More shooting...of the foot
One trouble with the American left is its penchant for enabling the cowardice, excuses and ignorance of ranters, usually (not always) of right-wing persuasion, We are in the midst of a fit of hand-wringing over Sarah Palin's testy comment that American media had committed a "blood libel" by linking her violent rhetoric to the Gifford shooting. That includes me.
Come on now. Given this woman's lexical history, why on earth is anyone wondering whether she meant to use a reference to Jewish history, a reference that is a tad obscure even if you are Jewish? Those who wonder are giving her a degree of credibility she couldn't muster herself. She's doing what Limbaugh did in 1995; what every loudmouth before and since has done. It's called whining. Every bully who ever lived has whined just like this when they've been caught out. Let her whine. Take the lesson of his horrid act and learn from it, and let the bullies zig and zag and try to avoid their part of the responsibility.
There is a lesson and it is not entirely Palin. This is apparent from the inability of many on the left to figure out the lesson in any but partisan terms. The lesson is that when people who ought to know better start using vituperation as the core of their daily discourse, people who don't know better are listening. The vituperation goes in one ear as daily rants, and it comes out the other as fact. It does not matter if it is Sarah Palin or anyone else. What matters is that for every listener who knows that hyperbole is a literary effect, there are ten who do not. At least one of those ten is going to be nursing a psychotic rage that the hyperbole will direct. If they hear enough of the vitriol, they will act on it. They don't need a gun, just a truck loaded with fuel oil and fertiliser.
That's why it is unwise to wring one's hands and blather about Palin's free speech rights. We've had that discussion:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenk v. United States, 1919).
Come on now. Given this woman's lexical history, why on earth is anyone wondering whether she meant to use a reference to Jewish history, a reference that is a tad obscure even if you are Jewish? Those who wonder are giving her a degree of credibility she couldn't muster herself. She's doing what Limbaugh did in 1995; what every loudmouth before and since has done. It's called whining. Every bully who ever lived has whined just like this when they've been caught out. Let her whine. Take the lesson of his horrid act and learn from it, and let the bullies zig and zag and try to avoid their part of the responsibility.
There is a lesson and it is not entirely Palin. This is apparent from the inability of many on the left to figure out the lesson in any but partisan terms. The lesson is that when people who ought to know better start using vituperation as the core of their daily discourse, people who don't know better are listening. The vituperation goes in one ear as daily rants, and it comes out the other as fact. It does not matter if it is Sarah Palin or anyone else. What matters is that for every listener who knows that hyperbole is a literary effect, there are ten who do not. At least one of those ten is going to be nursing a psychotic rage that the hyperbole will direct. If they hear enough of the vitriol, they will act on it. They don't need a gun, just a truck loaded with fuel oil and fertiliser.
That's why it is unwise to wring one's hands and blather about Palin's free speech rights. We've had that discussion:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenk v. United States, 1919).
Labels: free speech, Gabrielle Giffords, Palin
posted by Uncle | 22:58
1 Comments:
Call me masochistic. I heard the vid and read the text. What stuck with me most is that she said in the strongest terms that it is only through vigorous and passionate debate that we resolve our differences. Then several times she said we shouldn't even mention the possibility that hot talk catalyzes hot action - no debates here! Move along!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home