Should politicians face criminal charges, or even prison time, if they criticize opponents in too reckless or inflammatory a fashion? The question came up last week as a chorus of critics assailed GOP candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin, whose criticisms of Barack Obama for his relationship with Bill Ayers were (it was claimed) stirring up crowd anger at campaign appearances and creating the risk of potential violence. “Borderline criminal incitement,” charged influential liberal blogger Joshua Micah Marshall.
Other bloggers took up the theme, referring to the McCain/Palin rhetoric as “acting criminally to incite murder”; as comparable with shouting fire in a crowded theater; and as behavior that “may be unlawful” or at least “edging on criminal.” Some called for the FBI and Secret Service to investigate or arrest people who had gone to the rallies—or even to investigate the Republican candidates themselves. “It is only a matter of time before McCain/Palin’s falsely linking Obama to terrorism and un-American sympathies will erupt in violence against Obama’s people, the media or anyone opposing the McCain/Palin ticket,” asserted blogger “Scarecrow” at Firedoglake. “Inciting others to violence is a crime, a dangerous felony, and it is time for our media to stop treating this incitement as just another gradation of ‘negative campaigning.’” — Walter Olson @ City Journal
I must say I find it fascinating that many bloggers, Huffington Post writers, etc. could so casually jettison the hard-won victories of free-speech liberalism, which fought long and hard against “incitement” theories by which criminal penalties might be applied to inflammatory speech. The idea of exposing your opponents to investigation or even arrest because you don’t approve of the contents of their speeches doesn’t seem like a particularly liberal one to me. — Walter Olson @ Overlawyered
If the First Amendment means anything, surely it ought to mean that the Government cannot regulate or punish political speech–even harsh or provocative speech. Surely it would be odd if pornographers got more speech protection than politicians, after all. — Stephen Bainbridge
Erratum: I had misspelled Mr Olson’s name as “Olsen”. Profuse apologies.
8 Comments
Is it criminal incitement to tell your supporters to “get in [McCain supporters'] faces,” when the result of those words is a man bashing in the face of a woman who was simply carrying a sign of support for John McCain?
Stephen:
No matter what side you are arguing from, your post seems to make a direct implication that there really was something said at that Palin/McCain rallies that could be characterized as “inciting to violence”, or “hateful” or something just danged awful. But from what I have seen on news programs showing the so-called “criminal speech”, I’ve seen NOTHING of the sort.
Palin or an opening speaker mentions Obama palling around with Ayers, the crowd boos, one person says something they shouldn’t have, and the left goes absolutely BONKERS. That one supposed “Kill him” remark is claimed by ONE reporter, even he says it was about Ayers, and was in a speech 25 minutes before Palin even got there. Other than that, all I’ve heard about is booing.
The Secret Service investigated and found no one, nada, zip, zilch, zero to back up that claim. They take their jobs very seriously, and yet no one is in custody for threatening anyone.
Within minutes, this one unsupported claim is transformed into a “Kill him” directed at Obama, and chanted in unison by the zombie-like mobs deliberately and malignantly incited by Palin herself.
What bullsh*t.
By not giving a description of these so-called hateful comments, and the actual circumstances that caused the leftist nutroots to explode, and that the mainstream media made the same false statements picked up from Kos, you are doing a disservice to one side only.
If I was a leftist reading this post, I would get the distinct impression that what was said really was deliberately “hateful”, or “inciteful” and directed at Obama. I could go back to Kos and HuffPo and write a whole story on how this site admitted it was trying to defend this hate speech on a mere technicality, only because the 1st Amendment says we have to.
The right does its best to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules, but the ref has been bought, and our opponent comes into the ring with a baseball bat imbedded with nails. The old canard is that we can’t stoop to their level, but under these circumstances, we’d best be prepared to lose.
Um, Geo, just to be clear here, that’s a quote from Prof. Bainbridge’s blog. You might follow the link back and make your comment to him directly; he’s not associated with this group.
Anyone want to bet that under the Obama administration we are likely to see transferred to the political arena the campus policy–”We’re all in favor of free speech, but not hate speech.” “Hate speech” will become a broader concept than it already is. And of course, criticism of Obama that is not restrained and courteous will be racist, adding to the hate speech concept.
Oddly enough, comparing Bush to Hitler was considered just good, raucous political speech.
Sorry, Chas:
I didn’t see that until after I pushed “Submit”.
not a problem.
Alex:
Canada already provides the model for enforcing PC, and it is only used against the right, via a vast network of “Human Rights Commissions”. This is an extra-legal organization staffed by leftist political hack appointees, with the commissars having no judicial background, with no rules of evidence, no presumption of evidence, and no right to face your accuser. They make up the rules as they go along.
All costs of the complainant are paid by the state, and there is no loser pay rule. Since the average defendant can’t afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes to fight it, they settle.
Stephen Boisson, a Christian minister, for the heinous crime of citing the Bible in a letter to the newspaper, mildly criticizing homosexuality, was fined, forced to apologize in writing, and prohibited from ever again criticizing homosexuality in public statements, in writing, in emails, and even from the pulpit – FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.
The complainant wasn’t even gay, just a serial abuser of the legal system, but he was, you see, “offended”, and homosexuals are a recognized victim group in Canada, along with Muslims and other assorted leftists.
ALL the defendants are conservatives, business owners, or Christians.
The commission investigators have been caught planting very nasty “hate” emails on web sites, using hijacked IP addresses to cover their tracks, and then used their own emails as prove that the websites were guilty of hate speech.
If you think that can’t happen here, guess again, it already has. Quite a few states already have “Human Rights Commissions”, staffed exactly like the ones in Canada, and with the same mindset and lack of rules.
Just a couple months ago, one of them (New Mexico, IIRC) just fined a Christian photographer $7,000 for refusing to take the wedding photos of a lesbian couple, even though he recommended other photogs who would be happy to. It didn’t make any difference though, because the lesbians were “offended” by the refusal.
1) I’ve had a new round of controversy with Prof. Susan Kuo over my City Journal article which may amuse your readers. See:
http://overlawyered.com/2008/10/in-which-i-get-called-thought-police/
2) Also, note the spelling of my surname, “Olson” with an “o”.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] Unfair Doctrine › Political Speech as “Criminal Incitement”? [...]
Post a Comment