It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Sarah Palin is Guilty!

page: 13
28
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by loam
 


I think this unfortunate tragedy has opened some eyes and politicians now need to stop attacking each other and start working together to solve this countries problems. When you create an atmosphere of rhetoric it's hard to trust anyone, let alone work together for the common good.


No offense to you, but whenever I see a post insinuating that the politicians on EITHER side actually want to solve the country's problems, I have to laugh. The vast majority of politicians just do whatever it takes to keep the campaign money rolling in. The term "common good" is totally alien to them.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I do see your point loam. But, I also think we need to continue the conversation and flesh out the arguments. ...My goal with you is to investigate the possibility of protecting the Constitution, including Freedom of Speech and the Press and the Right to Bear Arms, AND still hold people accountable for the consequences of their speech and actions. ...Does accountability necessarily trod on the right to speak freely?

reply to post by loam
 



I do not believe the government can sufficiently define what speech or art are prohibited because of the "indirect" consequences they *might* produce. From my perspective, allowing the government to make these determinations against speech or art is as sure an invitation to tyranny as any direct one.


I agree, absolutely. But you are talking about "modifying" the Constitution to include preventive and "anticipatory" legislation - which is what Canada has, I believe. (Rights with qualifications. :dn


I am talking about leaving our Rights and Freedoms and the whole Constitution intact, but demanding a kind of legal accountability. Ie., if you tell someone to go out and shoot someone else, then you are accountable.



I'll use our board history, again as an example. I understand that you believe our posts have always been written responsibly. But you can't deny we are passionate advocates for certain issues or concerns. What if some ATS member nonetheless commits a crime and expressly attributes it to one of your threads? Do you really think you should have to defend yourself from government prosecution in this scenario? Where is the line drawn on "indirect" culpable statements or art?


"Where is the line drawn on "indirect" culpable statements or art?" ...It's not relevant. My question referred to direct and indirect consequences, not 'indirect' statements or art.

The line between "clear direction" and "ambiguous implication" is fairly clear, legally.

Palin's "target" poster identified "targets" and showed rifle sights' cross-hairs targeting Giffords' and others' home states. Kelly's ad said, "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16."

A hypothetical Muslim's site says, "Kill the infidels."

Is there a difference, under law? Is either responsible for others' actions?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
I agree, absolutely. But you are talking about "modifying" the Constitution to include preventive and "anticipatory" legislation - which is what Canada has, I believe. (Rights with qualifications. :dn



I'm no expert on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

laws.justice.gc.ca...-ga:l_I-gb:s_2

but I believe that the American Constitution is a more fundamental document, philosophically speaking, i.e., that it reaches down to the bedrock of what a human being should expect on this planet in a social contract.

The Canadian charter implies the pre-existence of the "bedrock" of an established federal government and supplies a social contract for interaction with that government. Canadians have no established right to bear arms.

The criminal "community", of course, is completely unfazed by this and acknowledges no limits of any sort on what it can and cannot do.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Does accountability necessarily trod on the right to speak freely?


At the heart of my concern, it depends how broadly you define the culpable speech.


Originally posted by soficrow
I am talking about leaving our Rights and Freedoms and the whole Constitution intact, but demanding a kind of legal accountability. Ie., if you tell someone to go out and shoot someone else, then you are accountable.


Presently, in the US, such 'legal' accountability already exists in two ways: civilly and criminally.

On the criminal front we have:




Brandenburg v. Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

The decision

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The unanimous majority opinion was per curiam (issued from the Court as an institution rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice).

...

[It] articulated a new test — the "imminent lawless action" test — for judging so-called seditious speech under the First Amendment:




“ …Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. ”



The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages. Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation." The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.



There is also civil accountability, which could be brought by the families of the victims for wrongful harm or death on the basis of common law incitement. But again, similar elements and a showing of sufficient proximate cause would need to be accomplished.

But if you look at this thread and elsewhere within these boards, people are advocating a much looser (read more dangerous) standard. One I cannot agree with...


Originally posted by soficrow
"Where is the line drawn on "indirect" culpable statements or art?" ...It's not relevant. My question referred to direct and indirect consequences, not 'indirect' statements or art.


I was referring to the same. Perhaps my wording did not make that clear.


Originally posted by soficrow
The line between "clear direction" and "ambiguous implication" is fairly clear, legally.


Well, only to the extent as I have explained above. It seems folks around here are looking for something altogether different in my opinion.


