Partisan speech: What's OK? What crosses the line?

[Teller]

First, I'd just like to say God bless the victims and families involved in the Arizona shooting. I think we can all agree on that. (Or at least send them our best, heartfelt wishes.)

What we don't seem to be able to agree on is the difference between what constitutes hardcore partisan rhetoric, and what is incendiary speech that could (or is intended to) incite acts of violence.

So let's figure it out here. If there are things you've heard pundits, politicians, even fellow voters say, that you think cross the line, let's hear them. Let's see links if you have them.

If there are things that you feel are OK, but other people think they're meant to, or could, incite violence, let's see those too.

This debate is about to be had on a national level; and it probably should be. Let's see if we can put together some working definition of what's acceptable and what isn't....by those mightily high ES standards.

[Burgold]

I think the first and most obvious thing is a direct call to violence.

It can be a fine line because saying, "We must take our country back" is pretty standard and mundane fare. Doing while waving a gun and showing images of the White House burning or people being hung on the other hand...

This is a really difficult topic for me on a concrete level because I hate censorship. I don't think anything really should be restricted. Heck, I believe in the right of Neo-Nazis too march, rally, and speak.

What it comes down to is much more about "how" though than "what." How do I choose to criticize this program, that politician, that platform. If I come at it from the angle of Death Panels, and putting our children into the ovens... which was amazingly done in the health reform debate... how is that constructive, how is it productive. Demonization and mischaracterization are not helpful. They're destructive.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the obscenity definition. (aka I know it when I see it). I don't actually want any imposed control or censorship. What I do want is for each reporter, politician, analyst, commentator, and blogger to think about their responsibility, role and accountability. After all, the goal is almost always to improve something or stop something. The goal isn't to destroy, burn or kill. And those who disagree with us need to become the respected opposition instead of the enemy.

[btfoom]

To me, it stops when the attacks are against the person, not the belief.

It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you are on, the issues are the topics that should be debated. Too often, both sides focus too much on a person. These type of attacks become very heated (on both sides) and really don't do anything but alienate people.

So, my basic belief is: There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures..... and the Dutch!!!

[Teller]

First of all Burg, I agree with you completely. (As I usually do on matters of....I don't know....morality? That's not the right word, but I hope you know what I mean.) We're both staunchly opposed to censorship, but we also both realize what seemingly innocent speech, on the surface, can do.

I'm glad you brought up the "taking our country back" thing. I was going to ask should saying, "We're targeting X congressional district in the next election" be off limits? Should members this board be arrested for saying, figuratively, "We should blow up congress and start over?" in the same vain we say, "Blow up the Redskins and rebuild 'em!"

Is it military-style language that's the problem? Or is it deeper? Is it using the startling, sometimes shocking, mental imagery that's the issue? I mean, who's not gonna get pissed off to their core if they believe Obama is going to set up a panel that will decide your granny doesn't get the treatment she needs?

Personally, "targeting" things doesn't bother me. "Blowing things up and starting over" doesn't bother me, as long as it's BRUTALLY clear that only a figurative sense is intended. What gets to me is being told that my rights are being eroded, in a believable way. I'll get far more upset about that than I ever will someone saying "We're gonna hit them like a locomotive in the XXXX election." You take that literally, and it's pretty gruesome. But it's more frightening, and more believable, when someone can make a convincing argument that our rights are being infringed upon.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think it crosses the line when you start referring to the opposition as the enemy, and equating them to the worst and most vile people in world history.

[Teller]

I think it crosses the line when you start referring to the opposition as the enemy, and equating them to the worst and most vile people in world history.

I would agree with that. Especially when it's a calculated move. Beck uses this type of tactic a lot, and even though his show doesn't seem outright scripted, it's VERY calculated.

On the other hand, when Obama used the word "enemies" instead of "opponents" (and later apologized) I don't think that's nearly as destructive. Wrong? Sure. A mistake? Definitely. Evil? Not a chance. Beck pushes the envelope in terms of approaching evil sometimes with some of his references.

I just realized, though, the inherent problem with this thread. Even if we ALL agree on what's over the line (which won't happen, of course) we're going to run into mountains of disagreement on what to do about it.

[Burgold]

I think where we start to get in trouble is when we start calling people names-- be they Hitler, Nazi, Socialist, Communist, Baby Killer, anti-American, traitor, etc.

