Shortly after the shooting of Rep. Giffords (D – AZ) in Tucson on Saturday, officials and pundits from across the political spectrum were looking to make political hay out of it, struggling to tie the shooter to some rival political faction or other.
Now, however, a number of Congressmen are looking to turn that endeavor into a more concerted effort to introduce a series of new curbs on political speech, particularly political dissent, insisting that certain criticism of seated officials is “too incendiary” to be allowed.
Rep. Brady (D – PA) has promised to introduce new legislation to criminalize any political speech which could be perceived as incendiary, and other Democrats suggested that there should be a blanket ban on all speech and symbols which might be conceivably interpreted as incendiary against members of Congress.
Brady went on to claim that a number of Congressmen’s wives were terrified to hear of the shooting and questioning whether it was safe to remain on Congress. He insisted the only solution to this was to curb political speech. “The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,” Brady insisted.
The ability of Congress to pass such a bill is likely not in doubt, but convicing the courts to allow broad-based censorship of explicitly political speech is likely to be an uphill battle. For some officials, this means that the effort should be more regulatory than legal.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D – NY) insisted that the FCC should work hard to restrict political speech that “could incite people,” adding that “no one owns the airwaves” and that she clearly felt the FCC was not doing enough to regulate political commentary nor to sanction those whose criticism were unacceptable to her.
20 thoughts on “Citing Shooting, Congressmen Eye New Curbs on Political Speech”
Gosh, where was Homeland Security on Saturday last? You know, the Saturday morning when Giffords got Glocked to near death? Doesn't matter how many "laws" our deft Congress might pass. Some lunatic fool plans to trip the light fantastic at the trigger of ANY gun well, dumb-ass is going to do that. All the laws on the books and all the laws Congress plans to plant on the books WILL NOT NOW NOR EVER, save even one life.
Where is the material evidence making speech causative to the shooter's decision to murder unarmed folks?
manchurian canidates on prozac and zolft patent pending ,action figures executed seperetly
ps great choice in artistic photonic exspression,,,the picture tells a thousand storied fables of well ya can interpret the ending rested,,,i think it resembles van gough
this knee jerk reaction hit their own crotch
And this guy is a Democrat??????? WTF has happened to the Democratic party that used to believe in protecting the First Amendment?
When was that? In 1918 under the Sedition Act, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson arrested hundreds of antiwar Americans, including a presidential candidate, for protesting the draft; deported anarchists to Communist Russia; and imprisoned a movie producer for depicting the British as an American enemy in his film about the American Revolution. ( it was a federal crime to criticize a U.S. ally, which Britain was.) Franklin Roosevelt oversaw an Office of Censorship, made plans to detain hundreds of peaceful political enemies, imprisoned war opponents, and interned 110,000 innocent Japanese Americans.
No such "Democratic" party ever really existed (nor Republican).
Hmmm, government employee uses government resources to muzzle those she finds "unacceptable." Merely a form of totalitarianism.
"Congress shal make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…"
I ask again, why must 'we' be cautious, deferential in our speech when every utterance out of the mouths of The Ruling Class is the threatening of or the justification for using violence against the villeins?
'We" must non-violently withdraw our consent to be governed. "Resist much, obey little", whenever possible.
“The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,” Brady insisted.
I agree, the hate being spewed out of Rome on the Potomac needs to stop. Oh, the new laws only apply to the proles. So I guess it's still okay to hate Afghans, Iraqis, the Chinese, the Russians, ect and call for their destruction.
Remember, wanting your congressman to drop dead is a crime; calling for the annihilation of Iran via a nuclear first strike is the duty of all good Americans.
Of course the government will use the Arizona attack as an excuse to take away liberties, just as they have with every other terrorist event or hint of an event. But Jason's article does point out that this act was out-and-out terrorism, aimed at frightening people with whom the shooter disagrees, and it seems to be working. But crimes committed by ordinary Americans like Laughner are never called terrorism.That's only for actions by Muslims.
Politicians never let a national tragedy go to waste when it can be an opportunity to assault the rights of the citizenry. It's their way of stealing more power for themselves.
Among the stupid ideas is one by Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) to erect a plexiglass shield around the Capital building.
There are two reasonable responses to this tragedy:
1. Increase public awareness of the symptoms of mental illness. Most people really don't know how to recognize the warning signs. They think the insane are just odd, or on drugs, or dicks. Combine that with funding for mental health services. In Arizona, such funding was slashed by 50% last year.
2. Allow a greater diversity of voices to be heard by breaking up the media monopolies. Ownership limits on radio and television stations have practically disappeared. And the idea of "the liberal media" is absurd. Liberals have nowhere near the control that conservatives do of radio, television and print media.
Rep. Louise Slaughter needs to be informed that the public owns the airwaves and politicians don't have the right to censor.
Any excuse to limitpolitical speech is always welcome by hegemonny, the Duoploy in our case. Of course, it will do nothing to stop the person who intends to do his or her speaking with bullets, it will infringe potently on those of us who believe in the power of words and ideas. The Duopoly have already emptied their own political speech of any substantive meaning, now they have the opportunity to exclude meaning coming from outside their precious beltway village and beltway village idiots.
"Congressmen’s wives were terrified to hear" – Well shut ma mouth, that's about the most sexist thing I've heard, and I've heard many a carpetbagger let alone scalawags drone on under the hot sun he'an the plantation. I do declare that ah'm glad that the congressional husbands, and life partners to be sure, had their wits about them. End of Rant.
Sure, go ahead and limit political speech and see what happens.
Google the term "Pirate Radio" for a glimpse of the future. You cannot silence a people determined to be heard- their voices will always be raised in some form or another. You might want to look up "White Rose" while your at it.
We will not be silent.
The second paragraph is telling- not allowing 'certain criticisms' of sitting officials? Somehow, I think criticism should be allowed- it's credible THREATS that can't be allowed to go unchallenged. What sort of criticism is 'certain criticisms'? How they do their job? the policies they implement and/or support? Who decides which politician can be criticised for what? Furthermore, who's going to monitor each and every US citizen's speech for signs of deviation from the official plan? Oh, maybe it will be the Speech Security fellows that will 'assist' us in choosing the 'correct' words to use- I've always thought we'd see the SS raise it's head again one day, and lo! it appears to be on the horizon, right here in River City.
i think congress and these facist fear mongers need to go back and read the first amendment. congress shall enact no law to abridge freedom of speech i believe is the gyst of it…if our gov't complete illegitimacy was ever in doubt, this once again is a perfect illustration. once again a lone lunatic is cause for them to trample on the rights of citizens. as for anything "incednetiary" i would think that is my current post and all on this site. these laws are not for "them", they are for "us". time to wake up.
So, the tax-feeders and their whores are experiencing a tiny bit of the fear that they deliberately inflict on us proles on a daily basis? I'm soooooo sympathetic with their plight. I say, make them quake in their thousand-dollar loafers at the very thought of any actual contact with their constituents, the quicker the demise of Leviathan. The long term results can only be positive for Liberty.
"Government is a criminal syndicate that has achieved impunity" – William Norman Grigg
Comments are closed.