Ugly political rhetoric v. Unlawful political rhetoric
posted by Howard Wasserman
Bloggers, and belatedly the mainstream media, have been sharply criticizing McCain and his campaign for the increasingly angry, ugly, and personal tone of their campaign rhetoric, which has played up the Obama-as-terrorist-Muslim-traitor-secret-communist, and which has prompted the over-the-top rage and hatred it has stoked and provoked in the crowds at McCain and Palin rallies. Video and reports from rallies shows audience members shouting “Kill him” and “Off with his head” and “terrorist” and “traitor” and “treason” during speeches and rallies. There are reports of racial epithets being shouted, at Obama and at members of the press. Susan Kuo offers some thoughts. The “kill him” shout-out has drawn interest from the Secret Service. And in a Town Hall today, McCain urged supporters to be respectful and not to be scared of Obama and apparently cut-off one town-hall questioner who claimed to be scared of Obama because he is an Arab. On the other hand, when McCain described Obama as a “decent family man,” the crowd booed. And, in response to Obama’s criticism of the divisiveness and ugliness of the rhetoric at these rallies, the McCain campaign said Obama was attacking McCain supporters and does not understand “regular people and the issues they care about”–which, to the McCain campaign, apparently includes whether Obama is a terrorist who should be tried for federal crimes.
Much of the noise has been virulent and ugly, playing, not subtly, to Obama’s scary “otherness.” Lowest-common-denominator, atmosphere-of-hatred-and-violence stuff. But I cannot buy the notion being floated that anything unlawful is happening. McCain and Palin have not come anywhere close to the constitutional line of incitement–no actual violence or unlawful conduct against Obama is temporally imminent or likely to occur as a result of McCain/Palin campaign statements. And I am fairly certain that no one in the campaign intends anyone to engage in violence against Obama. Nor do the random shouts in the crowd amount to true threats against Obama by McCain supporters. The Secret Service has a tendency, not unwarranted, to over-investigate everything when it comes to political leaders. But “kill him” shouted out at random in an impassioned crowd of thousands with Obama nowhere near the crowd, just does not amount to a threat. (Plus, it is not clear whether the shout was directed at Obama or Bill Ayers). In short, nothing I have seen or read about comes close to the line of unprotected speech.
This is not to defend either McCain’s choice of campaign rhetoric or the response of their supporters–and, it seems to me, it is of a qualitatively different tone than what is coming from the Obama campaign or its rally attendees. And it is appropriate to speak out against and denounce the tone of comments (and to praise McCain for trying to put the breaks on it) and to call for a more civil discourse. But ugliness is not unlawfulness. And whatever criticism the campaign warrants for engaging in personal attacks and riling up the crowd, charges of engaging in “borderline incitement” should not be among them.
October 11, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Posted in: Current Events
Print This Post
Responses (4)
Burr Deming - October 11, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Before we make a choice we may regret for the next four years, the accusations against Barack Obama should be carefully considered, as they are here.
Fred - October 11, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Maybe you’re right on the law. But a lot of stuff out there is false . . . so maybe we should focus on getting better defamation laws. look at this stuff sent in an email to me (and most of my friends are Democrats–imagine if i were getting stuff all from rightwingers:
start:
Please America open your eyes to the lies and deception being propagated and the truth totally disregarded by the main stream! If you have read this before that is OK too as we need to get this message out to all and remind everyone our security, freedoms and liberties are up for grabs. Our enemies have said over and over again we can come to power and destroy America by infiltrating the country and the political power.
remember the college roommates of Obama’s that where
born in Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those ’small’ Internet
campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from?
The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the
Middle East ?
‘Beware of the enemy from within’!!!
end.
——————————————
bottom line–that is at the core of REpublican rhetoric now. and if you just shrug and ignore it, we’re on the way to Weimar.
wm. tyroler - October 11, 2008 at 5:22 pm
But I cannot buy the notion being floated that anything unlawful is happening.
That’s right. Not remotely close. Period.
Why the fainting spells, then, about McCain/Palin bringing up Obama’s associations? (the increasingly angry, ugly, and personal tone of their campaign rhetoric, which has played up the Obama-as-terrorist-Muslim-traitor-secret-communist, and which has prompted the over-the-top rage and hatred). Far as I know, McC-P never used that rhetoric. The campaign’s claim, to be sure, is that Obama’s close links to some very questionable characters (Ayers, Wright, Rezko) shed light on his judgment in establishng these links: it’s very arguable that Ayers was a terrorist, Wright a bigot, and Rezko a criminal. Why is it “angry,” etc. to point that out?
More precisely: why now the concern with rageful speech, and more precisely still, why float the idea of criminalizing it? Nearly 8 years of “Bushitler”; Bush the war criminal; Bush lied, thousands (millions?) died; General Betrayus; etc — now there’s suddenly a concern about (asserted) inflammatory rhetoric? I can’t wait to see what ideas the Obama Administration has in mind to keep us all safe from airing his background.
Jacqueline - October 12, 2008 at 3:48 pm
It seems to me the argument here is not about the quality of what the McCain campaign is doing, but a more specific question about the 1st amendment and the model penal code. If this stuff incites an attack, and if, god forbid, someone dies as a result of it, what is the culpability of the speaker? Would it be a criminal act, but for being protected by the 1st amendment? Can anyone imagine an incident that would give rise to criminal liability at a political rally? For example, if a black cameraman from the press at one of these rallies was not just yelled at and called ugly racial slurs, as has already occurred, but was actually dragged from the premises and seriously harmed, would Palin bear responsibility?
Personally, from the youtube videos and press reports I have seen from these rallies, I do think the Republicans have been playing with a heady and potent drug. They appear to be directing tremendous fear and fury towards an identified person and making it seem heroic and patriotic to stop him. The comment that upset me the most was from Governor Palin. She said: “I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” What I heard in that comment was her appeal for help, for protection from this scary thing. From what I have read, that really got the crowd into a frothy state.
Leave a Reply