I think if you start calling a guy that every single day, people start to squint and look at them funny. They start wondering, "Gee, they must be really bad to be called all that stuff." and then they start hating it. Obama is a great example of both irrational love and hate. Here's a guy who's a great American story, child of single parents who by the sweat of his brow became became the top guy at the best college in the country and then President and as President in the first two years under historically bad conditions... got a new START treaty, eliminated insurers from not covering previous conditions, stopped bank failures, began the ramp down in Iraq, and a number of other things that are pretty good mixed in with a bunch of stuff that was dubious and bad, but the descriptors are just out of proportion.

Is he really a Kenyan born Islamic extremist Communist sleeper terrorist? Is he really the worst President the U.S. has ever had? Should the first priority be "to get rid of him?" Should his children be compared to monkeys or people claim that he's abusing them because they seem too well behaved?

I think the invective is out of proportion. I think it's designed to get and keep people hot. Hot people can and eventually will do something stupid. Now, hopefully that stupid thing is harmless, but with some nuts you never know and we have had too many Presidents shot. We don't need another.

Still, it's a really hard line because we need the right to get critical and the right to get angry when there is cause. And sometimes calling someone a jerk is merited. Still, I think about all the sentences I have typed over the years and then deleted because I realized within myself that there was a better, more accurate, or more constructive way to get my message across. I think it's incumbent upon those with a platform to be better and it's important for those of us who listen to demand better. It's insane to me that the McLaughlin Group is now considered the reasonable, civil show. That show used to be the height of incivility. Now, I'm told that they are reasonable because all they do is yell and yell over each other, but at least they're polite and can make intelligent points.

I may be in the minority here, but I'll always take a Jim Lehrer or a Tim Russert over an Olbermann or some of the others.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I just realized, though, the inherent problem with this thread. Even if we ALL agree on what's over the line (which won't happen, of course) we're going to run into mountains of disagreement on what to do about it.

Maybe we start with some integrity amongst ourselves in no longer defending rhetoric that crosses the line when it comes from the politicians we may support.

Then maybe moving to condemning such rhetoric when we see it.

I think it starts with each of us and then we can affect the whole.

[Teller]

Maybe we start with some integrity amongst ourselves in no longer defending rhetoric that crosses the line when it comes from the politicians we may support.

Then maybe moving to condemning such rhetoric when we see it.

I think it starts with each of us and then we can affect the whole.

This is getting a little scary. Agreed. Again.

I'll make you a deal. You call me on this stuff when I do it, respectfully, and I'll commit to seriously considering what you have to say. We'll adopt the Burgold Strategy.

[Bang]

Certain analogies can be made better.

For example, Obama says the right are the enemy who must be punished,, that's pretty hard standard political fare... and unfortunately in this day and age should be followed with "So make them feel it at the ballot box" or something to make it crystal clear that they really aren't actual enemies

Palin can use the word "target".. I don't see anything wrong with the word. But when you then couple it with gun imagery and crosshairs, you start conecting dots for people.. whether it's intended to cause violence I very much doubt. But at the same time, it isn't too much of a stretch to see how someone might get that in their head.

( idon't think there's many accidents in politics unless it's in front of a live audience. Everything else that is released by any campaign is well researched and it's intent is known right on down to the colors used on the smallest posters. )

Pundits can make their points without using the hyperbole of everything being tantamount to the end of the world. Pointing the finger of "Tyranny" for example has always been a cry to revolution. It's why we're free in the first place, after all. Nazi and Communist analogies are meant to cause fear, and fear is a powerful tool of propaganda.

I think we're all well aware of where the lines lie, even if most of us have definitions that vary a little.

There should not be any law passed or any rules made to restrict such imagery, but We the People ought to let them know that we do not approve of it any longer, and make it stick. Hold your nose and vote for the other guy once if it helps send the message.

I was watching Colbert a couple weeks ago, and they had these two guys who ran against one another for congress in some NE state,, Vermont maybe? They signed a pact before the race to keep it about the issues, to sling no mud.

And what do you know, they did it. And the Republican won. AND,, here's the kicker.. he's gay. The Dem refused to use that against him in any way, He said he didn't think it was relevant to his ability to govern.

So it's definitely possible.

~Bang

[mardi gras skin]

what is incendiary speech that could (or is intended to) incite acts of violence.

If you invoke Hitler, you're inciting violence. And worse, you lack imagination.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is getting a little scary. Agreed. Again.

I'll make you a deal. You call me on this stuff when I do it, respectfully, and I'll commit to seriously considering what you have to say. We'll adopt the Burgold Strategy.

