by Jack
We all know the old joke about a chicken in every pot. Politicians have a long history for exaggeration to work their crowds and I get it. That’s tolerable. However, it gets dangerous when exaggeration turns to deliberate lying, slander and libel. This is especially true when it scares the public and causes unwarranted social tensions and racial division.
This is what I see happening today. We’ve heard too many speeches/tweets incorporate fake anger and unfounded allegations, some so extreme that it promotes violence. This is hate speech folks and we should not let them get away with it – it’s wrong. I want to show you a video (see below) of exactly what I’m talking about.
Please take a moment to watch the following two videos and then you tell me if you think these politicians, namely Kamal Harris and Elizabeth Warrant were guilty of lying and inciting others to violence:
When a politician’s lie exploits volatile issues and stirs up the passions of people to win votes, they have gone too far! This ought to be where free speech ends and a crime begins, because it is so similar to “inciting a riot.” I say this knowing Donald Trump has made a number in of angry inaccuracies in his speeches, but by far the worst examples are in speeches by democratic candidates for the presidency. Look at these false collusion charges fabricated by the Democrats and in particular Hillary Clinton and this charade they call impeachment.
The lies have been so detrimental that they have caused unstable individuals to murder police officers and shoot republicans. Yes, lives have been lost for the personal gain of certain politicians and that has to stop. The guilty politicians need to be held personally accountable…if that means a criminal indictment, then so be it.
We need limits on OTHER things, too!
breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/16/california-to-build-high-speed-rail-to-nowhere-over-federal-objections/
I disagree.
1) Let the vile, evil, lying scumbag Democrats lie. In a free and open society they will be exposed for the vile, evil, lying scum they are. And can be sued for the vile, evil, lying scum they are. And if the vile, evil, lying scumbag Democrats cause a riot or commit libel and slander, let the vile, evil, lying scumbag Democrats be held accountable in the court of public opinion and/or a court of law for commiting libel, slander and/or inciting a riot.
2) Who is to decide what “hate speech” is? Vile, evil, lying scumbag Democrats? Vile, evil, lying scumbag Democrats are lawmakers too.
There is no such thing as “hate speech”. There is just speech and some of it is hateful. People can decide for themselves whether it is hateful or not. If we have to codify “hate speech” into law, then we are lost as a free society. We are a joke as a free society. We do not deserve to be a free society.
Our society as a free and open society is dead when we codify “hate speech”. If you want to f*** over the generations to come and kill the first amendment, then codify “hate speech”.
I’m sorry, but this whole “hate speech” thing really sets me off. I suppose it is my “trigger” to put it in the gut churning, eye-roll and chamber of horrors groan inducing “woke” PC vernacular.
If politicians want to completely insult the intelligence of their fellow Americans, the Americans they are sworn to represent, they can do no better than to try and codify “hate speech” and to try and “protect” us from “them”.
I do not need for my government to protect me from speech. I know when a politician is a dirty lying low life pile of s*** like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris. Protect me from terrorists, yes. Criminals, yes. Foreign enemies here and abroad, yes. I need no protection from demented, blowhard, bloviating, bulls*** liar Democrat Party moron **sholes from hell, thank you.
The problem as I see it is politicians have a big podium and that demands responsible conduct that ought to be greater than Joe Blow citizen. When they (politicians) lie to incite their audience, they are not just rabble rousing a few people, they are reaching deep into America, deep into inner-cities where minorities are repeatedly told how victimized they are by rich whitey and by the cops, regardless of the officer’s skin color.
That sort of pulpit-power when used recklessly and maliciously can get people killed! This is why I believe what they say ought to be held to a high standard. These people are supposed to be our role models and future leaders, but when the deliver speech to exploit their constituent’s passions and violence follows, then they ought to be held accountable to the same extent as the threat they pose to public safety.
Okay, so what is hate speech? Hate speech is just another form of inciting to riot and it applies to any person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot, such as we saw in Ferguson, MO.
It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot… remember “Burn this bitch down!” According to 18 USCS § 2102 “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.”
The trajectory we are on now is a dangerous one. The nation is divided to the degree we see flash fires popping around the country. We are a nation of laws and to restrain a politicians from causing violence is perfectly reasonable…in my opinion. Yes, I would like to see politicians who libel, slander or otherwise deliberately lie to the public in such a manner that results in property loss or personal injury to be held accountable somehow, perhaps civil liability or an FEC violation of not less than $100,000 for each offense.
