Another Right-Wing Loon Makes the News

[tvashtarkatena]

Here's an illustrative example of a talk radio show host who was convicted for restricted speech (violent threats):

 

The Hal Turner Conviction Hal Turner Conviction

 

It does happen, apparently. Corporate owners, in particular, respond well to threats of prosecution or fines when their media darlings get a bit too worked up for the public good. Apparently, threats do not have to be that specific, credible, or imminent for a conviction.

 

Hate crimes legislation (first passed in 68 as part a wave of civil rights legislation) is different from the ban on threats; a crime must be committed, and their must be a direct link between hate speech and that crime:

 

Kennedy-Smith Hate Crimes Prevention Amendment to the Defense Department Authorization Bill

 

"On its face, the hate crimes amendment punishes only the conduct of intentionally selecting another person for violence because of that person’s race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The prosecution must prove the conduct of intentional selection of the victim. Thus, the hate crimes amendment, like the present principal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 245 (“section 245”), punishes discrimination (an act), not bigotry (a belief)."

 

- ACLU.org brief

 

Ironically, a lot of conservatives were up in arms about this legislation, either because they correctly surmised that it included LGBT, the disabled, and women as protected classes and it violated their bigoted sensibilities against those classes, or because they incorrectly believed that it introduced new hate speech restrictions (quite the opposite: it actually restricted the governments formerly broad prosecutorial definition of what constitutes hate speech, thus protecting beliefs without criminal action)

 

 

Edited January 12, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[bradleym]

gun control argument

 

OK, here is what I think since you asked Bradley. Unfortunately, a typed out response is generally much shorter and full of holes than a back and forth discussion that might last an hour, so here’s the short version. Remember that it is what I think. Others can and do think differently.

 

Political power is the reason I think guns should be in the hands of citizens. Not hunting. Not self-defense. Its about political control and the balance of power.

 

There.

 

When I was in college, one of the most liberal profs I had (a philosophy professor named Larry Bowlen) shocked me and his entire class with a statement that I am paraphrasing as this “I don’t believe in gun control, in fact I think every citizen should own guns”. In a room full of young liberals you could have heard a pin drop...until the inevitable eruption of arguments occurred with in a few moments. “Uh, but people cant be trusted”, “You mean you want people to have the means to kill you? “What about crazy people and criminals?”...etc etc”

 

What followed was this statement by the prof. “Bottom line, I trust you and all the people I meet, that is, all my students, neighbors and relatives more than I trust any politician. Even random people on the street”. In the long conversation/argument that followed, Bowlen allowed and recognized that there were bad elements in society, and you obviously don’t allow the criminals and the crazy access to the same rights as average honest citizens.

 

For myself, I didn’t agree, but coming from such a highly intelligent person whom I respected so much otherwise, I didn’t forget it and continued to reflect on it. Over time, I came to recognize that what he said contained a lot of truth. Certainly the human nature and some distrust of politicians is in there for me as well. Yet it is wrong for us to think that those who seek power are doing so for the same reasons which we might do so. It is often not altruistic and to make a better world, although it can be, but when it is not, those seeking power for the control alone will often find a way to overcome and eliminate those who are altruistic, kind and gentle. The framers looked for ways to cause natural checks and balances so as to restrict these kinds of imbalances. It seems clear from reading their writings at the time that they felt that an armed population was one of the ways to counterbalance a despots wish to take away things they considered natural freedoms.

 

A quick look around the world and you’ll see some examples. Certainly Stalin and Hitler come to mind, but a study of the history of South America the last century or Southeast Asia will garner you a relatively long and sorid list of power hungry men like Pol Pot and Idi Amin: lesser men seeking control and power over those they rule. For them to be able to garner that control, the population looses it’s freedom. Looking at some of these spots, you see that one of the many things a dictator does to consolidate power and control is gun control. Of course, that isn’t the rational that gets everyone in a country behind the drive to ban weapons, it’s usually some other news story that starts the ball rolling. And make no mistake, in many other countries, those with the weapons have the power. Review the political structure all the countries in the middle east except Israel. That isn’t to say that you can’t have an England, with tight gun restrictions and still a solid democracy, but that’s not the norm throughout the world.

