Is violent political rhetoric and imagery incitement?

[Thunder]

Is it incitement to have an image of a politician, judge, sheriff, with a gunsight's crosshairs super-imposed over it?

is it incitement to have a map of the USA with gunsight crosshairs all over the country, with each crosshair being linked to a Congressmen's name?

I say it is. Crosshairs target objects for shooting....usually to kill.

Should this be considered a criminal act? No. Not unless there is a clear or even vague suggestion of violence.

Should this be considered incitement in a civil case? Absolutely...especially if someone acts even partially due to such imagery.

 

[truethat]

Well I wonder. I don't honestly think Sarah Palin was telling people to go out and shoot people. Also I don't think her maps had anything to do with the shooting. People keeping tying the two together but I don't follow Sarah Palin and had never seen the maps until after the shooting when people were speculating that a tea party person did it. Which has not been proven.

Again thunder, that pain in the butt issue of having to wait until actual facts come out. Not rumors or gossip.


However that said I think that from this point forward anyone who does such a thing or uses gun imagery in political ads etc should be arrested for inciting violence. This is not protected under the first amendment.

If she had posted the same image with Obama's face on it you can bet that it would be taken differently.

 

[Thunder]

If she had posted the same image with Obama's face on it you can bet that it would be taken differently.

a political ad with Obama's face in cross-hairs, would bring a swift visit from the Secret Service. as it should.

I don't think Presidents are more special than any other government official. if you put a politician's face in cross-hairs, or link an image of a cross-hair to someone's name, you should at least face some questions as to your intentions.

should it be an immediate criminal charge? I don't know.

should it be grounds for winning a civil case of incitement and/or harassment? you betcha'.

 

[Bikewer]

Having seen the graphic with the "crosshairs", I must say it wasn't (to my way of thinking) an image designed to conjure up "gunsight" in my mind. Just a place marker not unlike what you'd see on Google Maps.
The few snippets from this particular lunatic's web posts that have surfaced indicate a typical paranoid schizophrenic bent; fear of the government, fear of the police, delusions that the government is not legitimate...
You don't need hate-filled rhetoric to set such people off; something always will, and it may be mundane indeed.

 

[Thunder]

Having seen the graphic with the "crosshairs", I must say it wasn't (to my way of thinking) an image designed to conjure up "gunsight" in my mind. Just a place marker not unlike what you'd see on Google Maps.
The few snippets from this particular lunatic's web posts that have surfaced indicate a typical paranoid schizophrenic bent; fear of the government, fear of the police, delusions that the government is not legitimate...
You don't need hate-filled rhetoric to set such people off; something always will, and it may be mundane indeed.

and what about a political event where folks shoot photos of a candidate's opponent with a fully-auto M16?

should that be considered incitement? this actually did occur.

 

[Denver]

I think Palin's communication's office has been using gun imagery as part of her brand. It can conjure up positive feelings (2nd amendment, freedom, personal responsibility, strength, independence, etc), which is what I believe they were going for. It can also be accused of promoting negatives (violence, incitement, hate, lawlessness), which they are also being accused of.

Either way, it has the advantage of being provocative. And so will get attention. Which is what any campaign lives for.

I think the cross-hairs were just branding that got out of hand by some over-enthusiastic campaign jockey. You can almost hear the discussion "Does it sound violent? Yes, but hey, it's just an allusion to the 2nd amendment, so we can justify it. And any time we are questioned about it, it gives us more opportunity to hit our talking points."

So I think, to the OP, it shouldn't be judged in a vacuum: if it can be shown to be part of a chain of hate speech and even borderline incitement, then it would be pretty damning. If not, then it was just a stupid idea, they'll fire someone to look good, and move on.

Another way to look at this is to ask why they did not choose to use something other than cross-hairs. Like circles, or arrows? Obviously they were trying to appeal to some demographic. Who was that? Violent gun nuts disposed to violence, or otherwise peaceful 2nd amendment supporters?

I think there is enough wiggle room in the above perspectives that the Palin camp will come out of this intact.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I haven't heard anything yet, but I suspect the shooter wasn't really politically motivated as much as he was simply mentally ill. (And I realize there's no hard and fast line between the two, sometimes.)

If you blame Palin for this, it would be like some sick person blaming the lyrics of a rock song for his violent crimes.

