the Phelps family getting smeared over the pavement by an angry mob.

[Zaune]

Found via Techdirt: New laws about restrictions on 'incendiary speech' are being mooted.

Anyone get the awful feeling that they're doing this because the First Amendment is the one that fewer people will object to them potentially undermining?

[Simon_Jester]

What makes this especially frighteningly stupid is that doing something that the right will (with reason) present as an attack on the First Amendment from the left is not in the left's interests.

Not only is it bad policy, it's bad politics, and if this is the caliber of response we can expect to the shooting from the Democrats, then I'm pretty sure my hopes for an intelligent national response are going to go out the window.

[D.Turtle]

Well, so far the only legislation proposed and passed (unanimously) is a bill in Arizona forbidding protests within 300 feet of funerals or burial services.

Note that Arizona has a Republican governor, and the legislature is dominated by Republicans (about 2/3 in both houses).

AFAIK, there has been nothing concrete proposed on a national level.

[weemadando]

And that legislation will be overturned next week on First Amendment grounds anyway, its justva convenience law to stop the protest.

[General Zod]

Incidentally, the Slate points out some rather interesting hypocrisy on Palin's part.

Sarah Palin is outraged. In a Facebook post this morning, she responds to critics who have suggested that her target map of Democrats, which put a crosshairs-like symbol over the district of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., may have contributed to the Tucson shooting. Palin writes:

After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event. President Reagan said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies … journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

That's what Palin believes. Each person is solely accountable for his actions. Acts of monstrous criminality "begin and end with the criminals who commit them." It's wrong to hold others of the same nationality, ethnicity, or religion "collectively" responsible for mass murders.

Unless, of course, you're talking about Muslims. In that case, Palin is fine with collective blame. In fact, she's enthusiastic about it. Palin was the first national politician to join the jihad against what she called the "planned mosque at Ground Zero" (which wasn't a mosque and wasn't at Ground Zero, but let's cut her some slack). In her statement, issued six months ago on the same Facebook page where she now denounces collective blame, she wrote this:

To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks. … I agree with the sister of one of the 9/11 victims (and a New York resident) who said: "This is a place which is 600 feet from where almost 3,000 people were torn to pieces by Islamic extremists. I think that it is incredibly insensitive and audacious really for them to build a mosque, not only on that site, but to do it specifically so that they could be in proximity to where that atrocity happened."

The last bit is a falsehood—proximity wasn't the motive for choosing the site—but again, let's cut Palin some slack. They key phrase to focus on is "a mosque." Palin used it twice—once in the quote, and once in her own words—so it can't be passed off as inadvertent. Her objection wasn't just to a specific imam or sect, much less to an identifiable terrorist. It was to any Islamic house of worship near Ground Zero.

Palin has never retracted this position. Indeed, she has persisted in her opposition to any mosque near Ground Zero. Her position is that the act of monstrous criminality on 9/11 doesn't end with the criminals who committed it. Its stigma extends to any mosque near the site. All Muslims should yield to that stigma. All Muslims are responsible.

"Blood libel," as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, is historically targeted not at a country but at a religion. Palin's campaign against any Muslim house of worship near Ground Zero, based on group blame for terrorism, fits that definition more closely than does any current accusation against the Tea Party.

It didn't matter to Palin that the imam behind the "mosque" (which was actually an Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero) had denounced terrorism. Shortly after 9/11, the imam, Faisal Abdul Rauf, appeared on 60 Minutes and was asked this question:

Ed Bradley: What would you say to people in this country, who, looking at what happens in the Middle East, would associate Islam with fanaticism, with terrorism?

Abdul Rauf: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That's just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But the Quran—you know, God says in the Quran that they think that they're doing right, but they're doing wrong.

Palin ignored the imam's denunciation of violence. Now she repudiates the massacre in Tucson and expresses outrage that anyone would associate her with it.

