Gunman attacks political event in Tucson, 12 wounded.

[Ritterin Sophia]

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

Oh well that changes everything, I suppose the US Supreme Court likes lynch mobs then.

[General Zod]

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

Oh well that changes everything, I suppose the US Supreme Court likes lynch mobs then.

http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2006/05 ... tional.htm

But the ACLU is also in favor of protecting the First Amendment, which sometimes means that it must protect the rights of groups whose values run contrary to its own. So when Kentucky passed a vaguely-worded bill to block funeral protests, the ACLU found itself fighting the same law and, in the process, defending the despicable Westboro clan:

The law, which also applies to memorial services, wakes and burials, was aimed at members of that church who have toured the country protesting at military funerals. The church members claim the soldiers' deaths are a sign that God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Bart McQueary, a Mercer County man who has protested alongside the church members on three occasions. McQueary had no listed telephone number and couldn't be reached for comment ...

The law is so broad, Lutgens said, that people could unknowingly violate it by whistling as they walk down a sidewalk, or by stopping to chat on a public sidewalk near a funeral home. She said the law also could prevent pro-military groups from standing outside memorial services to counter the Kansas demonstrators.

"The commonwealth simply cannot prohibit free expression because it doesn't like certain activities, nor can it suppress the speech of groups or individuals because it doesn't like the message," Lutgens said.

The ACLU has defended some laws restricting protests--such as laws protecting women's clinic access from anti-abortion protesters--but only when they're narrowly written to allow non-disruptive protests. By banning both disruptive and non-disruptive protests, the well-intentioned but sloppy Kentucky law pits the future of the First Amendment against the interests of grieving families. This is exactly the kind of unhappy situation that the Westboro clan revels in.

[Broomstick]

This ^

The problem with the Kentucky law was not that it attempted to prevent genuine disruption but that it was so broadly written as to potentially excluded reasonable actions that are unlikely to be either offensive or disruptive. If you're going write a law restricting one of the principal rights under the government then you need to be very specific and narrow, otherwise it will get thrown out.

[hunter5]

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.

You mean like all the Protesters during the Bush years?

The sad thing I find about this whole thing is people are rushing to try and find a nonexistent political motive behind this attack and ignoring the fact this wing-nut was a STALKER.

[kouchpotato]

Largely irrelevant now, Dean Blundell let the WBC on his show and they agreed to not protest the funerals. Link

[Elfdart]

You mean like all the Protesters during the Bush years?

Feel free to show evidence of anti-war leaders suggesting that Bush or other war whores should be killed. Or calling for armed resistance to the government.

The sad thing I find about this whole thing is people are rushing to try and find a nonexistent political motive behind this attack and ignoring the fact this wing-nut was a STALKER.

No, I'm pointing out that prominent right-wingers are fond of trying to incite violence and threats of violence against those who displease them. The shootings in Tucson are one example of why that kind of thing should not be tolerated. If some lunatic was willing to go on a shooting spree without being influenced by Palin, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al, then the fact that these miscreants have repeatedly tried to incite violence against their "enemies" makes a bad situation that much worse.

[weemadando]

Apparently this is a billboard now up in Tucson.

Stay classy right wing loonies.



*edit* Apparently it was pulled down earlier this week.

[Tsyroc]

KNST is definitely a local AM radio station so I wouldn't be surprised if that's a legit billboard.

[SirNitram]

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.

I'll be honest: I don't know where lines should be drawn. I would say experts in the fields of how pervasive parts of culture affect us do so. The comment about free speech.. It is not absolute. I do not beleive it should be absolute. It's not a holy thing, at least in my view. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. And you damn well shouldn't shout 'open fire' in an already heated political scene across the nation.

Of course, it'd be nice to start with prosecuting people for crimes they did inspire, when those who committed them openly state they did so. But that's not happening, so I don't see this country growing the balls to handle anything more complex than 'being told who incited it'.

[General Zod]

I'll be honest: I don't know where lines should be drawn. I would say experts in the fields of how pervasive parts of culture affect us do so. The comment about free speech.. It is not absolute. I do not beleive it should be absolute. It's not a holy thing, at least in my view. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. And you damn well shouldn't shout 'open fire' in an already heated political scene across the nation.

Of course, it'd be nice to start with prosecuting people for crimes they did inspire, when those who committed them openly state they did so. But that's not happening, so I don't see this country growing the balls to handle anything more complex than 'being told who incited it'.

What happens when they're inspired by something whose authors are long dead? Or if they're religious lunatics who were "inspired" by the a legitimate work of fiction? Anti media crusaders have been trying to prosecute movie studios and game developers for the last 20 years using this same kind of logic, and frankly I don't trust anyone to limit a law of this nature's scope to a narrow subset of the population.

[Ziggy Stardust]

What happens when they're inspired by something whose authors are long dead? Or if they're religious lunatics who were "inspired" by the a legitimate work of fiction? Anti media crusaders have been trying to prosecute movie studios and game developers for the last 20 years using this same kind of logic, and frankly I don't trust anyone to limit a law of this nature's scope to a narrow subset of the population.