Originally posted by soficrow
Palin's "target" poster identified "targets" and showed rifle sights' cross-hairs targeting Giffords' and others' home states. Kelly's ad said, "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16."

A hypothetical Muslim's site says, "Kill the infidels."

Is there a difference, under law? Is either responsible for others' actions?


Well, I suppose reasonable minds can differ, but I would say each of those examples fail the "imminent lawless action" test.

Again, let me be clear. I do not favor such distasteful political rhetoric. But I will support it's protection under the Constitution.

But let me also make another point. A social responsibility one...

Is the mischaracterization of what a politician says as potentially damaging as the precise thing asserted?

Let me walk you through that.

I have seen already in several places the specific allegation that Sarah Palin expressly called for the assassination of political opponents. No one can show this, but it doesn't stop poeple from asserting it. So what happens if another nutter decides to "solve the Palin problem" on the basis of these exaggerated claims? Aren't people who make these exaggerated claims just as responsible for the very thing they are criticizing her for? Food for thought, I should think.

edit on 10-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Palin is absolutely guilty

Here is a tweet she erased recently





posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by curiousladdy
 


You're right. It couldn't possibly be because he was CRAZY!


Let's string Palin up!






Frightening, twisted shrine in Arizona killer Jared Lee Loughner's yard

A sinister shrine reveals a chilling occult dimension in the mind of the deranged gunman accused of shooting a member of Congress and 19 others.

Hidden within a camouflage tent behind Jared Lee Loughner's home sits an alarming altar with a skull sitting atop a pot filled with shriveled oranges.

A row of ceremonial candles and a bag of potting soil lay nearby, photos reveal.


edit on 10-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


Um yeah, I'm a country bumkin alright, lol. Although, this country bumkin might have went to an ivy league school, and could probably buy and sell your entire life's work with little more than an afterthought.

But thanks for stepping up to the plate an acting as an example of the idiocy that is rampant on the internet, making my point for me is exactly what I expected someone around here to do.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by curiousladdy
 


Seriously, you expect anyone with half a brain to think she actually meant reload as in bullets in a gun? It's called context. Anyone, and I do mean anyone who thinks about this without some sort of ignorant, internet fueled agenda, knows without a doubt that this was nothing more than a figure of speech.

Would you like me to pull "figures of speech" from your side of the isle and make them look like they are guilty of something that had nothing to do with them? I could very easily, and I would expect you to understand how I can do that, although your posting relfects otherwise.

Like I said earlier, I am glad if I ever do something stupid that ends up on the news that there are LEGIONS of ignorant internet folks that would blame my actions on anybody but me.

Common sense, logic and reason is dead. Long live public schools and the internet.
edit on 10-1-2011 by IgnoreTheFacts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
reply to post by curiousladdy
 


Seriously, you expect anyone with half a brain to think she actually meant reload as in bullets in a gun? It's called context.


Actually it's called a metaphor. In this case, she was using war or battle as a metaphor for removing her "targets" from their respective political offices.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


It's my personal opinion, as a Canadian looking south, that the extreme divisiveness of the partisan politics evident not only on these boards but generally across the American social scene has played a part in what happened in Arizona.

It wasn't just Palin and her unfortunate use of crosshairs or her use of gun terminology... it's radio talk show hosts, CNN, Fox, blogs and all other forms of media in which the partisan rhetoric has reached an untenable level, even, at times right here.

Yes... the killer was nuts. Crazier than an outhouse rat. Granted.

The growing evidence points to a planned event, though, and there's not a doubt in my mind that years of frenzied media partisanship played a part. I also do not believe a sane person would have carried out such a heinous crime, no matter how much they'd listened to the rantings of Nazi affectionados, Republican or Democrat influenced radio hosts with an agenda to push or whatever this psychotic individual was into. It took a nutbar to do the deed, that's obvious, but to think that a society in trouble didn't play a part to push him towards it is narrow-minded.

Why else would he have chosen to fire on those he did?

This was not some random killing spree... it was planned out and executed.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Moreover, the point made in this thread is ridiculous.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and accountability? I think it's a crime in and of itself to provide the killer cover by suggesting "Sarah Palin made him do it."


You people scare me.


Welcome to the world of twisted LWL logic.
Their parents have removed their "personal responsibility and accountability" and replaced it with
finger pointing.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I can mostly agree with you.


But from my perspective, what you are describing is a cultural problem- not a legal one.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Did the shooters video of him praising Sarah Palin get taken down from Youtube?


I knew I should have saved it.

