Freedom of Speech, Violent Rhetoric, and I Thought We Were Having a National Debate

Within hours of the evidently mentally unstable Jared Loughner shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, killing six others and wounding 13 more, a hue and cry arose within the mainstream media that violent rhetoric was the cause of Loughner’s killing spree.  Based on this tenuous link between violent rhetoric and violent actions, a national debate allegedly began, and just as allegedly is taking place, on whether or not said violent rhetoric has a place in political discourse, a debate which is, in actuality, about First Amendment rights, specifically, freedom of speech.

Debating the value, or not, of violent rhetoric within political discourse is important, though it must be remembered that “Violent rhetoric is not a crime.  Murder is.”

With the above points in mind, here are two examples of what could be considered violent rhetoric, which result in vastly different events in response to the uttered rhetoric.

First, Glenn Reynolds, in post from January 2, 2011, prior to the Tucson shootings, writing in response to the news that governments in Europe are considering nationalizing private pensions, and what he hopes would happen here in the United States if politicians attempted to nationalize private pensions.

IF THIS HAPPENED HERE, I HOPE THAT POLITICIANS WOULD BE SWINGING FROM LAMPPOSTS: Nationalizing Private Pensions In Europe.

And this time, not metaphorical lampposts, either. (bold by ed.)

Second, this quote, from Travis Corcoran, written on January 8, 2011, shortly after the Tucson shootings.

1 down and 534 to go…It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.

What have the responses been to the above two rhetorical quotes?  Well, Glenn Reynolds, who runs the mainstream popular blog InstaPundit, is blogging away, the rhetoric of hanging politicians, not metaphorically, simply considered rhetoric, nothing to see here, Glenn’s a good guy, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee, he’s not going to hang any politicians, he’d probably lose tenure, he’s just talking trash.

What has been the response to Travis Corcoran’s rhetoric?  Well, for Travis, who runs the not so mainstream popular blog dispatches from TJICstan, a blog I have linked to multiple times in the past and read almost daily, the results have been decidedly more severe.

A blog threatening members of Congress in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting has prompted Arlington police to temporarily suspend the firearms license of an Arlington man…

Police are investigating the “suitability” of 39-year-old Travis Corcoran to have a firearms license…

Police visited Corcoran’s home and found a “large amount” of weapons and ammunition. Sources told WBZ-TV that 11 guns were removed.

The length of the suspension, or whether Corcoran’s license will be revoked will be determined by the outcome of the investigation…

Corcoran, who has no criminal history, has not been arrested and does not face any charges. Arlington police saying they are working with the Capitol Police in their investigation, and members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation have been alerted.

While Reynolds is still blogging away, if you click on the link to Corcoran’s blog, dispatches from TJICstan, you’ll receive a “403 Forbidden” error, as Travis’ blog is temporarily off the air, which is inconsequential to the fact that he is being investigated by the both the Arlington and Capitol police, brought to the attention of the Massachusetts congressional delegation as a possible threat, and making national headlines courtesy of Drudge.  How is Corcoran’s rhetoric more threatening or vitrolic than Reynolds’ rhetoric?  Is it because it involves guns, rather than rope?

Corcorcan’s rhetoric may be more dark than Reynolds’ rhetoric, but both Reynolds and Corcoran are expressing the same sentiments in regards to politicians, and yet Corcoran’s free speech rights, amongest other rights, are being arbitrarily denied.

I’ve read one blog post which made the statement that the Corcoran’s travails in response to his rhetoric “serve him right.”  Attitudes such as this, approving the denial of one man’s rights because you find his particular rhetoric more offensive than another man’s rhetoric, are unprincipled, and in response I will once again make the statement that I made in a post titled Freedom of Speech Denied.

What is at issue, here, is the denial of freedom of speech, plain and simple.  The speech being protected may be disturbing, it may be down right disgusting, and may appeal to the lowest form of humankind which can walk upright and supposedly think, but it is still the denial of freedom of speech.

The complete story regarding Travis Corcoran is headlined Arlington Man Loses Gun License Due To Blog About Tucson Shooting.

UPDATE:  Mark Alger’s post at Eternity Road, I Am TJIC, also posted here.  Joel, at The Ultimate Answer to Kings, in a post titled First AND second amendment violations simultaneously!

MORE UPDATE:  The Silicon Graybeard.  His post is titled The First Amendment is Dead - And It’s Taking the Second.

Friday Morning UPDATE:  Tam, at View From The Porch in a post titled The cradle and the grave of liberty.

MOTHER OF ALL UPDATES:  Borepatch is compiling a growing list of those standing with TJIC.  The post is titled We are TJIC.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/20 at 08:01 AM

  1. All points considered,at least it is being talked about and not left for dead.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/20  at  11:42 AM

  2. Thank you for your support!

    Posted by TJIC  on  01/20  at  11:50 AM

  3. I am TJIC!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/20  at  12:09 PM

  4. My post at Thesilicongraybeard


    “Explain to me how when the Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina says ““If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard.”

    Or when the President says “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

    I am supposed to know that is hyperbole, and political rhetoric. And not to be taken seriously.

    But when a blogger says the same he is now the subject of an investigation and he has property confiscated without Due Process. Investigated as a “possible threat” or “inciting violence”.

    How the F* does that work?

    A blogger with very little readership in the grand scheme of things can mobilize more than the President? Should be taken more seriously than the Deputy Chief of Staff?

    EXCUSE ME?”

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/20  at  12:24 PM

  5. Comments deleted by blog owner after discussion with commenter.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/20  at  01:02 PM

  6. Comments deleted by blog owner after discussion with commenter.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/20  at  01:07 PM

  7. Comments deleted by blog owner after discussion with commenter.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/20  at  01:34 PM

  8. I’d never heard of TJIC until reading about him the last couple of days, and being a Brit and on the other side of the world I’m an “outsider”, in more than one sense, and enough so to disqualify me from the intended range of Martin Luther King’s words when he wrote ”...“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality…”, but I say that, in the relevant ethical sense, his delimitation of those remarks to the borders of the United States was wrong: I’m TJIC too.

    Posted by mike  on  01/22  at  08:00 AM

  9. I wended my way here through a series of blogs, starting with Arctic Patriot.
    First let me say what a pleasure it is to come across such a well written and thoughtful blog, thank you.
    Second, I am appalled at the confiscation of personal property without due process.
    Then I received a link to a Rachel Maddow(Not someone I watch - but when I have, I have found her logic to be ...questionable.) about Mr. Obama’s proposal to have “prolonged detention”.
    Here’s a link, although the first one was removed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFexNWijzYk

    Posted by Call Me Mom  on  01/22  at  08:01 PM

  10. Call Me Mom,

    First let me say what a pleasure it is to come across such a well written and thoughtful blog, thank you.

    Your welcome, and thank you.

    Second, I am appalled at the confiscation of personal property without due process.

    This is appalling, and Travis Corcoran is not the first individual to be subjected to such injustice.

    The department’s of “pre-crime,” “prolonged detention,” and “confiscation of personal property without due processs” are unfortunately actively at work in the United States, and have been for quite some time.

    It surprises me that Rachel Maddow was able to actually criticize Obama’s remarks in that video.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  01/23  at  11:11 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Trolleyology? - No Thanks I'll Drive Myself

Previous entry: Calling Taxes "Theft" "Isn't Quite Right"

<< Back to main