Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.
Brady told CNN that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections against threat currently provided to the president. His call comes one day after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shot, along with 19 other people, at a public event in Tucson. A suspect is currently in custody.
"The president is a federal official," Brady told CNN in a telephone interview. "You can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge."
I'm not 100% sure I agree with this, even in the wake of Saturday's shooting. It seems a step too far and yet a large part of me sees the need to tone down the rhetoric. I just don't think this is the right way to do it, and I'm not sure it will pass Constitutional muster. On the other hand, I disagree with this from ABC's Amy Walters:
As someone who covers Washington and campaigns I’m usually looking for the opportunity to link any and all events back to politics. In the wake of the tragedy in Tucson, however, I think we need to focus less on the political and more on the cultural.
We can’t blame heated political rhetoric for this senseless tragedy anymore than we can blame violent video games, movies and TV shows. American culture not only condones violence, but often celebrates it as well.
Maybe that's a problem. We'll see.
Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.
ReplyDeleteWould that include symbols put into ads like the crosshairs in this ad from fellow Democrats like former congressman Harry Mitchell (he was running against J.D. Hayworth)?
This Brady guy seems really disgusting, trying to score political points off of this tragedy.
Like I said, I don't think this law would pass Constitutional muster and it's not the right way to do it.
ReplyDeleteWhat counts as a threatening symbol? Who would investigate these possible violations?
Lot of questions here.
Thread-locking comment-deleting COWARD.
ReplyDeleteYou don't deserve the right to free speech.
I can't wait until I've driven off all your readers and you shut down this blog.
I don't think we're far from that point now. You're down to what, two commenters on your side now? Starstorm and abanterer?
Soon there won't be any.
What counts as a threatening symbol? Who would investigate these possible violations?
ReplyDeleteLot of questions here.
Do you think there should be investigations of the Democrat who made the following vitriolic statements:
"I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed."
"A Republican majority in Congress would mean "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy."
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
"Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger."
"I want you to argue with them and get in their face!"
“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
Do you know who made these hateful statements? Do you think the Democrat who said them should apologize for what you would say, based on your standards, was this person's role, and the role of this person's rhetoric, in the Tuscon shooting?
He's got the right to moderate the comment section anyway he sees fit, just like a restaurant can toss you out on your ass when you start demanding everyone leave because the food wasn't too your liking. Free speech is a protection from government coercion or restraint, not from private criticism of your actions. And frankly, you've been acting like an overactive baboon on these threads.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree that I have a problem with making symbols and language actionable, even for protection. As highly charged as the atmosphere is, it may be a step in the wrong direction. But, there needs to be a pushback for some of the violent language, I'm just not sure what that should be without increasing the intensity.
But, there needs to be a pushback for some of the violent language, I'm just not sure what that should be without increasing the intensity.
ReplyDeleteHow about the violent language and imagery from Democrats, which has not yet been mentioned by liberals like Zandar? Zandar blames, in entirety, the rhetoric of conservatives and Republicans leading up to this tragedy, without a shred of evidence. Yet, Democrats have frequently used similar rhetoric while Zandar remains silent on the possibility that it was Democratic rhetoric that led to this tragedy. Are you going to do this pushback against Democrats and liberals who do what you accuse Republicans and conservatives of doing? How about the Democrat who used the rhetoric of violence that I cited in the previous comment? Do you know who said these things?
Brady has no need to make political points. He has one of the safest seats around, as he's the party chair as well as the congressman, an old pol, and has been forever.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with him here (even though I can see it would put most Republican politicians and the whole Fox News staff in the federal pen).
Christ.
ReplyDeleteKeep wishing, ICP. Keep wishing. And maybe one day Rupert Murdoch will come down and take you to the conservative paradise where all is happiness and sunshine and flowers.
The answer to SteveAR's question is that nasty partisan loudmouth Barack Obama.
ReplyDeleteBrady's law would make those statements a high crime under the criteria for impeachment, yes?
I can't wait for those hearings.
What about you liberal cowards?
JoyfulA:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with him here (even though I can see it would put most Republican politicians and the whole Fox News staff in the federal pen).
I noticed you don't bother to mention the hate speech from liberal Democrats like Barack Obama. Or Harry Mitchell. Or Mark Penn. Or Markos Moulitsas (he had a target over Giffords district as someone who should be primaried). Or the huge number of lefties who engage in similar violent hate rhetoric. Or even Zandar, who demands from others things he wouldn't do himself.
Brady has no need to make political points.
Sure he does, for the Democratic Party. Duh!!!