In today's Facebook post, Palin writes: "Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today." Indeed. But when the events of 9/11 challenged our values, Palin surrendered. A decade later, she remains still willing to trade freedom, not for security, but for "sensitivity" to her supporters' anger at Muslims generally. She's willing to issue blood libels and sacrifice people's freedoms. She just doesn't want the same done to her.

[Molyneux]

There are no words for the latest crap Palin has pulled. Just...no words.

Sarah Palin brands media's attacks over Arizona shooting as 'blood libel'

Politician breaks silence on Giffords shooting and lambasts opponents with controversial choice of language

Sarah Palin today accused her opponents of manufacturing a "blood libel" by suggesting her rhetoric and campaign tactics had anything to do with the Arizona shootings.

Four days after an incident which left six people dead and critically injured the congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Palin released a video statement condemning the attack.

She denied that a now infamous campaign map showing Giffords's electoral district in the cross hairs of a gun had influenced the shooter Jared Lee Loughner.

In an attack on her accusers, she said: "Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

Palin's bizarre use of language is sure to provoke further controversy. A blood libel refers to a notorious passage in St Matthew where Jews said of the crucifixion: "Let his blood be on our heads." Later it referred to a medieval myth that Jews killed Christian children as part of a religious ritual. Giffords is Arizona's first Jewish congresswoman.

Palin, who is expected to run for president in 2012, pointed out that her Democrats had used similar target maps in election campaigns: "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle."

Apart from an initial message of condemnation, Palin has been unusually silent since the attack, while debate has raged in America about her role in the use of extreme rhetoric.

In an interview in March after her office had been vandalised, Giffords herself warned there would be "consequences" for depicting her district in the cross hairs of a gun.

After the shooting the Pima county sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, called for an end to "the anger, the hatred, the bigotry" in America.

Palin denied that rhetoric had become more extreme. Her statement, reproduced on her Facebook page, said: "There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated?"

She added: "I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened, at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event."

Posted with no comment other than sheer disbelief.

[Broomstick]

The large American Jewish organizations are not happy with her use of the term "blood libel". Way to go, Sarah - can that bitch say anything without being an embarrassment?

I do think she used the term in ignorance of how much it would offend Jews... but then, that sort of cluelessness is why she shouldn't be a national player in politics.

I just wish she'd shut the fuck up.

[Talhe]

Well, at least she pleased the troglodyte Buchanan. Not that I'm surprised, really; if it involves offending or insulting Jews, he'll latch on to it.

Pat Buchanan: Sarah Palin's Use Of Blood Libel Was 'Excellent' (VIDEO)

Pat Buchanan said Wednesday that Sarah Palin has been a victim of the media in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), and she was right to use the phrase "blood libel" in defending herself from charges that her language had anything to do with the mass shooting.

"Frankly I thought it was an excellent statement with regard to the phrase 'blood libel'," Buchanan said. "That of course refers to the libel that was used in the Middle Ages, charges against Jews that were utterly unsupportable slanders and I think she's using it in that context."

MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell (as you'll see in the video below) didn't seem quite sure where to go after that.

Buchanan offered a full-throated defense of Palin, who he said "is not a dispenser of hate, she's a victim of hate."

"I think to say what she did -- calling it what it is as reprehensible and insupportable slander -- and the other part of her statement I thought was exactly right," Buchanan said. "She waited for four days while this was going on before responding was correct and I thought it was an excellent statement."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... _video.php

[Elfdart]

Palin's clearly never read about the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Milgram Experiment, the Lucifer Effect or any real group psychology from the last 80 years or so, has she? She has a stubborn, perhaps even forced, misunderstanding of psychology and criminality. Terrible organism.

What Caribou Barbie and her special pleaders either don't get -or are too dishonest to admit- is that even if the shooter wasn't a fan of right-wing hate radio, Faux News or other outlets that gin up death threats against those who displease them, it still doesn't let them off the hook for inciting murder.