 

For myself, I like this way of life and the freedoms which are so easy to take for granted until they are gone, and don’t want to see it change.

 

fair enough, but i cannot for the life of me ever envisage the practical application of armed citizen power to political questions -- it seems like such an extreme measure. how does that work? do you carry a gun to a political event, to a demonstration? do you threaten a politician or even carry out that threat? is it that they know you're packing heat, so they back down from their nefarious schemes? could you oppose the military when they came to get you?

 

i think there are more effective ways to forstall the shenanigans of would-be dictators, and they begin sooner than when bloodshed may be required.

 

a couple of years ago i was hiking the ecola trail with my kids. when we reached the overlook, there was a man and woman up there, the man with the butt of an automatic pistol sticking out of the shoulder holster he had slung on. honestly speaking, i didn't feel more free, but rather considerably less so. i tried to, but i failed... ;-)

 

at any rate, assuming the 'armed populace is a free one', which i do not get, can there be no restrictions? i think it is a pretty fair statement given what happened on saturday, that only 11 or 15 bullets in his gun would have been less tragic than 30 or so. still tragic, but maybe someone would still be alive who isn't, say, perhaps that 9-year-old girl.

[G-spotter]

When the cops arrive to a scene in which a reported shooting has happened and they see a bunch of people with guns in their hands, what happens?

[ivan]

Here's an illustrative example of a talk radio show host who was convicted for restricted speech (violent threats):

 

The Hal Turner Conviction Hal Turner Conviction

ok, ole'hal seemed a pretty easy case, at least on what's on his wikipedia page (and i can't imagine that 3 years in jail will soften him much) - i don't listen to right radio much at all - do they actually say shit as crazy over the top as senor turner? seems like those guys, fuckstickes that they are, are a bit more nuanced...

[Fairweather]

Here's an illustrative example of a talk radio show host who was convicted for restricted speech (violent threats):

 

The Hal Turner Conviction Hal Turner Conviction

 

It does happen, apparently. Corporate owners, in particular, respond well to threats of prosecution or fines when their media darlings get a bit too worked up for the public good. Apparently, threats do not have to be that specific, credible, or imminent for a conviction.

 

Hate crimes legislation (first passed in 68 as part a wave of civil rights legislation) is different from the ban on threats; a crime must be committed, and their must be a direct link between hate speech and that crime:

 

Kennedy-Smith Hate Crimes Prevention Amendment to the Defense Department Authorization Bill

 

"On its face, the hate crimes amendment punishes only the conduct of intentionally selecting another person for violence because of that person’s race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The prosecution must prove the conduct of intentional selection of the victim. Thus, the hate crimes amendment, like the present principal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 245 (“section 245”), punishes discrimination (an act), not bigotry (a belief)."

 

- ACLU.org brief

 

Ironically, a lot of conservatives were up in arms about this legislation, either because they correctly surmised that it included LGBT, the disabled, and women as protected classes and it violated their bigoted sensibilities against those classes, or because they incorrectly believed that it introduced new hate speech restrictions (quite the opposite: it actually restricted the governments formerly broad prosecutorial definition of what constitutes hate speech, thus protecting beliefs without criminal action)

 

 

Gotta love wannabe law groupies.

[Fairweather]

worth mentioning that just 'cuz yer making hay of something doens't mean you're wrong - folks made a big deal out of 9/11 n' pearl harbor too n' the maine n' the lusitania too, maybe 1 of those actually deserved it

 

Which one?

[Fairweather]

think you missed somethign - libtards can actually disagree on shit n' still be friends...

 

I agree, but I can't imagine myself ever treating a friend the way TTK treated Rob:

Again, you're being fucking stupid, and you know I fucking hate stupid, by ignoring the obvious component in any message: context.

