I'd be interested to hear some data as to whether or how much, threats of violence towards politicians has gone up versus down. I think this article conflates the issue of ugly speech with the problem of threats or actual acts of violence. Yes hate speech is an abomination but I honestly can't see how it can be attacked in the US with th…
I'd be interested to hear some data as to whether or how much, threats of violence towards politicians has gone up versus down. I think this article conflates the issue of ugly speech with the problem of threats or actual acts of violence. Yes hate speech is an abomination but I honestly can't see how it can be attacked in the US with the First Amendment and I wonder if criticizing those who spout it makes them more angry, reinforces their sense of power ('look I'll do it again and there's nothing you can do about it") and gives unhelpful attention to it. Actual violence or talk that violence is OK is something that can be tackled. I think the US public can take on board the idea that stupid talk means that the crazy people in every society might be moved to do something really dreadful - definitely a worry in a country awash with firearms.
All speech is not allowed in all forums. We all are clear on some, such as not yelling fire in a crowded venue. That is to prevent stampeding people to death. In fact, inciting people to do things that leads to the death of people, is questionable speech. Right now, I do not see why the speech of threatening people is allowed. Is threatening people protected speech? No it is not! One can go to prison for threatening someone with harm, and frankly, I think that Jim Jordan should be brought to task on this. However, since Mob rule is the norm in the Republican party, they are all becoming inured to it, or leaving. We saw Illinois Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger decide to leave politics. I believe I heard him say his family was threatened. https://www.businessinsider.com/adam-kinzinger-trump-threats-against-him-his-wife-and-mother-2022-7
We have a big problem with politically motivated violence, and that is not addressed enough by the mainstream press. Therefore they contribute to the problem, by understating it.
The current state of the First Amendment protections is based on the idea that speech by someone must encourage "imminent lawless action." The focus is on "imminent." But this situation seems to me to be different from someone who doesn't just encourage but actually threatens a particular person. Prosecutors do have a tool there--18 USC Section 875(c) "Transmission in Interstate or Foreign Commerce of any Communication Containing a Threat to Injure the Person of Another." That is what Abigail Jo Shry is charged with after her threat to Judge Chutkan.
It would help if instead of just citing threats to self or family as a reason for action (like Kinzinger) the actual threat was reported to the DOJ for investigation and perhaps prosecution. Does anyone know if such is being done?
In Counterman v Colorado the court decided that the test for threats depended on whether the person making the threat was aware that others would think the recipient would consider it a threat. That is "looser" than the "objective view" that a reasonable person would have considered the statement a threat, but it seems to me that as a standard it leaves a whole lot of possibilities open.
I'd be interested to hear some data as to whether or how much, threats of violence towards politicians has gone up versus down. I think this article conflates the issue of ugly speech with the problem of threats or actual acts of violence. Yes hate speech is an abomination but I honestly can't see how it can be attacked in the US with the First Amendment and I wonder if criticizing those who spout it makes them more angry, reinforces their sense of power ('look I'll do it again and there's nothing you can do about it") and gives unhelpful attention to it. Actual violence or talk that violence is OK is something that can be tackled. I think the US public can take on board the idea that stupid talk means that the crazy people in every society might be moved to do something really dreadful - definitely a worry in a country awash with firearms.
All speech is not allowed in all forums. We all are clear on some, such as not yelling fire in a crowded venue. That is to prevent stampeding people to death. In fact, inciting people to do things that leads to the death of people, is questionable speech. Right now, I do not see why the speech of threatening people is allowed. Is threatening people protected speech? No it is not! One can go to prison for threatening someone with harm, and frankly, I think that Jim Jordan should be brought to task on this. However, since Mob rule is the norm in the Republican party, they are all becoming inured to it, or leaving. We saw Illinois Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger decide to leave politics. I believe I heard him say his family was threatened. https://www.businessinsider.com/adam-kinzinger-trump-threats-against-him-his-wife-and-mother-2022-7
While that may not be his stated reason for leaving, I suspect it could have contributed. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/31/us-political-violence-threats-against-lawmakers
We have a big problem with politically motivated violence, and that is not addressed enough by the mainstream press. Therefore they contribute to the problem, by understating it.
https://newrepublic.com/article/168391/political-violence-is-republicans-problem
The current state of the First Amendment protections is based on the idea that speech by someone must encourage "imminent lawless action." The focus is on "imminent." But this situation seems to me to be different from someone who doesn't just encourage but actually threatens a particular person. Prosecutors do have a tool there--18 USC Section 875(c) "Transmission in Interstate or Foreign Commerce of any Communication Containing a Threat to Injure the Person of Another." That is what Abigail Jo Shry is charged with after her threat to Judge Chutkan.
It would help if instead of just citing threats to self or family as a reason for action (like Kinzinger) the actual threat was reported to the DOJ for investigation and perhaps prosecution. Does anyone know if such is being done?
In Counterman v Colorado the court decided that the test for threats depended on whether the person making the threat was aware that others would think the recipient would consider it a threat. That is "looser" than the "objective view" that a reasonable person would have considered the statement a threat, but it seems to me that as a standard it leaves a whole lot of possibilities open.