Deal, and you call me when I do it, I know it's not going to be easy because the aggressive language is so easy on the internet, but I want to do better. I want to remove the snark from my dialogue.

I look forward to the day when the majority controls the dialogue and not the vocal and inflammatory attention seeking minority.

[Jrew1223]

Deal, and you call me when I do it, I know it's not going to be easy because the aggressive language is so easy on the internet, but I want to do better. I want to remove the snark from my dialogue.

I look forward to the day when the majority controls the dialogue and not the vocal and inflammatory attention seeking minority.

+1

[mardi gras skin]

Obama says the right are the enemy who must be punished,, that's pretty hard standard political fare... and unfortunately in this day and age should be followed with "So make them feel it at the ballot box" or something to make it crystal clear that they really aren't actual enemies

Palin can use the word "target".. I don't see anything wrong with the word. But when you then couple it with gun imagery and crosshairs, you start conecting dots for people.. whether it's intended to cause violence I very much doubt. But at the same time, it isn't too much of a stretch to see how someone might get that in their head.

What about Obama saying, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That's a little more graphic. Not sure how I feel about it.

[Burgold]

What about Obama saying, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That's a little more graphic. Not sure how I feel about it.

Personally, I think that language is borderline out of hand. I understand the nature of a "political fight" and how it's so easy to fall into that trap... I mean look at all the war imagery we use in football, but it shouldn't even be a fight, it should be a debate, an exchange, an argument... again, we need to stop looking at those who oppose us as our enemies. It just leads to... well, where we are today.

[Bang]

FTR, I'm not about talking about the past that drove this guy.

That's done. Nothing can be done about it.

I'm talking about the future. What Obama said or what Beck said or what Palin said is not as important as to what and how they say things from this point forward.

~Bang

[Predicto]

If you invoke Hitler, you're inciting violence. And worse, you lack imagination.

Lol. That picture was taken right in front of my office.

I'm sorry, America. We have some irritating little rabble out here sometimes.

[Burgold]

So which one were you? The statue of liberty or the grim reaper?

[mardi gras skin]

I mean look at all the war imagery we use in football...

Good call. This "war" language is embarrassing in whatever field its used. Soft surburban Christians talking about their faith in warrior language, prima donna millionaire Kellen Winslow calling himself a "solja!", republicans and democrats "going to war."

These guys are no more "soldiers" than I am a Greek god. Its like their lives are so mundane they have to live in a fairy tale. The rhetoric isn't just inflammatory, its childish.

[Predicto]

So which one were you? The statue of liberty or the grim reaper?

The guy with the funny mustache, of course. Just ask NavyDave.

[shk75]

For me it is simple. Tell the truth. If you are not telling the truth and you know it than you do not belong in public office. If you are deliberately lying in order to get votes or sway the public than you do not belong in office. If you are in the media your job should be to tell the truth without spin. If you cannot do that get out of the media. I know this will never happen and it is unrealistic to expect this but hey that is what crosses the line for me.

[Mickalino]

Demanding your constituents to drive a tractor trailer rigged full of explosives into a nursing home is crossing the line.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

I'm just going to use this as an example, because I know both Dems/Reps are guilty of 'crossing the line'.

I hate when people accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic or not supporting the troops.

I HATE when anyone fills a military spending bill with pork, then when someone votes against it because they don't want a million dollars going to studying cow farts the other party screams about how their opponent doesn't support the troops.

I mean honestly, there are so few people in this country who don't support the troops. Saying that I don't want to send them into harms way =/= not supporting them.

[mardi gras skin]

If you are deliberately lying in order to get votes or sway the public than you do not belong in office. If you are in the media your job should be to tell the truth without spin. If you cannot do that get out of the media. I know this will never happen and it is unrealistic to expect this but hey that is what crosses the line for me.

They do more harm with truths than they do with lies. Its a noble dream but they'll never stop spinning truths.

[Teller]

Deal, and you call me when I do it, I know it's not going to be easy because the aggressive language is so easy on the internet, but I want to do better. I want to remove the snark from my dialogue.

I look forward to the day when the majority controls the dialogue and not the vocal and inflammatory attention seeking minority.

Same here. It's funny, you're one of the people I used to really enjoy discussing issues with. But anymore, it seems like we both go on the attack, it gets out of hand, we both get frustrated, and the dialogue stops. I realize I'm just as much to blame as you are; probably moreso. But I would like to get back to those sincere debates with you and others. I realize that's going to take me paying attention to what I'm saying, and how it comes across, more than anything. I'll look forward to it though. And thank you.