No, Rob, its not exactly the same. When you get your intellect back, let me know.

 

[Bosterson]

Yo FW: please explain your Ted Kaczynski was a liberal theory. (We addressed it back on page 8 or so; this thread has spiraled into a monster.)

[rob]

think you missed somethign - libtards can actually disagree on shit n' still be friends...

 

I agree, but I can't imagine myself ever treating a friend the way TTK treated Rob:

Again, you're being fucking stupid, and you know I fucking hate stupid, by ignoring the obvious component in any message: context.

No, Rob, its not exactly the same. When you get your intellect back, let me know.

 

 

Come on, you know I'm not *that* thin-skinned. Besides, I'm used to people getting upset when I devastate them with my superior grasp of cold, hard, classical logic. It's just the cost of being such a polymath, I guess.

[Hugh Conway]

Too many whack-job loons to pick in this thread.

[tvashtarkatena]

Rob actually gave me custody of his kids yesterday...he feels that, after the soul destroying intellectual crushing I've dealt him, he can no longer provide a role model for them. I tried to explain to them that, sometimes, Daddies cry, but they'd have none of it.

 

You must have some pretty worthless friends, FW, if that's all it would take.

 

Sucks to be you, but then, that's hardly news.

[ivan]

worth mentioning that just 'cuz yer making hay of something doens't mean you're wrong - folks made a big deal out of 9/11 n' pearl harbor too n' the maine n' the lusitania too, maybe 1 of those actually deserved it

 

Which one?

none of 'em, of course - don't you know i'm a big, dumb teddy bear who thinks we should just kill our enemies w/ love?

[tvashtarkatena]

Here's an illustrative example of a talk radio show host who was convicted for restricted speech (violent threats):

 

The Hal Turner Conviction Hal Turner Conviction

ok, ole'hal seemed a pretty easy case, at least on what's on his wikipedia page (and i can't imagine that 3 years in jail will soften him much) - i don't listen to right radio much at all - do they actually say shit as crazy over the top as senor turner? seems like those guys, fuckstickes that they are, are a bit more nuanced...

 

3 years'll soften part of him up a bit.

 

He'll rant and rave more than ever afterward...just on the radio. Employers tend to soften up sooner than shock jocks, but that's close enough for government work.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

You must have some pretty worthless friends, FW, if that's all it would take.

 

Sucks to be you, but then, that's hardly news.

 

[Lucky Larry]

 

Wikipedia:

rhetorical questions of Achish, king of Gath::

 

Lo, you see the man is mad; why then have you brought him to me? Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence?

—I Sam 21:10-15[9]

 

Some analysis of Shakespeare's comedy has found that his characters tend to hold mutually contradictory positions; because this implies a lack of careful analysis it indicates stupidity on their part.

Walter B. Pitkin (1932):

And

Stupidity can easily be proved the supreme Social Evil. Three factors combine to establish it as such. First and foremost, the number of stupid people is legion. Secondly, most of the power in business, finance, diplomacy and politics is in the hands of more or less stupid individuals. Finally, high abilities are often linked with serious stupidity.[9]

And

One of the main effects of illusory superiority in intelligence is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency of people with a below average intelligence quotient (IQ) to overestimate their intelligence, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their intelligence. The propensity to predictably misjudge one's own intelligence was first noted by C. L. Downing who conducted the first cross-cultural studies on perceived intelligence. His studies also evidenced that the ability to accurately estimate others' intelligence was proportional to one's own intelligence. This means that the lower the IQ of an individual, the less capable they are of appreciating and accurately appraising others' intelligence. Therefore individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to rate themselves as more intelligent than those around them. Conversely, people with a higher IQ, while better at appraising others' intelligence overall, are still likely to rate people of similar intelligence as themselves as having higher IQs.

 

Edited January 12, 2011 by Lucky Larry

[AlpineK]

They weren't cross-hairs, they were surveyor's marks! DUH! My bad, I take back everything I've said. Carry on...