Indeed. Hell, remember "Catcher in the Rye"? THREE unrelated assassination attempts were "inspired" by it (Reagan, Rebecca Shaeffer, and John Lennon). As Jon Stewart said about this whole mess, "You can't predict what a disturbed mind will latch onto." Not that I don't think the political rhetoric in this country is shameful and abhorrent, but actually holding it legally responsible is a stretch unless someone gets definitive evidence from Loughner that "Palin made me do it."

[Broomstick]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit (haven't many of us?) and I think my line is drawn at overt threats.

For example, you can say the PotUS is a liar, a thief, a drunkard, an idiot, corrupt, despicable, the antichrist, or born overseas, but you can NOT say "shoot him" even in jest. That's not acceptable.

Extend this - it's fine to paint the opposition party (whoever they may be) as ungodly slime balls festering in bribe money, it's OK to say vote them out of office or throw nerf balls or rotten tomatoes at 8x10 glossies of them. It is NOT OK to say "shoot them" even in jest.

In which case the "Don't retrest - reload" comment, implying shoot those damn dirty lib'ruls' or whatever is not acceptable - it's inciting real violence. Even if 99% of the world won't go out and shoot someone it's still not OK. Putting gun scope crosshairs over districts as a way of "targeting" the opposition is NOT acceptable, regardless of whether one or both sides is doing it.

I don't think advocating actual violence against real people is acceptable. When a person in authority does it, or someone in the media, they should be held accountable for consequences.

Of course, no one puts me in charge of anything on that scale, it's just my opinion.

[eion]

Broom, that all sounds perfectly reasonable, and I certainly want to see a dialing down in all the extreme rhetoric of late, but I do have a concern.

What about fiction? Should the Turner Diaries be illegal? It's certainly a reprehensible book and may have inspired Tim McVey. Does Death of a President fall under the umbrella of a direct threat? What about a more fantastic story involving the assassination of a fictional, but familiar, President by a fictional country, or aliens? How do you determine whether someone's allegory about the overthrow of the United Places of Acirmema’s Government by militant vegans is a piece of fiction or a call to arms to depose the crypto-fascist carnivores in Washington?

[Broomstick]

That's why I specified a direct threat to real people. Fiction is a different matter. I think there are some definite grey areas, and no solution is perfect. Fiction can be a powerful influence. However, I was speaking solely in the realm of non-fiction.

I think about the matter in regards to fiction and maybe get back to you if I reach a conclusion.

[General Zod]

That's why I specified a direct threat to real people. Fiction is a different matter. I think there are some definite grey areas, and no solution is perfect. Fiction can be a powerful influence. However, I was speaking solely in the realm of non-fiction.

I think about the matter in regards to fiction and maybe get back to you if I reach a conclusion.

The obvious problem is the vast majority of the time people aren't going to be making direct threats. Especially considering the nature of political cartoons which is where the line between fiction and regular speech starts to blur.

[General Zod]

As a relevant example, the Mohammed cartoonist is inspired a number of protests that broke out into riots in the Muslim world. By the logic I'm seeing he should have been held legally responsible for the violence that resulted.

[Broomstick]

Please provide a cartoon where said cartoonist made a direct threat against a real person using the image of Mohammad. I'm not talking about religious types who get their panties in a twist because they think any depiction of their prophet is offensive. Political cartoons by and large mock people, they don't make actual threats. If you can provide an example of one that makes actual threats then yes, it would fall under inciting violence.

[hunter5]

Feel free to show evidence of anti-war leaders suggesting that Bush or other war whores should be killed. Or calling for armed resistance to the government.

okay, more.

No, I'm pointing out that prominent right-wingers are fond of trying to incite violence and threats of violence against those who displease them. The shootings in Tucson are one example of why that kind of thing should not be tolerated. If some lunatic was willing to go on a shooting spree without being influenced by Palin, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al, then the fact that these miscreants have repeatedly tried to incite violence against their "enemies" makes a bad situation that much worse.

Except their is no evidence this wing nut was influenced by any right wingers.

[bobalot]

Feel free to show evidence of anti-war leaders suggesting that Bush or other war whores should be killed. Or calling for armed resistance to the government.

okay, more.

No, I'm pointing out that prominent right-wingers are fond of trying to incite violence and threats of violence against those who displease them. The shootings in Tucson are one example of why that kind of thing should not be tolerated. If some lunatic was willing to go on a shooting spree without being influenced by Palin, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al, then the fact that these miscreants have repeatedly tried to incite violence against their "enemies" makes a bad situation that much worse.

Except their is no evidence this wing nut was influenced by any right wingers.

Nice try, asshole. We are talking about trends, a few random people is irrelevant. I don't see a single democrat or national left wing figure do the equivalent of advocating "second amendment solutions", question the citizenship of their political opponents or claim their opponents want to set up "death panels".

