Free Speech VS. Hate Speech, Quelling Political Violence or Silencing Opposition?

 

Yesterday, Trump announced that there would be a "crackdown" on liberal groups in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death. 

I called my husband and said "Here we go - Putin time, Kirk's death is getting used to try to silence the opposition. Trump's gonna use this just to harass his political opponents out of spite."

And that, of course, would be just a stone's throw away from ICE-like raids on people's homes - NOT because they're actually domestic terrorists or planning assassinations, of course - just to harass them.

And not just politically motivated - I can see people calling and reporting people they don't like, just to harass them - exhusbands and exwives, neighbors arguing over property, kids playing pranks, etc.

Again - I think what happened to Charlie Kirk is very sad, but I also fear it's going to be used as an excuse to silence the opposition - not just radical groups, but any opposition under the guises of preventing political violence.

Okay, so ... though political violence is becoming more common, in the past 50 years, who has been responsible for  domestic terrorism?

Well, of course, the most famous one in all our minds is the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, which was, of course, performed by an anti-government militia - political far right.

The storming of the Capitol building, January 6, 2020 - which I DO consider domestic terrorism - political right.

But let's not just go with our memories, let's look at facts.

The following information was compiled into 1 report on Domestic Terrorism presented to the U.S. Senate in 2022. (Click on the link.)

Though the report was focused on social media as a form of communication between groups, it also references reports on Domestic Terrorism from the FBI, DOJ, and DHS, as well as the US Government Accountability Office (Congressional Committee).

The United States Government Accountability Office reported that since 9/11, 73% of all domestic terrorism acts have been committed by the political far right. 

"Political far right" is comprised of those who self-identify politically right, to include anti-government militia, white supremacists, and anti-abortionists.

The Department of Homeland Security reported in 2020 that White Supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat. 

The remaining threats come from a mix of ecoterrorists (left), animal rights activists (mixed), and radical Islamic groups (which are actually far right conservatives in the Islam faith).

Now, let's define Free Speech Vs. Hate Speech. 

The constitution does not specifically define hate speech, it simply protects freedom of speech from government regulation - including speech that is distasteful or offensive.

HOWEVER - the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the following speech is NOT protected under the constitution:

1)  Direct threats and harassment. 

2) Incites imminent lawless actions or bodily harm. 

3) "Fighting words" - words that intentionally incite or provoke violence -  towards others or yourself. 

Therefore, technically, if you go out and stir people into fear or panic and violence and encourage them to take action or intentionally cause a riot,  you are not protected constitutionally.  (Cough, cough, January 6th).

Also, though you might be protected legally by the constitution if you go around on tour and say a bunch of false  accusatory, inflammatory stuff about race, gender, or your political opposition, you also might not be protected - because your words could be construed as "fighting words" legally. 

Thus, you may be legally protected or you might not be - so if you're going to tour around making a bunch of inflammatory stuff , then providing your own security detail might be something you want to consider?

Now by saying that, please understand - I am NOT saying Charlie Kirk "brought this on himself." 

I actually was very sad this misguided young man had to die over Trump, as I initially wrote, and he had every right to say whatever he wants to say under the First Amendment.

However, we're also NOT going to pretend he didn't say a bunch of false-accusatory and inflammatory stuff about race, gender, non-Christian faiths, and Democrats. 

Are the kinds of things Charlie Kirk said legally considered "fighting words?"

I don't know.

I'm just saying whether you're protected by the constitution or not, if you're saying inflammatory stuff - and you're NOT the President of the United States with a secret service team - might I suggest that you invest in having security detail?

Because if you don't, some nut might try to take you out.

Regardless, political violence is on the rise, and though not equal - far right domestic terrorism still accounting for well over 70% of violent acts in America - to make this about one political side or the other won't solve the problem.

You know what will? 

Making it harder for those so inclined to commit political violence, regardless of political side, like ... I dunno, banning assault rifles?

Just a "shot in the dark," so to speak.

What, too soon for jokes?

Groan - okay, okay, maybe just bad puns.