OTOH, I do think the media have begun tolerating inflammatory and blatantly false speech more than ever before. When Palin and company first started talking about "death panels" the veracity of the claim should have been immediately challenged. (As it is, many people still believe the health reform law had a measure in it that would have established death panels.) And since we're in Arizona, I think every time anyone says that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws, it should be pointed out that this is false as a matter of fact--no spin or interpretation involved. (If they want to voice an opinion, let them express it as an opinion, not as a false statement of fact.)

I don't think even this stuff, though, is responsible for a violent incident like this one. The harm done is primarily in having a misinformed electorate. (See for example this thread. 60% of the people think they want the health reform law repealed, but they also overwhelmingly support the provisions of it.)

 

[DavidJames]

I think this is a very interesting topic. I have no doubt that advertising, whether it's for mouth wash or a political candidate has an impact. I also have serious doubts it could motivate a mentally healthy person to kill.

What about, however, the mentally ill person who, due to their illness, is predisposed to killing? What impact does the media play in them picking their target. Maybe more provocative is, does exposure to media provide any of the "push" to take a mentally ill person from a ranting YouTube poster to a Glock firing mass murderer?

There is a fine line here. Remember I don't think media exposure will turn a "normal" into a murder, but can it push a mentally ill person predisposed to kill, closer or over the edge?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is a fine line here. Remember I don't think media exposure will turn a "normal" into a murder, but can it push a mentally ill person predisposed to kill, closer or over the edge?

I don't think any particular idea or rhetoric is required for that mentally ill person to go "over the edge". If it weren't political speech (and I still haven't heard that it was) it might be a misbegotten crush on Jodie Foster, certain rock lyrics or even something the guy read (and maybe even totally misunderstood) from some classic work of literature.

I don't much see the value of looking to these things as at all culpable, especially since it wouldn't be possible or desirable to quash them all (or to quash any of them, since it would require abandoning the First Amendment right to free speech).

ETA: If anything is culpable, it would be that our healthcare system isn't able to detect everyone who might harm themselves or others due to mental illness. Also, perhaps the gaping holes in gun regulation that make it possible for such a disturbed person to have easy access to guns. A letter carrier was shot in my neighborhood a couple of years ago, and immediately people started talking about gang initiations and such. Turned out to be a known mentally ill person who went off his meds and had access to an unlocked gun owned by someone in his own home.

 

[DavidJames]

I don't think any particular idea or rhetoric is required for that mentally ill person to go "over the edge". If it weren't political speech (and I still haven't heard that it was) it might be a misbegotten crush on Jodie Foster, certain rock lyrics or even something the guy read (and maybe even totally misunderstood) from some classic work of literature.

I didn't suggest media exposure was required.

I don't much see the value of looking to these things as at all culpable, especially since it wouldn't be possible or desirable to quash them all (or to quash any of them, since it would require abandoning the First Amendment right to free speech).

I also never suggested culpability. However, are you saying that if valid studies showed certain media exposure was to blame, that nothing should be done? Is ten murders a year an okay side affect? How about Ten thousand a year? Is there a clip level where you would want to step in and say changes need to be made and enforced?

ETA: If anything is culpable, it would be that our healthcare system isn't able to detect everyone who might harm themselves or others due to mental illness. Also, perhaps the gaping holes in gun regulation that make it possible for such a disturbed person to have easy access to guns. A letter carrier was shot in my neighborhood a couple of years ago, and immediately people started talking about gang initiations and such. Turned out to be a known mentally ill person who went off his meds and had access to an unlocked gun owned by someone in his own home.

Excellent points. I still would like to see extensive studies on what, if any, external factors may influence a mentally ill person to go from non violent to violent.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, are you saying that if valid studies showed certain media exposure was to blame, that nothing should be done? Is ten murders a year an okay side affect? How about Ten thousand a year?

These hypothetical studies would need to show not only that certain media exposure was to blame but that ONLY that certain media exposure was to blame.

Again, it could just be a crush on Jodie Foster, or the delusion that the shooter is the person being shot, or misperceived lyrics from a song. It could more reasonably be blamed on failure to diagnose or non-compliance with prescription meds.

I'm not willing to suspend free speech rights because mental illness exists.

And your last questions about how many deaths is a loaded question. It's analogous to asking whether or not you'd support the Nazi "Final Solution" if it could be proven that the Jews were indeed responsible for all the woes of Europe.