 

clearly they were crosshairs. Even still, do you really think that sarah palin intentionally intended them to mean that these people should be shot?

 

I dislike Sarah, but I don't think the image was a call for violence. I'm pretty sure sane folks did not see the add as a message to get a gun. It sounds like the shooter had some major problems for years before he took the gun to the event. He also shot and killed a number of other people there too.

 

I don't think politicians should use image tactics like that to get their message across, but blaming the add for the shooting is wrong too.

[bradleym]

When the cops arrive to a scene in which a reported shooting has happened and they see a bunch of people with guns in their hands, what happens?

 

mayhem?

 

maybe what happens depends on whether the cameras are rolling or not?

[rob]

When the cops arrive to a scene in which a reported shooting has happened and they see a bunch of people with guns in their hands, what happens?

 

Sounds like a typical Seattle police shooting. Is there a dead homeless man on the ground? I'm guessing it's time to destroy the dashboard cams?

[billcoe]

When the cops arrive to a scene in which a reported shooting has happened and they see a bunch of people with guns in their hands, what happens?

Police shooting at police and 41 shots fired. Here's the associated press report:

 

"Baltimore officer was killed by fellow officers

AP

 

By BEN NUCKOLS, Associated Press Ben Nuckols, Associated Press – Mon Jan 10, 8:37 pm ET

 

BALTIMORE – Baltimore police say that fellow officers fired the gun shots that killed a plainclothes officer during a melee outside a nightclub. A 22-year-old civilian was also killed in the early Sunday morning shooting. Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefield III said on Monday that no civilians fired any shots. Officer William Torbit Jr. was on duty in plainclothes when he responded to a report of trouble at the club. Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi (goo-lee-EHL-mee) says Torbit was trying to break up a fight when he was attacked and pulled out his weapon to defend himself. At some point after that, officers opened fire, killing the officer. Police say Torbit was wearing his badge but there were no other indicators he was police. The officers who fired are on administrative leave."

 

They were pretty distraught over it.

[Nitrox]

Come on TTK, wow us with your firearms knowledge. What is "cop killer" ammunition and where is it restricted?

[j_b]

A history lesson for the queens of de nial:

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

President, Waterkeeper Alliance; Professor, Pace University

 

Tucson: Time for Another Examination of Conscience

 

[..]

 

Neither Beck, Hannity nor Savage nor the hate merchants at Fox News and talk radio can claim to have invented their genre. Toxic right-wing vitriol so dominated the public airwaves from the McCarthy era until 1963 that President Kennedy, that year, launched a citizen's campaign to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, which required accuracy and balance in the broadcast media. Students, civic and religious groups filed more than 500 complaints against right-wing extremists and hate-mongering commentators before the FCC.

 

The Dallas, Texas, airwaves were particularly radioactive; preachers and political leaders and local businessmen spewed extremist vitriol on the city's radio and TV stations, inflaming the passions of the city's legions of unhinged fanatics. There was something about the city -- a rage or craziness, that, whether sensible or not, seemed to have set the stage for Jack's murder. The Voice of America, half an hour after the assassination, described Dallas as "the center of extreme right wing." The Texas town was such a seething cauldron of right-wing depravity that historian William Manchester portrayed it as recalling the final days of the Weimar Republic. "Mad things happened," reported Manchester. "Huge billboards screamed 'Impeach Earl Warren.'" Jewish stores were smeared with crude swastikas. Fanatical young matrons swayed in public to the chant "Stevenson's going to die -- his heart will stop stop stop and he will burn burn burn!" The mercantile elite that ruled the city carefully cultivated the seeds of hate. Radical-right broadsides were distributed in public schools; the Kennedy name was booed in classrooms; junior executives who refused to attend radical seminars were blackballed and fired. Manchester continued:

 

Dallas had become the mecca for medicine show evangelists of the National Independence Convention, the Christian Crusades, the Minutemen, the John Birch Society and Patrick Henry Societies and the headquarters of right wing oil man H.L. Hunt and his dubious activities... The city's mayor, Earl Carroll, a right wing co-founder of the John Birch Society, was known as 'the socialist mayor of Dallas' because he maintained his affiliation with the Democratic Party.

