Crosshairs on the First Amendment

           The Left’s narrative on the Arizona shooting goes something like this:  A conservative shoots a leftist representative and it’s because of the hostile political rhetoric that solely comes from conservative voices like Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck.  Therefore, these voices should be censored--even by official means. 

Here are the problems with this assessment.  First of all, the shooter wasn’t a conservative.  It appears that the last time he showed political support for a candidate was in ’04 for John Kerry.  He even wore an “Out in Four” button.  So, should we blame Kerry?  As recently as ’07 those that knew the shooter considered him “left-wing” and described him as a “liberal.”  However, his current list of favorite ideas include reinstatement of the gold standard, mind control, and the 2012 apocalypse, which don’t resemble any mainstream political school of thought--much less, conservatism.

Then there’s Rep. Gifford.  She’s certainly no darling of the Left.  Don’t let the D next to her name fool you.  She supported gun-rights, opposed illegal immigration, and failed to back Rep. Pelosi for minority leader in the House. These aren’t the trademarks of someone on the far left.  You could almost make the argument, with more certainly, that a leftist shot a conservative on Saturday.

The prime example of hostile right-wing speech that the left cites is a political graphic from the Palin camp that shows several elected representatives behind crosshairs--urging their electoral defeats. Never mind the fact that left-wing incitement and left-wing violence is more prevalent and even more accepted.  There are images of those on the right with guns to their heads, being decapitated, and even being defecated on.  Furthermore, there are actual beatings and riots and general bullying of ideological opponents that are fueled by left-wing angst.  Malkin has documented this well.  So, the next time a public figure gets shot and someone wants to connect it to aggressive political speech, look left--there’s no shortage there.

The left has labored over recent days to convince the public that Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck are responsible for the shooting.  This is kind of like blaming Walter Cronkite for the Weather Underground.  Besides, it’s now been reported that the shooter spoke ill of Rep. Gifford back in ’07--before Palin hit the national scene, before Beck transferred to Fox, and before the rise of the Tea Party.  If anything his animosity towards Rep. Gifford began fomenting when he was considered left-wing.

Apparently, one of the shooter’s beliefs was that the government was using mind control through manipulation of our grammar.  Strangely enough, the left has been engaging in grammar policing with their multicultural newspeak for years.  If it’s okay to ask if the right incited the shooter is it also fair to ask if the left provoked the shooter?  The left leaning FCC is intervening in the internet more and more and this latest tragedy has renewed leftist calls for controlling media through the fairness doctrine and passing legislation that would prohibit threatening a federal official.  I suppose that last action might have merit but I wonder if there’s a law that prohibits a federal official from threatening you and me?

With the Fairness Doctrine the left would limit speech that they deem too politically aggressive--which is to say conservative speech.  There’s only one problem--the 1^st Amendment, which “prohibit(s)…abridging the freedom of speech (Palin), or of the press (Beck, Limbaugh), or the right of the people to peaceably assemble (Tea Parties), and to petition the government for the redress of grievances (what the left call’s anti-government, hate- speech).”

Some of you might be thinking that the First Amendment would stop the Fairness Doctrine from taking hold but the truth is that the First Amendment would be the main target of the Fairness Doctrine.  They want to censer speech and justify it as a remedy to violence like the kind in Arizona.  In the American sense, this is as fundamental as fundamentally transformed becomes.

So, the real narrative goes something like this:  Some nut shot a moderately, liberal congresswoman. 

It’s tragic but blame it on the guy that pulled the trigger--not individuals who are peacefully exercising their freedom of political expression.  Using this incident as a means to limit the First Amendment is shameful.  Not only because it’s insensitive to those involved in the shooting but also because it attempts to devalue the American experience and eliminate one of it’s most cherished virtues from it’s conception.  I’d expect to find this fight in China, Iran, and maybe even Venezuela…but not here.