Also UP Next…Control of Speech on Radio and Internet

by Tina Grazier

The control of political expression is in the crosshairs, so to speak. This plan is already in the works and will be spurred on by referencing the cold blooded murders that took place in Arizona just as the left will use it to enact more gun laws. But political expression, no matter how vile, is a thing and a thing is incapable of murder. Only human beings have the power to perpetrate such violence on other human beings. Attempts to blame what happened in Arizona on political speech is indicative of the lefts refusal to hold individuals personally responsible for their criminality. This sociological position fosters and feeds a blatantly obnoxious strategy to use tragic acts of evil to discredit and demonize opponents in the high stakes game of politics. The murders in Tucson have already been exploited as a reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to stifle and control talk radio. Other methods are being put in place to control the internet.

This strategy is not new. Left “talkers” immediately blamed talk radio, specifically Rush, following the Oklahoma City Bombings and they continue to exploit Oklahoma City for this purpose to this day. They did the same following the Columbine shootings and the Virginia Tech murders. They blamed the Christian right following the murder of Dr. Tiller. There are several other examples. Those violent murderous acts that stick out as exceptions to this leftist template of blame and shame in a crisis are the murders perpetrated in the name of Islam, as in the days following the Fort Hoot murders.

Byron York in the Washington Examiner:

On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people. Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going “to do good work for God.” There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not “jump to conclusions” about Hasan’s motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

Anyone who tuned in to left talk radio when it was on the air knows that it was hateful in both tone and language. The same can be said for left political blogs. Journalists, talking heads, personalities and politicians are not above making very hateful statements. But only conservative expression is targeted as creating an atmosphere of hate and only popular right-wing personalities are made out to be culpable in violent and murderous acts. This is hypocritical. It is incredulous. In practice it is extremely vile, and yet it continues simply because it has not been objected to or countered successfully…yet.

During the Bush administration, a left wing video, see trailer here, received a special award and high praise at the Toronto Film Festival. It received mixed reviews from professional critics but none condemned it as hateful nor were its creators accused of creating a dangerous atmosphere. I chose the following review for Entertainment Weekly by Owen Gleiberman as an example:

When I first heard about Death of a President, a fake documentary that depicts the assassination of George W. Bush, I assumed that it would be a fashionably irresponsible piece of demagogic leftist wish-fulfillment, a righteous political harangue posing as reality. Actually, it’s more somber and tangled and ingenious than that. The movie is a provocation, but not a glib or ideologically myopic one. It strikes the urgent, open-eyed tone of a Frontline investigative report, interspersing video-surveillance footage with talking-head testimony from (fictional) U.S. officials and Secret Service agents — and, in the film’s most startling and resonant trick, assembling the heart of its staged reality out of actual news footage.

Early on, there are clips of demonstrators who line the streets chanting ”Chicago hates Bush!” as the narrator describes a mood of despair that has fermented into chaos and collective fury. Death of a President hits the zeitgeist jackpot; it roots itself in an all too timely mood of souring national rage. (continues)

This film was not said to have been inspired by the quite common expressions of any liberal organization, personality, commentator, or politician even though there were many instances of people expressing a desire to kill Bush. Why was their speech and this film not cited as contributing to a “dangerous atmosphere of violence and hate”. The critic above described the film as “somber” and “ingenious”. It could have been described as an artful suggestion or a useful propaganda tool.

Prominent left media personalities joke using incredibly hateful words. Such comments are received on a daily basis as normal and acceptable. One example is Chris Mathews musing about someone murdering Rush Limbaugh:

Rush doesn’t talk about being threatened, he doesn’t play the victim, but he does have body guards. I’m sure he receives more than his share of hate filled threats.

Anne Coulter was seriously threatened to the point of needing round the clock surveillance at her home. She has been pummeled with objects and been shouted down with expletives and intimidating behavior at speaking engagements. This certainly qualifies as hateful angry expression on our college campuses, disturbing given that she was an invited guest, but this behavior doesn’t generate big headlines suggesting an atmosphere of hate and violence.

The point is that political expression is rough, that’s just the nature of the beast. It becomes even more contentious and ugly when one side is stifled and held to a different standard. I think that double standard has more to do with the level of intensity we experience from all perspectives today than do the comments of any one or two personalities or pundits. If any of the above examples actually had the power to cause or force people to commit murder we would, by now, be a nation with few left to discuss politics and social issues.

Where we have truly failed as a nations is in the area of accountability in these situations. We have become a nation that refuses to place blame squarely where it belongs. The young man who apparently planned and then carried out the murders in Tucson is responsible for this crime. Prior to actually taking his gun in hand and pulling the trigger he made a lot of decisions that led him to this fateful moment in time. He could have chosen differently anywhere along the way…and he didn’t. He will be held accountable in our courts and he will receive whatever punishment he deserves as the courts decide. That is as it should be.

We can talk about toning down the rhetoric all we want. I have no reason to object unless it remains a one sided mission. I will object, and strongly, if this talk inspires covert legislation designed to silence the right. We tried that once and what happened was terribly boring and stifled political speech and a terribly lopsided media.

If, through peer pressure, we can begin to hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse as individuals, I will be pleased. An improved tone in our arguments would be refreshing as long as we continue to be strong in our assertions and defenses. Division and high spirited speech is something that will not end for the simple reason that our nation is divided and our differences are great. We engage in heated debate because we do not share the same ideas, goals and purposes. Expectations that we will ever completely agree in this political world of opposing ideas are, therefore, foolish.

This murder spree should stand alone as a single evil act and we Americans should stand together, shoulder to shoulder, as a matter of shared basic principles and respect for the law. The grief we feel should be at the forefront of our discourse. Respect and the sense of sadness and loss for the families should come first in our thoughts and media reporting. A commitment to see justice done should also consume our thoughts and discourse as we lend support to the families of the victims. Instead this event has been made fodder and used as an opportunity to make implications where none exist.

We will never begin to hold the whole of our society accountable for the tenor of our speech as long as we are willing to allow a transfer of blame, or indeed, allow one single criminal to escape our full attention. Blaming Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck for these murders, or for any other criminal act by any other individual, is the same as excusing the criminal. Peel back that layer, where the guilty is made a victim, and all we find is an ugly attempt to silence conservative voices.

Note: I almost didn’t post this because of a poll that shows the majority of Americans, including those from all political persuasions, are not impressed by this tactic to place blame erroneously. Then I remembered the radicals on the left never stop. So for as long as I am able I will be among those who speak up from the conservative right perspective. I will not be silenced.