 

 

Dallas's oil and gas barons who routinely denounced JFK as a "comsymp" had unbottled the genie of populist rage and harnessed it to the cause of radical ideology, anti-government fervor and corporate dominion.

 

Uncle Jack's speech in Dallas was to have been an explosive broadside against the right wing. He found Dallas' streets packed five deep with Kennedy Democrats, but among them were the familiar ornaments of presidential hatred; high-flying confederate flags and hundreds of posters adorning the walls and streets of Dallas showing Jack's picture inscribed with "Wanted for Treason." One man held a posterboard saying, "you a traitor [sic]." Other placards accused him of being a communist. When public school P.A. systems announced Jack's assassination, Dallas school children as young as the fourth grade applauded. A Birmingham radio caller declared that "any white man who did what he did for niggers should be shot." As my siblings and I visited the White House to console my cousins John and Caroline, a picket paraded out front with a sign, "God punished JFK."

 

Jack had received myriad warnings against visiting the right-wing Texas city. Indeed, there had been a sense of foreboding even within our family as he and Aunt Jackie prepared for the trip. Jack made an unscheduled trip to Cape Cod to say goodbye to my ailing grandfather. The night before the trip, Mummy found Jack distant and brooding at a dinner for the Supreme Court Justices. He was very fond of Mummy, but for the first time ever, he looked right through her.

 

Jack's death forced a national bout of self-examination. In 1964, Americans repudiated the forces of right-wing hatred and violence with an historic landslide in the presidential election between LBJ and Goldwater. For a while, the advocates of right-wing extremism receded from the public forum. Now they have returned with a vengeance -- to the broadcast media and to prominent positions in the political landscape.

 

[..]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/post_1548_b_807713.html

[rob]

queens of denial? Yeah, nice conversation skills there, cupcake. Way to be better than them.

 

Btw:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/member/congress/the-rhetoric-did-not-make-him-do-it-but-it-didn-t-help-either-20110111

 

Edited January 12, 2011 by rob

[j_b]

According to Lochman, “If your inhibitory controls are not working well, these kinds of media-provided models, people either engaging in or encouraging violence, could have an effect. I don’t know this case well enough to say that that happened, but it certainly could.”

 

He added, “If you see somebody else using aggressive behavior, there’s a tendency to increase the likelihood of yourself taking aggressive acts more often.”

 

Amir Afkhami, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University's Medical Center, said that if the recent tenor of political rhetoric was the sole cause of Saturday’s shooting, similar outbursts of violence would likely be more prevalent.

 

“The media’s been pretty charged for the last two or three years,” he said. "There’ve been periods in our history when the media has been polarizing, and we haven’t seen these types of assassinations, quote, unquote.”

 

He said, however, “I’m sure rhetoric has something to do with it. I think everybody’s looking for one reason or one causality to blame this behavior on, and my experience has been … there’s generally a multiplicity of reasons why people engage in violent behavior.”

 

I certainly agree with much of the above, and it is what is missing in the various hypocrisy going on in the media. I personally think it has to do with how we legitimize violence as a valid conflict resolution method through culture in order to justify policies, both internal and foreign. The media climate of the last 3 years would fulfill more the role of a triggering set of events.

[prole]

Amir Afkhami, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University's Medical Center, said that if the recent tenor of political rhetoric was the sole cause of Saturday’s shooting, similar outbursts of violence would likely be more prevalent.

 

Another media deceit is that these outbursts of violence aren't prevalent, and becoming more so.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I personally think it has to do with how we legitimize violence as a valid conflict resolution method through culture

 

Nonsense. Our culture is hyper-reactive in the opposite direction.