It seems Palin, with her MILF good looks, incited this impressionable young man.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Rep. Robert Brady To Introduce Legislation To Make Rhetoric Like Sarah Palin's Illegal



It will be interesting to see what this bill says precisely. But based upon what he says, I think the new standard easily applies to many of Obama's (and many other Presidents before him) statements.




"The legislation would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening violence against any member of Congress."



What kind of standard is that?


Originally posted by loam




A History Of Obama’s Violent Rhetoric

1. “Whose Ass To Kick”

...

2. Bring a Gun to A Knife Fight

...

3. “Argue With Neighbors, Get In Their Face”

...

4. “I don’t want to quell anger… I’m angry!”

...

5. “Get out of the way”

...

6. “Gearing up for a Fight”

...

7. “Hit Back Twice As Hard”



or this PRECISE example



Obama to Latinos – 'Punish Our Enemies'


Careful what you wish for.

Seems to me we are solidly on path to the political tyranny everyone claims they oppose.

Nice job, people.



edit on 10-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Sarah Palin is only guilty of being a "tool" for whatever corporate masters she works for, so how about we only press charges where charges are due?
Corporations have no human ethics, they are only as ethical as the people that run them. Profits first means just that, and a corporation is at war with the competition, thus the rhetoric of their "tools" such as Palin.
AND, Obama himself as another member pointed out in another thread. Palin can't hold a candle to the rhetoric that has come from Obama. So, if Palin is guilty of a aiding and abetting a murder, what is Obama guilty of? Aren't they both working very hard at dividing the country?
The good congresswoman Gabrielle, based upon her record, did not appear to be a rabid partisan bent on destroying America with some new progressivism. She was conservative if anything, although I don't agree with all of the positions she took, she could be considered the "enemy" of the present Democratic administration.
It is a shame that the public, through blogs or whatever, have to hold our elected officials in check when something like this happens. It appears that MOB rule guides many of our elected officials, left and right, and we can't count on any common sense from many of them.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
In the future, political leaders or those wishing to be, might find it better to use less violent words and images to get their statement across to the public. A ballot box instead of a gun sight might have been a better choice.

I suppose appealing to people's logic versus emotions is a thing of the past.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by loam
 


Where not suggesting laws against speech or at least I wouldn’t, but these hypocrites are the main people always accusing moderate Muslims of not criticizing their own terrorists in their religion; but these right–wing conservatives who don’t indulge in this terroristic-type language have rarely taken their own lunatics in their midst to task and castigated them when they do indulge in this dangerous rhetoric.

We should use criticism and pressure on the Palin types when they indulge in dangerous language.

People have warned her and others on numerous occasions now she understands.


Democrat's have used worse language. Remember this,

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
blogs.wsj.com...

There have been other very nasty things said regarding Republicans. So, stop the hypocrisy. Politics is heated and while I don't remember anyone who would be considered a conservative public figure calling for the death of any liberal/democrat politicians, those exact words have come from some on the left.

More hype, more crisis, and we will see what they will offer as a "solution". SNAFU



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
In the future, political leaders or those wishing to be, might find it better to use less violent words and images to get their statement across to the public. A ballot box instead of a gun sight might have been a better choice.

I suppose appealing to people's logic versus emotions is a thing of the past.


Yes yes, let's limit the use of free speech because there is a billionth of a percent of idiots out there that do stupid things like this. Following your line of thought, I will be changing your diapers in the near future. If you don't understand what I mean, stew on it for a while.

I can't wait for the muzzled version of society to develop thanks to this train of thought. Reminds of how society turned out in the movie "demolition day", lol.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I am sooo not a Palin supporter, but let's be fair. MSNBC is making it a point to remind their viewers that Palin used cross-hairs to target Giffords, but neglects to report that Daily Kos targeted her using a bullseye. Be careful everyone. Try to keep a balanced perspective on what is truly happening in the MSN. Critical thinking has to be used in order to keep a cool head.



patterico.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erica1631
I am sooo not a Palin supporter, but let's be fair. MSNBC is making it a point to remind their viewers that Palin used cross-hairs to target Giffords, but neglects to report that Daily Kos targeted her using a bullseye. Be careful everyone. Try to keep a balanced perspective on what is truly happening in the MSN. Critical thinking has to be used in order to keep a cool head.



patterico.com...



MSNBC is lying by omission. I'm shocked.

I wonder what they will try next. I'm glad very few people watch MSNBC.
Everybody is running to Fox News for the whole story.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join