Annenberg Classroom - Speak Outs - How will the Arizona shooting affect politics?

Speak Outs

Speak Out

How will the Arizona shooting affect politics?

Jan. 12, 2011

This weekend, a shooting spree at an Arizona rally killed six people, including U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

It also sparked a discussion on the extreme nature of political conversation in the country.

Are politics too divisive? It’s a common question, but one made particularly relevant by the shooting. When does political speech become more than just a motivation to vote for a certain candidate or party? When does it instigate violence?

Unprotected speech?

In the past, Giffords had been the target of threats and even acts of vandalism due to her views on heated issues like immigration and health care reform. Critics, like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, say that those incidents resulted from feelings of deep anger and frustration cultivated by the conservative media (particularly Fox News commentators Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh), which creates what he called a “climate of hate.”

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” But over the years, the Supreme Court has identified several categories of unprotected speech – including “fighting words,” “incitement to imminent lawless action,” “true threats” and “solicitations to commit crimes.”

In addition to the media, politicians themselves also talk in extremes. During the 2010 congressional campaign, Sarah Palin’s political action committee distributed a U.S. map listing 20 members of the House of Representatives to vote out of office in November, identifying them by placing crosshairs over their district (though an aide of Palin said those weren’t the crosshairs of a rifle, but of a surveyor’s scope).

After her office was vandalized during the election season, Giffords reacted to the map in an MSNBC interview. “We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list,” she said. “But the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action."

This overall climate, to borrow Krugman’s word, could be what pushed the shooter from “I’m angry” to “I’m angry and picking up a gun.” In other words, by this view, the speech of these media outlets and politicians crosses the line from something protected by the first amendment to something that incites people to commit violence, and is thus unprotected.

“A rush to judgment”

In the hours after the shooting, the finger-pointed escalated rapidly across Internet social networking sites such as Twitter, where people posted and reposted speculations tying Palin’s “crosshairs map” directly to the tragedy. One commenter’s quipped “Hey, Sarah Palin, what do you have to say about this? Sounds like one of yer crazies was carrying out your bidding.” This type of political speech functions in much the same way; it is extreme, intolerant and cultivates feelings of deep anger, frustration and resentment.

“All we know is that the shooter is under custody,” said NPR blogger Ken Rudin. “No statement has been released, no motive revealed. Self-anointed ‘journalists’ should keep such opinions to themselves until we know more.”

This tone was picked up by mainstream journalists as well; a headline in Sunday’s New York Daily News read “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district.”

Fox News’ James Rosen took a broad view on the situation, writing that “such a rush to judgment only further deepens the partisan divide in America, and further poisons its discourse.” Maybe extreme politics did lead the shooter to act, but extreme politics also lead a group (conservatives) and an individual (Sarah Palin) to effectively be accused with the crime.

The question is where to draw the line. The right to free speech in the First Amendment allows political groups to speak their mind in campaigning, and citizens to speculate in the wake of a tragedy. But what if that speech causes violence? How do you regulate it?

What do you think?

How will the Arizona shooting affect politics? Do political groups still have a First Amendment right to free speech if their campaigns promote violence? What about citizens who are quick to place the blame for a crime without evidence? Where do you draw the line? And when that line is crossed, how should speech be regulated? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!

Join the Discussion

Your First Name:
Your Teacher/School:
Your City/State:
Your Comment: limited to 2000 characters including spaces

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs

Comments

2/11/2011

Dylan
Greencastle Antrim High School, Pennsylvania
The Arizona shootings are a tragedy; there is no other way to describe it. Human lives were lost that did not deserve to die, all by the hands of a lunatic. This has sparked quite an amount of controversy. Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler, of Florida, compared Sarah Palin to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, for smearing the health care bill and President Obama throughout his 2 years in office. I don’t necessarily agree with what he said, even if I do disagree with Sarah Palin completely. But, what reporters on the right have failed to realize, is Glenn Beck, CONSTANTLY calls President Obama a Nazi. Here’s proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdTkCQupCR4 Now, all of this controversy is completely unneeded and ridiculous. No one is to blame, except the person who committed the crime. However, I can see how somebody who was mentally unstable could take the words of Sarah Palin, and morph them into something that could’ve bothered them enough to do harm. I’m not justifying this AT ALL. I am for peace. I HATE violence and I’m extremely anti-war. But, what I am saying is that somebody who is crazy could easily take what she says and blow it out of proportion. Take the talk of guns out of politics, even if I do like guns, they shouldn’t be glamorized by political leaders.

1/13/2011

jm
whrhs, washington
The arizona shooting will affect the goverment majorly in the way of security. More police officers will be sure of the safety of government officials. Security will be of the upmost importance.

1/12/2011

Chris
Warren Hills, Washington, NJ
The political battel in America between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, has just gone too far. Most political elites have very strong opinions, and I feel it is a good thing for politics to have these verbal battles and disagreements. However, what happened in Arizona went way too far. Political battles should be a controversy of two opionions, not a life or death confrontation between right and wrong. Events like these could ruin the political structure in America.

1/12/2011

Troy
Warren Hills Regional High School, NJ
I believe that this event will, in time, fade out of the media's attention. Once that occurs, I feel this situation will become simply a reference point in the political spectrum and will not be regarded as seriously as it should be.

1/11/2011

m2011
Warren Hills Regional High School, Washington, NJ
I believe the violent outbreak will cause politicians to think twice before they decide to sling more petty insults or cruel rhetoric at each other. The two parties have grown bolder and bolder in their mutual slandering, to the point where we wonder what their true purpose is: to serve the people or to serve their petty egos. Hopefully, this incident will serve as a reality check to the many politicians in dire need of one; perhaps it will show them that there are severe consequences to their behavior.