Blaming Free Speech
“Hold on, there, sheriff.“Before the crime scene had even been fully analyzed, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik was quick to blame free speech after the horrific attack Jan. 8 in Tucson, Ariz., that left a federal judge and several others dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords gravely wounded.
“‘Let me say one thing, because people tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that,’ Dupnik declared in a press conference. ‘That may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences.’
“And in an interview earlier that day on MSNBC via local NBC affiliate KPNX, Dupnik said, as quoted by politico.com: ‘It’s time that this country take a little introspective look at the crap that comes out on radio and TV.’ . . .
“Nobody has proposed regulating speech yet as a result of this tragedy. But let’s tone down the overheated rhetoric about so-called overheated rhetoric. Free speech should not be under investigation or on trial here.
“In a profound irony, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ reading on the floor of the House of Representatives last week had a special resonance. It was the text of the First Amendment.”
—Brian Buchanan, managing editor/online
The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center,
“Free speech not on trial in Giffords shooting,” Jan. 10, 2011
The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center,
“Free speech not on trial in Giffords shooting,” Jan. 10, 2011
• Editorial Comment: I dunno. Some free speech makes me puke. Maximum effects theory?
• PeezPix: Shameless self-promotion: PeezPix prints and notecards now for sale..
It's too bad that some journalists interpret every question about the possible effects of free speech as an attack against the First Amendment. These knee jerk reactions (similar to the NRA's reactions against any questions about unlimited gun ownership) tend to chill potentially useful discussions about what speech is responsible and what is not, and about how people might respond to irresponsible speech without limiting First Amendment protections.
ReplyDeleteMike Ryan, prof. emeritus, University of Houston
Yeah, we tend to focus on the “low hanging issue fruit,” like ugly “free” speech or easy access to guns and ammo. My take … this is an awful example of how our society refuses to adequately deal with mental illness, because it’s so scary to consider that people who appear normal simply may not be.
ReplyDeleteBud
I see several words and phrases coming out of this crisis that I anticipate will be run into the ground. The American public has already learned from Sheriff Dupnik the rather archaic and rare “vitriol.” Perhaps the media (that word is a plural, please) will find a way to work some of the other old humors into our national discourse (phlegm, bile, choler, melancholy, spleen, etc.).
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year to you.
--Karl
On Jan 11, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Mike Lorz wrote:
ReplyDeleteHelp me here, Ted.
Some free speech is regulated in this nation, else I misremember the point about shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
If that example is on one end of the spectrum, where would be the photo of your face or mine in the center of a gunsight’s crosshairs. Or is there really NO spectrum. Must every imaginable utterance, however incendiary, through any imaginable channel, be free from prior restraint?
Mike Lorz
I don't disagree with you, Mike, and note that I don't necessarily endorse all WORDs, but just post the debate.
ReplyDeleteI am torn on this topic. Clearly, the political and media rhetoric certainly has gotten overheated (see my editorial comment). On the other hand, it is a very dangerous thing to blame the general environment of public discourse for heinous acts. Yelling, "Fire!" is a specific utterance that results in harm; the general vitriol (a great word) from various sources makes a cesspool of the marketplace of ideas, but how to connect cause and effect. If you read deeper into Buchanan's column (and others), you learn that the shooter in this case has been a whacko on various levels for years, regardless of the public rhetoric. Did he fixate on Gabrielle Giffords because of what he heard during the campaign or on his favorite TV channel or Internet sites? or is he "just" a whacko?
As awful and despicable this event is, flailing around to find something to blame, while understandable, is like using a blunderbuss. A lot of unintended damage could result.
A tough issue.
Ted
I don't think good Sheriff Dupnik wants to regulate speech any more than he wants to regulate gun use (gasp!); rather he's telling us that it's time this country get out of the Old West mentality we've been in for more than 200 years and grow up into a more sensible idea that we treat each other with respect and consideration and stop trying to settle our disputes with harsh words and guns and maybe even perhaps -- just perhaps -- train our considerable resources toward recognizing recognize and properly dealing with people like the alleged (he hasn't been proven guilty, has he?) shooter in Tucson before he (A) gets a gun and (B) uses it. But maybe he's expecting too much of us. After all, he thinks the "Papers Please Law" is dumb, too.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I'm in complete agreement with that sheriff. He wasn't attacking free speech. He was attacking free drooling. Everything we do has consequences. Freedom most of all has consequences. I always remember a favorite Muslim aphorism: "Take what you want and pay for it, says God."
ReplyDelete--Marc
See Paul Krugman in Sunday's Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1
ReplyDeleteI don't think good Sheriff Dupnik wants to regulate speech any more than he wants to regulate gun use (gasp!); rather he's telling us that it's time this country get out of the Old West mentality we've been in for more than 200 years and grow up into a more sensible idea that we treat each other with respect and consideration and stop trying to settle our disputes with harsh words and guns and maybe even perhaps -- just perhaps -- train our considerable resources toward recognizing recognize and properly dealing with people like the alleged (he hasn't been proven guilty, has he?) shooter in Tucson before he (A) gets a gun and (B) uses it. But maybe he's expecting too much of us. After all, he thinks the "Papers Please Law" is dumb, too.
ReplyDelete—Ross