Guest blogged by Ernest A. Canning
“I find it chilling to hear so many U.S. government officials calling for the leader of this organization, Julian Assange, to be labeled an ‘enemy combatant’ and jailed — or worse.”-Letter from Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) to Tom Hayden
Recently, a number of prominent politicians and pundits have called for the violent targeting of other individuals who have been neither accused nor charged with any crimes whatsoever, calling into the question the legality of such incitements to violence.
This article will transcend the issue of “moral responsibility” on the part of those politicians and pundits for the horrific consequences that may, and often do, ensue as the result of their deliberate appeals to fear, prejudice and hate so as to examine when such rhetoric actually amounts to an actual crime under the laws of our land.
There can be little doubt that, as observed by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, the combination of 24/7 “vitriolic rhetoric” on TV and radio (See video below for poignant examples of such rhetoric), the absence of gun control, with leading U.S. politicians calling for “Second Amendment remedies,” and the placement of “crosshairs” over a political opponent’s district while calling on citizens to “reload,” can produce lethal consequences — consequences that are not limited to the actions of the deranged.
Such rhetoric is both the product and cause of dehumanization — a process defined by Professor Phillip Zimbardo in The Lucifer Effect as a means “by which certain other people or collectives of them are depicted as less than human…”
Zimbardo writes:
Where we covered the scientific work of Zimbardo and others in “Hate Speech and the Process of Dehumanization,” and in a follow-up, demonstrating how the process applies both when directed to foreign “threats” and domestic “foes,” here the focus is the thin legal line, unique to the U.S. courtesy of the First Amendment, between advocacy and incitement, and whether some U.S. politicians and pundits may have, at least in the case of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange as they have now charged, crossed that line so as to possibly warrant criminal prosecutions…
The Brandenburg distinction between advocacy and incitement
During a December 8 appearance on Democracy Now, Jennifer Robinson, one of the attorneys who represents Assange in his U.K. extradition proceedings, observed that people who have publicly called for the assassination of her client “ought to be reported to the police for incitement to violence.”
Robinson noted that a former adviser to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper — Thomas Flannagan, who said: “I think Assange should be assassinated…Obama should put out a contract or…use a drone…” — was now “the subject of a police complaint, and the file has gone to the director of public prosecutions in Canada.”
But words that may constitute a crime in either the U.K. or Canada are not necessarily a crime in the U.S.
In Brandenburg vs. Ohio the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment shields individuals who merely advocate the violent overthrow of the government. This does not mean that all forms of speech are protected.
Under Brandenburg, speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” that is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Shock jock convicted of inciting others to kill federal judges
The question of whether the speech is likely to incite is a thorny one, though it is certainly not insurmountable. Just ask the right-wing, racist, former shock jock (and one time FBI informant) Hal Turner. Turner was convicted of incitement after he responded to a decision by three federal judges, who upheld Chicago’s handgun ban, by posting the judges’ photos and work addresses, adding: “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed.”
U.S. politicians/pundits who may have crossed the line
The WikiLeaks press release which The BRAD BLOG recently posted after it was released following the deadly shootings in Tucson, provides a partial list of the individuals and statements that seem on par with Hal Turner’s transgression.
*Limbaugh also said: “Back in the old days when men were men and countries were countries, this guy would die of lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain.”
Of course, where Turner did not specify who should kill the three judges, many of the pundits and politicians were asking the U.S. government to murder Assange. Would that make the incitement unlikely under the second part of the Brandenburg test?
Consider convicted Watergate-era criminal and current Rightwing radio host G. Gordon Liddy’s remark: “This fellow Anwar al-Awlaki — a joint U.S. citizen hiding out in Yemen — is on a ‘kill list’ [for inciting terrorism against the U.S.]. Mr. Assange should be put on the same list.”
Consider the Obama administration’s targeting of an American citizen merely “suspected” of being a terrorist for assassination in the context of Vice President Joe Biden’s recent description of Assange as a “high tech terrorist,” and you begin to see not only the likelihood of incitement but the real reason why the current U.S. Department of Justice has failed to initiate prosecutions of any of these high profile pundits and politicians.
The fact that President Obama has chosen not only to follow but expand a lawless ‘Unitary Executive’ that has engaged in secret wars, torture, and, now, the claimed right to execute an American citizen abroad without due process of law does not make lawful that which is decidedly unlawful.
Nineteen states have laws making it a crime to utter a terrorist threat. A terrorist “threat is…generally defined as threatening to kill another with the intent of putting that person in fear of imminent death and under circumstances that would reasonably cause the victim to believe that threat will be carried out.”