As for lack of evidence of right wing rhetoric and violence? There is plenty of evidence if you bothered to look.

Death threats against the presidency when Obama took over rose a whopping 400%.
There was a sharp uptake in vandalism and threats after the healthcare vote, almost universally against Democrats. The number of threats has almost fucking tripled.

[SirNitram]

I'll be the first to admit that there's no real way to catch everyone who is whipping this up. But I reject the idea we have to go for either 'do nothing'(Current situation), or 'Lock down everything someone could think threatening'. I brought this topic up because someone whined about taking responsibility, and the problem was, people aren't. When their contribution to such a rhetoric are commented on, we get them first asserting that violence can't come from words, then insisting the left/media/whatever's words are about to start violence. Let's sweep aside the criminal part, since we can't manage that when the people come out and say, to bring up a real world example, Glenn Beck inspired, guided people towards violence. How about some of that personal responsibility? But it won't happen.

I'd settle for people stopping the ridiculous idea that Loughner and others are self-contained little drones, uninfluenced by the world around them. Better than that, some racheting back on the right wing's violent rhetoric.

[The Yosemite Bear]

funny footnote, with all the bad things that happen when you change mood stabilizer or other psychoactive drugs, blue shield decieded to triple the co-pay on them. So if you have mental health issues they feel free to discriminate against you in insurance, you have a very hard time getting a job, but you can get guns if you want to commit a crime such as this. Fuck, I just might start rambling about how I'm lucky I live in a pro-union state, (otherwise I would probably be homeles and dead) but that doesn't even begin to cover this.

edit, even more ironic in their hatred of the current healthcare laws, Arizonia cut help for the mentally ill, and there's still no good referal system in place to help people cope with it.

[hunter5]

Feel free to show evidence of anti-war leaders suggesting that Bush or other war whores should be killed. Or calling for armed resistance to the government.

okay, more.

No, I'm pointing out that prominent right-wingers are fond of trying to incite violence and threats of violence against those who displease them. The shootings in Tucson are one example of why that kind of thing should not be tolerated. If some lunatic was willing to go on a shooting spree without being influenced by Palin, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al, then the fact that these miscreants have repeatedly tried to incite violence against their "enemies" makes a bad situation that much worse.

Except their is no evidence this wing nut was influenced by any right wingers.

Nice try, asshole. We are talking about trends, a few random people is irrelevant. I don't see a single democrat or national left wing figure do the equivalent of advocating "second amendment solutions", question the citizenship of their political opponents or claim their opponents want to set up "death panels".

As for lack of evidence of right wing rhetoric and violence? There is plenty of evidence if you bothered to look.

Death threats against the presidency when Obama took over rose a whopping 400%.
There was a sharp uptake in vandalism and threats after the healthcare vote, almost universally against Democrats. The number of threats has almost fucking tripled.

Did you miss John Kerry threatening Bush on Bill Maher I guess he isn't a democrat now

400% increase in threats against Obama yeah I remember that Sanchez recanted

If there is such evidence then post it. The biggest right wing movement of the decade the Tea Party had thousands of gatherings and protests with no rioting and few arrests.

[bobalot]

Did you miss John Kerry threatening Bush on Bill Maher I guess he isn't a democrat now

You have no sense of any proportion.

You actually compare John Kerry's single line comment with torrents of claims that Obama/Democrats are:

Creating FEMA death camps to hold citizens for their political beliefs
Not actually a citizen
Wants to create "death panels"
Wants to turn America into a fascist/communist dictatorship using healthcare reform.
Has goals so nefarious that American's need to use a "Second Amendment" solution. An obvious call to violence for anybody who isn't a retard.
Has goals so nefarious that American's need to "Don't Retreat!, Reload!". Much like above.
If elected would be cause "would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror" (Rep. Steve King)

and the list goes on.

If you count the raving lunatic comments from the likes of Glenn Beck, Hannity and others (who have millions of viewers) that list explodes.

I should have said the level of violent rhetoric from national figures is almost one-sided in America.

400% increase in threats against Obama yeah I remember that Sanchez recanted

I withdrew my claim. However, it is undeniable from my other source that the number of threats against representatives has increased and most of these threats are against Democrats. The fact is there were increased threats (including vandalism) against Glifford.

If there is such evidence then post it. The biggest right wing movement of the decade the Tea Party had thousands of gatherings and protests with no rioting and few arrests.

Who made the claim that all teabagger's are violent?

[Broomstick]

Well, the good news is that Representative Giffords was standing up today (with assistance) and spent part of the day sitting up in a chair and looking over her get well cards. That is truly remarkable, given she was shot through the brain what, 11 days ago? The long term outcome is unknown but there is no way to look at this other than positively.

[MKSheppard]

Creating FEMA death camps to hold citizens for their political beliefs

Actually, I've seen that used against Clinton, Bush II and now Obama. So it's not just Obama. FEMA Death camps is a persistent rumor based off cold war era plans for handling displaced persons after a nuclear war.