If a nutjob is threatening to jump off a bridge , or is holed up in a building and threatening to shoot someone, and some asshole in the crowd starts shouting "Go ahead! Do it!" then they deserve to be arrested and prosecuted even if the nutjob never acts on what they say.

Palin has a track record of inciting violent threats against those she doesn't like.

So does Falafel O'Reilly.

[Gurachn]

If a nutjob is threatening to jump off a bridge , or is holed up in a building and threatening to shoot someone, and some asshole in the crowd starts shouting "Go ahead! Do it!" then they deserve to be arrested and prosecuted even if the nutjob never acts on what they say.

Prosecuted for what? Saying nasty things?
Palin may be ignorant and hypocritical, but I find it very difficult to disagree with the sentiment that each individual should be responsible for their own actions.

[Elfdart]

If a nutjob is threatening to jump off a bridge , or is holed up in a building and threatening to shoot someone, and some asshole in the crowd starts shouting "Go ahead! Do it!" then they deserve to be arrested and prosecuted even if the nutjob never acts on what they say.

Prosecuted for what? Saying nasty things?

Egging on others to commit violent crimes.

[Elfdart]

The proprietors of the Nuremberg Files website were sued by abortion doctors because the site was trying to incite the murder of these doctors. The courts ruled that:

A "threat of force" for purposes of FACE is properly defined in accordance with our long‑standing test on "true threats," as "whether a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault." This, coupled with the statute's requirement of intent to intimidate, comports with the First Amendment.

We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that use of the Crist Poster, the Deadly Dozen Poster, and the individual plaintiffs' listing in the Nuremberg Files constitute a true threat. In three prior incidents, a "wanted"‑type poster identifying a specific doctor who provided abortion services was circulated, and the doctor named on the poster was killed. ACLA and physicians knew of this, and both understood the significance of the particular posters specifically identifying each of them. ACLA realized that "wanted" or "guilty" posters had a threatening meaning that physicians would take seriously. In conjunction with the "guilty" posters, being listed on a Nuremberg Files scorecard for abortion providers impliedly threatened physicians with being next on a hit list. To this extent only, the Files are also a true threat. However, the Nuremberg Files are protected speech.

There is substantial evidence that these posters were prepared and disseminated to intimidate physicians from providing reproductive health services. Thus, ACLA was appropriately found liable for a true threat to intimidate under FACE.

Holding ACLA accountable for this conduct does not impinge on legitimate protest or advocacy. Restraining it from continuing to threaten these physicians burdens speech no more than necessary.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment in all respects but for punitive damages, as to which we remand.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

Freedom of speech doesn't include death threats.

[SirNitram]

If a nutjob is threatening to jump off a bridge , or is holed up in a building and threatening to shoot someone, and some asshole in the crowd starts shouting "Go ahead! Do it!" then they deserve to be arrested and prosecuted even if the nutjob never acts on what they say.

Prosecuted for what? Saying nasty things?
Palin may be ignorant and hypocritical, but I find it very difficult to disagree with the sentiment that each individual should be responsible for their own actions.

It's a lovely idea to take responsibility, but why does is it not expend to everyone culpable? Why can't we hold those who participate and help cause these responsible? Human beings are not self-contained, vacuum-packed against everything. Dozens of tests and research projects show that exposed to even the most repugnant things, people will eventually acclimate to doing those things with all the passion and dark feelings of turning a light switch.

In short, why do you think the responsibility SHOULDN'T be that of everyone who is involved?

[General Zod]

It's a lovely idea to take responsibility, but why does is it not expend to everyone culpable? Why can't we hold those who participate and help cause these responsible? Human beings are not self-contained, vacuum-packed against everything. Dozens of tests and research projects show that exposed to even the most repugnant things, people will eventually acclimate to doing those things with all the passion and dark feelings of turning a light switch.

In short, why do you think the responsibility SHOULDN'T be that of everyone who is involved?

