The Connection Between Violent Speech, Acts and Their Toleration

There is a belief by many people that words, in and of themselves, do not  hurt.

But the fact of the matter is that words can have a very harmful effect.  The old nursery school adage referenced several weeks ago by The Sensible Conservative that “sticks and stones’ (you know the rest) is simply not true and never was. 

Words, on their own, do indeed hurt.  Yet, more seriously, they can lead to “broken bones”.  Society, beyond the schoolyard, has long recognized that fact.  So shouting fire in a crowded theater can be a criminal act.  As can words which incite rioting. 

Free speech, of course, as enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment is one of the core elements of America’s political system.  The Amendment’s proponents believed its existence would ensure that open discussion would occur and that unpopular and minority views would not be suppressed for those reasons.  Apart from proscriptions of incitement, there are no legal limits on language use, but there have long been social restraints.  Those participating in the political process as candidates, their supporters and pundits were expected to express themselves civilly and to be polite to those taking contrary positions.  Those not abiding by such unwritten, but generally recognized, rules of political behavior, were ostracized. [Albeit, the Civil War being a major exception.] In other words, political discourse was confined by general agreement within certain boundaries regardless of the absence of legally mandated rules of campaign conduct.

No longer.

Why?  As discussed several weeks ago, substantial elements of each party have a very low opinion of the other.  Hatred is not too strong a label to apply to the feelings of some partisans.  Understandably, it is next to impossible to be polite and civil towards those one despises.

The broader culture - of which one should always remember, politics reflects - now sanctions, even encourages, behavior unbounded by guidelines of appropriate conduct and speech.  Obviously, the disintegration of polite society didn’t begin yesterday. 

Remember the Jerry Springer Show which hit the airways some twenty-five years ago?  It was hardly alone in debasing civility.

Now we hear and see representatives of popular culture like Madonna calling for the burning down of the White House and Kathy Griffin holding up an effigy of Donald Trump’s severed head.

Has it now become OK to call for violence by word or deed against politicians of a different persuasion?  And if a political foe deserves harsh rhetoric, is the barrier against actual violence still strong?  Is harming members of the other side now more understandable and, hence, more tolerable? 

Consider a media interview with a resident (and softball coach, as she was described) from the Alexandria,VA’s  shooter’s home town of Belleville, Illinois.  She condemned the former resident’s actions but added that the regard for Congress was so low that she could understand his doing what he did.  Oh?