Take a look at these posts from 2004. I wroite them shortly after somebody took a shot at the West Knoxville Republican Party Campaign headquarters. Mr. R. Neal was highly upset that I had the audacity to claim that emotional and extreme rhetoric such as that featured on his former site, South Knox Bubba, contributed to an atmosphere where drive by shootings were encouraged. As I recall, at one point, he posted that he was considering pursuing legal action against me for these posts.
Of course now, when the target is a progressive church, Mr. Neal is singing a different tune. And judging by the comments at his site, some portion of his members feel that folks on the right are more to blame than the guy who pulled the trigger.
What a warped sense of reality.
Incidentally, my position hasn't changed. When you engage in rhetoric that tends to dehumanize your opponent in any debate, you make it easier for unbalanced persons to take violent action. This in no way reduces the responsibility of the guy with his finger on the trigger, nor does it make the guy with his fingers on the keyboard culpable either legally or morally any more than the manufacturer of a videogame is responsible when a deranged kid hurts himself or somebody else.
The question boils down to this: Do we as free citizens need to stifle our speech in order to avoid triggering a violent act from a disturbed individual, or do we accept the fact that when we voice strongly held convictions some folks will be offended, and some of them will react violently?
Posted by Rich at July 30, 2008 9:38 PM | TrackBack