Where do you draw the limits for culpability? Just stuff the guy got ideas from? How do you prove where he got his ideas from if he's not being cooperative? Because that opens up a whole nasty can of worms as far as free speech is concerned.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Did anybody see Jon Stewart's speech on the issue? (After the bit with John Oliver, around 2:30)

So here we are again, stunned by a tragedy - we have been visited by this demon before. Our hearts go out to those that have been injured or killed and their loved ones. How do you make sense of these types of senseless situations, is really the question that seems to be on everybody's mind, and I don't know that there is a way to make sense of this sort of thing. As I watched the political pundit world, many are reflecting and grieving, and trying to figure things out. But it's definitely true that others are working feverishly to find the tidbit or two that will exonerate their side from blame or implicate the other. And watching that is as predictable as it is, I think, dispiriting. Did the toxic political environment cause this? A graphic image here, an ill-timed comment, violent rhetoric, those types of things ... I have no fucking idea. We live in a complex ecosystem of influences and motivations, and I wouldn't blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame heavy metal music for Columbine. And, by the way, that is coming from someone who truly hates our political environment. It is toxic, it is unproductive, but to say that that is what has caused this, or the people that are in that are responsible for this, I just don't think you can do it. But boy would that be nice. Boy would it be nice to be able to draw a straight line of causation from this horror to something tangible, because then we could convince ourselves that if we just stopped this, the horrors will end. You know, to have the feeling, however fleeting, that this type of event can be prevented forever. But it's hard not to feel like it can't. You can't outsmart crazy. You don't know what a troubled mind will get caught on. Crazy will find a way, it always has. [snip] But I do think it is important for us to watch our rhetoric. I do think it is a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with enemies. If for no other reason than to draw a better distinction between the manifestos of paranoid madmen and what passes for acceptable political and pundit speak. It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV. Let's at least make troubled individuals easier to spot. And, again, to see good people like this hurt, it is so grievous and it causes me such sadness. But again, I refuse to give in to that feeling of despair. There is light in this situation. I urge everyone: read up on those that were hurt or killed in this situation. You will be comforted by just how much anonymous goodness there is in the world. You read about these people, and people that you don't even know, that you have never met, are leading lives of real dignity and goodness, and you hear about crazy, but it's rarer than you think. And I think you'll find yourself even more impressed by Congressman Giffords and amazed and how much living some of the deceased packed into lives that were cut way too short. If there is real solace in this, I think it's that for all the hyperbole and vitriol that has become a part of our political process, when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words, we haven't lost our capacity to be horrified. And please, let us hope we never do, let us hope we never become numb to what real horror, what the real blood of patriots looks like when it's spilled. Maybe it helps us to remember to match our rhetoric with reality more often, because the reality of dangerous rhetoric is ... I think, even those that speak hyperbolically, even those tonight would recoil and say, "Wow ... that is not the picture of what we were discussing and what we were talking about, and I have to remember that there is a reality to that situation that we can't approach verbally." Because someone or something will shatter our world again. And wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't take this opportunity and the loss of these incredible people and the pain that their loved ones are going through right now, wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't take that moment and make sure that the world that we are creating now, that will ultimately be shattered again by a moment of lunacity, wouldn't it be a shame if that world wasn't better than the one we previously lost.

[Ritterin Sophia]

And that legislation will be overturned next week on First Amendment grounds anyway, its justva convenience law to stop the protest.

No it won't, the Fighting Words Doctrine is a recognized part of constitutional law.

'There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.'- Excerpt from the ruling of the US Supreme Court Case of Chaplinsky V. New Hampshire.

[General Zod]

And that legislation will be overturned next week on First Amendment grounds anyway, its justva convenience law to stop the protest.

No it won't, the Fighting Words Doctrine is a recognized part of constitutional law.

'There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.'- Excerpt from the ruling of the US Supreme Court Case of Chaplinsky V. New Hampshire.

They tried enacting similar legislation in Kentucky where it was overturned.