Rightwing radio and Fox “News” host Glenn Beck’s musings about wanting to kill Michael Moore, either himself or by hiring a hit man; Michael Reagan’s call to “take out” and “shoot” 9/11 conspiracy theorists, he’ll “pay for the bullet” (see video below), as well as the calls to assassinate Assange, who has been neither accused nor convicted of any crime related to these matters, would appear to fall within the definition of a “terrorist threat.”
If we are still a government of laws, then surely there should be prosecutions of powerful pundits and politicians who use our public airwaves to broadcast terrorist threats that amount to incitement to murder. Death threats have no legitimate place within our nation’s political discourse.
MEMO TO SARAH PALIN: When someone criticizes your use of violence-inciting words and imagery, they are not violating your First Amendment rights. They are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Your effort, or that of your ghostwriter, to play the victim card is nothing short of Orwellian.
UPDATE 01/16/11 Last night, Brad Friedman posted an update relating to the arrest of J. Eric Fuller, who was shot in the knee by Jared Lee Loughner, after Fuller took the picture of a Tuscon Tea Party founder, and said, “You’re dead.â€.
Brad’s update raises the question of whether there is, as promised above the portico of the U.S. Supreme Court, “Equal Justice Under Law” when we deal with issues of incitement to commit violence.
If there is, then it should not matter whether the target of the threat is a government official, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or a foreign journalist, like Julian Assange. It should not matter whether the author of that threat is an emotionally disturbed, 33-year old Norman Leboon, who was arrested when he threatened to kill Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the son of a former President or the 2008 Republican nominee for Vice President.
In commenting on the Leboon arrest, U.S. Attorney Michael Levy said [emphasis added]:
Video montage of hate radio courtesy of Crooks and Liars and Bill Moyers Journal…
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968).
There is absolutely nothing in Ron Paul’s statement that advocates violance. Start acting like a adult and stop trying to smear Ron Paul.
John, Where did you get the notion that I was quoting Ron Paul in order to smear him as an advocate of violence?
He expressed a concern I share, which is why I quoted him.
Hello!!!
“If we are still a government of laws” clearly not .
And will this story ever get to see a full investigation (in the vain of “If we are still a government of laws”
more
RE: #1 – Jeezus. What the FRICKin FRICK is happening to people’s reading / comprehension skills? Dr. Shrinker get a hold of their brain casing?
Guess there is no shame anymore in being so openly dumb. In fact, we’re now a meritocracy for the supremely stupid – elevating the tweets of a twit to the level of national interest / debate; news worthy enough for every major (and minor) beat. Stupid always gets the Gold.
Thank GOD Ernest writes articles like this for the not-shriveled-up-as-of-yet frontal lobes of the(majority)rest of us.
Superior article, Ernest. You’ve answered a lot of nagging questions for me. I’ve been wondering forEVER what the legal precedent is for this unprecedented level of incitement being called for on our public airwaves from the usual cabal of obfuscating officials, reprehensible representatives, and poon-dog pundits.
Any sentient person – *sad to say barring most of the recent “predispositioned” comments here on BRADBLOG – should be mortified by these medieval calls for Julian Assange’s assassination. Isn’t that supposed to fly in the face of everything their blank lil’ co-opted minds are said to stand for?
Where is their outrage in the U.S. for the kind of criminal acts that WIKILEAKS is revealing on the part of (our) failing nation state? Where is the kudos for what it has accomplished (other than Democracy Now, Glenn Greenwald and right here?) Hello, Democratic Tunisia!
Where has there ever been a better example of just how far this Republic has fallen?
I don’t believe there is one.
This is unprecedented.
Can’t wait for the spacecraft to intervene.
In answer to All of this I feel it only fitting to include this for those practicing this type of rhetoric.
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;”
I wonder when the Military will get involved against those that are clearly Domestic Enemies.
Re Raymond @5:
Because your comment does not specify whom you regard as “Domestic Enemies,” it is a bit obtuse.
Not clear whether or not you regard those who are calling for a restoration of the rule of law, an end to secret wars that are initiated by lying to the American people, verifiable voting, and accountability as “Domestic Enemies.”
Then, again, perhaps you had in mind those identified in ‘Sibel Edmonds: The Traitors Among Us’ in March Issue of Hustler (Now on Newsstands Online!).
So, I am sure readers would greatly appreciate it if you returned to advise us all who you have in mind.
Excellent article, and worrying that prosecution is not already in progress against some of those who are inciting violence. We can all be sure if the tables were turned and Assange were doing the inciting there would be overwhelming outrage and charges in progress.
This leads me to what I see as the more worrying issue, lack of information or bias in what is presented.
Where it exists at all, information presented by mainstream media in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia appears to be co-ordinated mis-representation of the facts, co-ordinated because they largely echo almost identical unsupported mis-information; how else could this be acheived.
