And now this is all being blamed on our media and I can't help but wonder if our media really is to blame or not. It certainly could have contributed, but what responsibility do people have to use caution in what they post on the web? I believe with great freedoms also comes great responsibility. We have the right to free speech in this country and that comes with great responsibility, especially this day and age when information can be disseminated with one click to the entire globe. While you have the right to say it, do you also have the responsibility to watch what you say given there are unstable people who would have access to websites. Did Loughner see Palin's "crosshairs" site? In his apparently "unstable" state, did that affect his decision to open fire on a member of Congress and her constituents as well as any passers by? As a public figure in the media, does Palin have a greater responsibility when she uses her 1st Amendment rights?
So when the puck drops and the bucks stops in a parking lot in Tuscon, where does freedom of speech end and personal responsibility for what is said begin?
Sara,
ReplyDeleteThere is so much to comment on this topic, but I will open up one point for you to consider. Responsibility is a two way street. While you can argue that one should responsibly consider the effect of what they say on those that choose to listen, the reverse can be said that it is the listener's responsibility to listen (or choose not to listen) to what is said and use personal discretion in how they interpret or react to that information. In a free society, it is the responsibility of all parties to behave appropriately. The fact that there are some crazy people in this world with severe mental disorders or sociopathic tendencies should not strip the majority of the population from the liberties that we enjoy everyday. We can not continue to degrade our society to accommodate the lowest common denominator and expect our country to maintain the greatness upon which it was founded.
It is also frustrating at how everyone tries to find rationale behind the actions of what irrational people do. Irrational people are just that. The motives for their actions do not exist. You can equally blame their actions on some absurd premise and be just as correct as the talking heads you see on TV. The fact is you never will know. It is highly likely they were always going to commit a similar act no matter the time, place, politics, or circumstances. That is the nature of crazy people...and there are a lot of them in this world. It does not mean that taking away or limiting the rest of our liberties will change their behavior! It is likely going to just incite or spark an entirely different sub-set of "crazy" people to carry out similar activities. And then what have you solved, except for stripping or limiting liberties from the rest of society?
Just my thoughts.
Kevan McCormack
Sara,
ReplyDeleteI think that Kevan has some good points above, but at the same time, I think that certain aspects of this are being overlooked. In any other realm of society drawing crosshairs over someone or something would constitute a threat. This action did not become wrong when some crazy person out there may have decided to act on it, it was wrong to begin with. These people are the leaders of our country and they know that whatever they say and do is going to be related to the entire country through the media. That knowledge should place a larger responsibility on them to act accordingly. If a normal person had put up posters or a web campaign with crosshairs over a political figure or their jurisdiction, I think that they would likely be looking at some sort of repercussions. But because it was a politician, it was just another dirty ad. I am not saying that they do not have the right to do these things, but at some point someone needs to realize that we are still supposed to be a civilized nation. Using crosshairs in a political campaign seems far from civilized.
Debating whether an ad campaign by a public figure containing a symbol that has many symbolic meanings caused some crazy individual to go around shooting people is an obvious scheme used by the opposing political party to try and frame an argument to support a specific political objective. As has become the moto, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” It is completely obvious that one had nothing to do with the other, but they are using the event as a ploy to achieve political points. In my opinion, it is non-sense and an intentional abuse of media used to divert Americans' attention from real problems in our country (i.e. bankruptcy!)
ReplyDeleteNow, back to the point. The essence of free speech means you will not hear or see Politically Correct messages. Nor should you have the expectation. Freedom of speech and expression is the most basic freedom we have and should NEVER be limited as long as what you say is not libel, slander or something that directly infringes on another person's rights. But, we all absolutely have the right to listen to what is said; not listen; say what you think; or not say anything and just think it. That is it! To negotiate our freedoms and rights is akin to negotiating with a terrorist or being extorted by the Mob.
Ronald Reagan summed it up nicely when he said:
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
You are right, we are supposed to be a civilized nation, but remember, we are still free. If a politician decides to do something that is widely considered offensive, then the citizens can decide not to vote for that person as their representation in the future.
Our Founders were wiser than many of us can imagine. The consitution is the one document that protects our freedoms AND limits the role of government in our lives. Since the Constitution forms the foundation of our country, it is not to be marginalized away, otherwise you lose the very foundation this country was built on.