Congressman Attempts To Outlaw Threatening Language And Symbols After Arizona Shooting

Congressman Robert Brady. (brady.house.gov)

Congressman Robert Brady, (D-PA), says he plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening to any federal official, including members of Congress. Congressman Brady joins us to explain how the law would work.

Other stories from Monday's show

Families Mourn Those Killed In Arizona, Suspect Appears In Court
A Colleague Of Congresswoman Giffords Comments On Massacre In Arizona
Congress Suspends Debate After Arizona Rampage
Vice President Faces Challenges On Trip To Pakistan
Congressman Attempts To Outlaw Threatening Language And Symbols After Arizona Shooting
How Heated Rhetoric Affects The Mentally Ill
Music From The Show
Full Rundown

We welcome comments from all of our listeners. Post below. Please stay on topic and be civil. Comments may be moderated by us, but you are solely responsible for the content of your comments.

Zak Mettger

Criminalizing certain speech will not effectively curb violence or hate speech; it will only further limit Americans’ civil liberties. Indeed, the Congressman’s proposal, while different in scale, reminds me of Muslim fanatics’ reaction to the cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed published in Swedish newspapers.

Surely strengthening gun control laws and increasing education about tolerance are more appropriate responses.
Joe

Legislation would be a very bad idea. It would go against the very foundations of this country. Free speech is crucial.

What we do need is more people to exercise that free speech and condemn the inflammatory rhetoric that has become so prevalent.

What I find shocking about the response to this tragedy is that people weren’t more shocked that it happened. Even if the shooter is not driven by political reasons, the fact that both democrats and republicans reacted as if he were speaks volumes.

Just because we have a right to free speech doesn’t absolve us from being responsible for how we exercise it. People have the right to say what they want to, but if those actions drive someone to do something abhorrent, the person who said the words should be held responsible.
One Private-sector Frog

Wow…the dots that are being connected here! Of course, it is being prefaced by saying “we have no evidence”…but what are we supposed to think when you put these stories together? …and yet EVERY NIGHT we have a mass media that glorifies violence in the “entertainment” programs it airs. The most popular TV shows and movies are rife with violence (CSI, NCIS, etc.). Many songs glorify violence. Additionally, many popular video games simulate shooting (knifing, chainsawing, etc.) people in a very realistic way. How about taking a look at the media this guy has been consuming before we blame political speech? Nah….it’s easier to blame Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and other people we don’t agree with.
http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

Zak Mettger,

You worry about limiting civil rights, while at the same time advocating gun control. The Second Amendment is as important as the First.

Notice how the actions of one crazy person bring out those who are willing to give up liberty for security. Any right brings risk, but I prefer to live in a nation that acknowledges our rights.
Karen

Greg,

I hear you, but I think the right to bear arms should be tempered with some sort of control or oversight. For example, the fact that people in this person’s past had expressed some concern about him, he had issues with law enforcement in the past, etc. If everybody operates appropriately in our society, then easy access to firearms would be no problem. But in lieu of that, we should have some sort of control and quite frankly, registration so that we can monitor if somebody has a firearm and they are continuously demonstrating lack of their mental facilities, we can remove the firearm, for the good of all people. We have no problem taking a driver’s license away from people with multiple DUIs, we don’t wait for them to kill people.
I am not suggesting removing the right purchase firearms for all, but NOBODY would disagree with the fact that: a) there was no reason for this person to have a firearm of this caliber and b) with all the clues we had, had we known that he had this type of weapon we could have intervened before this. Kind of like anybody should have the right to take flying lessons, but had we connected the dots before 9/11, would it have made a difference?
All of this assumes a loss of privacy. And that is a huge question, is it worth it? But I think that advocates of the 2nd amendment should at least be willing to do SOMETHING to ease concerns about firearms (and assault weapons at that) getting into the hands of the wrong people.
Ilze Choi

I would like to know why there is no First Amendment protection of 4 letter words and the like, while hat mongering (not debate) is protected?

With Sponsorship from:

Accelerating the pace of engineering and science