I am a great believer in free speech, but I am also becoming a cynic regarding people to have the wherewithal to recognize a malicious deception that is foisted upon them. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t see a law that encourages telling the truth and behaving responsibly as going down the rabbit hole. We’re losing trust in our government, we are seeing politicians lie for personal gain… this is extremely dangerous folks and we ought not let this sort of behavior continue. If a law is not the answer, then tell me how we hold them accountable… tar and feathering?
I hear you Jack. Actually, tar and feathering works for me. Faucahontas needs some feathers.
ANOTHER hit outta the park from Branco on Wednesday morning:
https://flagandcross.com/unfriendly-fire/
Nearly every politically motivated murder in 2018 was committed by a white nationalist or other member of the far right. If you want to drastically lower the standard for what counts as “incitement of violence,” that would logically fall disproportionately on right-leaning politicians. It would also require overturning decades of judicial precedent regarding free speech law. I think we are best off keeping “incitement” narrowly defined. I believe that politicians who cross ethical lines by spreading lies about minorities or other at-risk groups do bear some moral responsibility for stirring up violence against those groups, but the correct punishment for that is social censure, not legal consequences.
Chris, I found your comments well reasoned and on their face…easy to support. I totally understand where you are coming from and in ordinary times I would be right there with you. That being said, I’m not sure that social censure would work anymore, this is simply because their are now too many active, highly motivated, deranged, like-minded people in this world that could give a rats azz whether they are socially censured or not. Antifa for example would laugh at a social censure so would the almost non-existent KKK. This is why I would like to see something more punitive, something on the order of a civil suit right up to a felony, depending on it’s seriousness.
If there was one exception to what you said, it’s cherry picking a timeline regarding right-winger offenses in 2018. That does not necessarily paint a balanced picture. It may be true that far right people committed a few more political or racial offenses in 2018, but when you step back and look at a decade timeline, is the picture still the same? Think about that and then let me know.
Where did you get this information? Is the charge a national or international charge? Do you believe far right hate groups represents most Republicans or conservatives?
I ask these questions to clarify but also to address your conclusion: “If you want to drastically lower the standard for what counts as “incitement of violence,” that would logically fall disproportionately on right-leaning politicians.”
Ridiculous!
People who live on the right have not taken to the streets to burn, pillage, or harm others over politics. Nor have right wing politicians incited them to organize or agitate as left wing politicians have. Aggressiveness and agitating is the name of the game for the left and always has been.
It’s from the ADL. While these extremists don’t represent all or even most Republicans, they have been tolerated for too long. Y’all are just getting around to Michelle Malkin almost two decades after her manifesto about how awesome Japanese internment was. You’re right that the left is more likely to riot, but the right is more likely to kill.
That middle sentence should say “Y’all are just getting around to cancelling Michelle Malkin…” Apologies, this was my seventh attempt to respond to Tina and I kept getting the error message.
Chris it’s not fair to take the actions of a handful of deranged people, with no position of influence within any political party, then assign some broad-based guilt to the people who are either on right or on the left politically. I realize the democrats were not responsible for the shooter at the ball park in D.C., it was the shooter’s responsibility, even thought his actions were politically motivated. Please be reasonable and look at each isolated incident of a shooting or bombing or whatever that was politically or racially motivated and you will find it was an act of mentally unbalanced people. They are the only one’s who should be held responsible, unless we can prove they were influenced and directed to commit their crimes by deliberate provocation. The only other exception would be people like the radicalized Muslim extremist acting on behalf of a broad based movement to spread terror.
I don’t think we disagree on any of that, Jack.
That’s wonderful Chris, in case we don’t talk before, wishing you a merry Christmas now.
Merry Christmas to you as well! I’ll be in London through New Years so you all will probably be getting another break from me 😉
Enjoy your trip Chris, I’ve been to London many times, one of my favorite places in this world.
“their are now too many active, highly motivated, deranged, like-minded people in this world that could give a rats azz whether they are socially censured or not.” Oh man, ain’t that the truth! But yes, right-wing terrorism has far outstripped left-wing violence over the past decade. Antifa sucks, but they haven’t killed anyone. There is nothing inherent in conservatism or liberalism that means this must be so; in the 70s, left-wing terrorism was far more common than right-wing terrorism in America. But you asked me about the last decade, and stats show that right-wing terrorism has been more prevalent in that time period.