Mis-information because it is regularly exposed as such when it largely disagrees with what is being said by small new-media. Mis-information because it denies there is anything of interest in the Wikileaks releases.
I know I should not be surprised, with western media now apparently largely owned by 6 major conglomerates that support and are supported by current Governments, what would one expect. Sadly the Fourth Estate seems to have become self-serving.
If Wikileaks has, as it says, information on Murdoch, News Corp and other media I can see why media and Gov’t are as aggressive in their pursuit and why those inciting violence may actually be cheered on by both Government and mainstream media.
On this basis, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for charges to be laid against them.
An excellent companion piece to Ernest’s:
“John Pilger’s Investigation Into the War on WikiLeaks and His Interview With Julian Assange”
http://www.truth-out.org/the-war-wikileaks-john-pilgers-investigation-and-interview-with-julian-assange66847
One of many juicies include: Amazon accidentally advertised a new book being put forth by THE GUARDIAN entitled: “The End of Secrecy: the Rise and Fall of WikiLeaks.”
Pilger writes:
…
…ya don’t say?
Would the vitriolic rhetoric of death threat domain names fall under cyber-bullying laws? Thoughts? See http://www.vivantleakers.org
When Tuscon Tea Party founder, Trent Humphries, suggested that any gun control discussions should wait until after the funerals, J. Eric Fuller, who was shot in the knee by Jared Lee Loughner, took Humphries picture, and said, “You’re dead.â€
Fuller was arrested and charged with one count of threats and intimidation.
When Michael Reagan, the son of the former President, announced over the public airwaves that 9/11 conspiracy theorists should be “taken out†and “shotâ€; that he’d “pay for the bullet,†he was not so much as criticized by the corporate media, let alone arrested.
The words above the portico of the U.S. Supreme Court read: “Equal Justice Under Law.â€
Have they been reduced to an empty slogan?
Ernie Canning @ 10 asked:
Yes.
Thanks, Jeannie Dean, for the link to John Pilger’s Investigation Into the War on WikiLeaks and His Interview With Julian Assange.
Here are two segments from Pilger’s piece that are especially apropos:
And,
What is troubling is that there is no way either the President or the Attorney General can be expected to fulfill their solemn oath to faithfully execute the law when it comes to prosecutions of those who’ve incited Assange’s murder. While the war on WikiLeaks was initiated by the Pentagon’s Cyber Counterintelligence Assessment Branch during the Bush/Cheney cabal, Obama has given no indication that he will retreat from any of the past transgressions of the lawless “Unitary Executive.”
Vanity Fair did a hit piece on Julian Assange this month. I will not be renewing my subscription, as I think Julian Assange is the greatest journalist of my generation.
There is also an article about the beginnings of Huffington Post. Just who helped Arrianna get it off the ground. Andrew Breitbart took credit for the whole thing. As it turns out, he was hired away from the Drudge Report to work for Arrianna.I used to be a purist…now just appreciate the good that comes from each website. BUT Andrew Breitbart …did not know that he was anything but a screwball.
As it turns out, Andrew Breitbart is also behind the movement to blame the professor in Michigan, Frances Fox Piven, for all our financial problems per Glenn Beck. It started out with students interviewing her , kind of like the Helen Thomas hit.Also by her wanting equal voting rights and welfare assistance for the poor. Very similar to Acorn. The Friday’s show is up now on Democracy now online. Frances Piven explains how it happened.
Why is Glenn Beck Obsessively Targeting Frances Fox Piven?
Share
1216
For more than a year, Fox News host Glenn Beck has been increasingly targeting Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old distinguished professor of political science and sociology at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. Beck has repeatedly accused her of advocating violence and of hatching a plan in 1966 to overthrow the system. Piven joins us in our studio. [includes rush transcript)
Thanks, Molly, for the reference to Why is Glenn Beck Obsessively Targeting Frances Fox Piven?
We’ve seen this type of deceptive campaign from Breitbart and his employee, convicted federal criminal James O’Keefe, before.
These smear merchants previously targeted, NJ Special Ed. teacher Alissa Ploshnick, Shirley Sherrod, innocent ACORN employees, verifiable truth and democracy.
Paven, during the above-linked appearance on Democracy Now revealed that the same type of undercover deceptions were employed by these right-wing propagandists who, by no stretch of the imagination, can be regarded as “journalists.”
A lot of people (Democrats, Republicans, and None of the Above) are concerned that animal rights activists, Muslims and minority activists urging the kind of violent retaliation Palin wishes on her political opponents would have been jailed before they had the opportunity to target incumbent Congress people with gun sights. In the name of equal justice, there is a petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/IndictSP/petition.html – which calls for the Dept of Justice to indict Palin for incitement to violence.
This is a very well written, insightful article about an upcoming Supreme Court decision about Freedom of Speech in America. Very important read.