It can't be proven, so I don't.

Similarly, it can't be proven that exposure to media is to blame for 10,000 or 100 or even 1 of these murders.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't want to hijack the thread to the topic of gun control, but this is at least tangentially related.

Consistently over the years, slightly more than half of all gun-fatalities in the U.S. are suicides. I think it can safely be said that all suicides are the result of mental illness. (At least some homicides are as well.) I think it's important to remember the role of mental illness in gun discussions.

It's easy to think in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys", but it's not accurate.

 

[DavidJames]

And your last questions about how many deaths is a loaded question.

Yes it's a loaded question. I'm just trying understand how important the First Amendment is to you. You might want to include the yelling fire in a theater concept in your response.

Similarly, it can't be proven that exposure to media is to blame for 10,000 or 100 or even 1 of these murders.

I would like to see the studies that support that conclusion.

 

[Thunder]

Even if there was no connection, ever..between violent political rhetoric and imagery...and violent attacks....can't we strive to be a society without such imagery and rhetoric anyway?

I think we can become a lot more civil then we are currently.

 

[WildCat]

Even if there was no connection, ever..between violent political rhetoric and imagery...and violent attacks....can't we strive to be a society without such imagery and rhetoric anyway?

Not if your way of doing it is through criminal or civil law.

 

[dudalb]

Not if your way of doing it is through criminal or civil law.

THe only way to do it is simply through a revulsion on the part of people to violent political rhetoric ,so that politicians will avoid using it because it backfired on them.
That being said, The Tea Party should tone down their rhetoric a little,in view of this tragedy. If they don't handle this carefully, these shootings could hurt the same way the Oklahoma City bombings back in 1995 hurt the more militant conservative activists.

 

[foxholeatheist]

I would like to know if there is a correlation between violent images of 'something or someone ' and violent feelings or actions in an otherwise peaceful person.

I could even see it argued that violent images may otherwise channel physically violent acts into art (if you want to call it art).

As for the OP, while I believe it to be in bad taste, my own opinion is that as long as no one's hurt then everything's OK. The problem is that some nanny-state folks think that they have a right never to have their feelings hurt. There's more productive ways of political discourse but causally implying violence to those that disagree is kind of a Tea Party thing to do anyway.

 

[Chaos]

I would like to know if there is a correlation between violent images of 'something or someone ' and violent feelings or actions in an otherwise peaceful person.

I could even see it argued that violent images may otherwise channel physically violent acts into art (if you want to call it art).

As for the OP, while I believe it to be in bad taste, my own opinion is that as long as no one's hurt then everything's OK. The problem is that some nanny-state folks think that they have a right never to have their feelings hurt. There's more productive ways of political discourse but causally implying violence to those that disagree is kind of a Tea Party thing to do anyway.

So "Won´t somebody rid me of that troublesome priest" is perfectly okay, if "in bad taste"?

"As long as no one´s hurt" is nonsense. Is me firing a gun at you - or at your kid, if you have one - also okay with you as long as I don´t hit?

 

[foxholeatheist]

Yes, saying whatever the hell you want no matter how ignorant and as long as no one is hurt is OK by me. America is cool like that. Your St. Thomas example is not applicable because the phrase was taken as an order which did in fact hurt someone.

Second question: Firing a gun at someone is a violent act, even if no one has been hit intentionally or not. For the record, I have been shot at, and in case you are wondering, it's not very cool.

Wow, strawman much?

Quick caveat: When you open your mouth in public and you have a large a loyal public following then some discretion should be used in exactly how you word things. While I could say 'Those big gubbermint thieves needs to be strung up!' without incident, if someone with the status of Sarah Palin would say something similar then I believe she should be held accountable for that.

So yes, while I hold to my assertion that people should be able to say anything they want so long as no one gets hurt, those in power, political or otherwise, should exercise caution with what they say and how they say it and more importantly, how it could be perceived.

So should we always plan around the actions of the crazy? Should we ban the movie 'Taxi Driver' because some nut extrapolated murder form it? I think that's a few steps too far.

 

[Brainster]

Should this be considered incitement in a civil case? Absolutely...especially if someone acts even partially due to such imagery.

A lawsuit on those grounds would be laughed out of court.