Dr. Tiller is Merely "Hyperbolically" Dead

Why should the 1st Amendment protect someone who publicly says that a politician or judge or doctor should be killed?

Two reasons: Such statements are often hyperbole, and even statements that include an endorsement of violence can serve the purpose of communicating outrage about public policies. LA Times Editorial

In an unsigned editorial posted yesterday in the LA Times, the writer expresses dismay about the recent prosecution of Hal Turner. Turner, some may remember, is the racist, right-wing blogger who was recently arrested for posting threats to three Chicago judges because the judges in question upheld handgun bans.

Naturally, the un-named author makes gagging noises and pinches his or her nose in disgust, describing Turner’s views as “vile” and “odious.” This bit of theater is to show what an upstanding and moral person the writer is, and just how brilliantly the editorial’s clear-minded fairness glows against the nastiness of the person whose “rights” it is defending.

And of course, there is the mystic invocation of the word “hyperbole” -- a word we’ve been seeing a lot lately. For the past twenty years, it’s most frequently appeared in opinion pieces about prominent, white, right-wing pundits posting borderline and not-so-borderline threats of violence towards liberals, Muslims, Democrats, etc. (You rarely see the word invoked when the threatener is non-white or leftist. Funny that.)

When the word “hyperbole” appears in such editorials, the actual quotes that got the presumed victim of unfair censorship or criticism are almost always fudged slightly so they seem less inflammatory and the reaction to them less reasonable. In this case, the author allows as how “Turner, who last year publicly relished the idea of violence against editors of this newspaper, posted the photos and office addresses of the judges.”

In fact, Turner did more even than that:

Internet postings on June 2 and 3 proclaimed “outrage” over the June 2, 2009, handgun decision by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, further stating, among other things: “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.” The postings included photographs, phone numbers, work address and room numbers of these judges, along with a photo of the building in which they work and a map of its location

.
(Emphasis added)

Clearly concerned that all of this wasn’t quite explicit enough for the knuckle-draggers who constitute his fans, Turner also referred to the horrific case of a Chicago judge who came home to find her husband and mother murdered and added “Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit court didn’t get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed.”

But, of course, including these bits would put the lie to the writer’s insistence that Mr. Turner was merely using “hyperbole” as a means of “communicating outrage about public policies.”

It’s fascinating to watch just how far the envelope is being pushed by the right these days. I cannot remember a time when the act of bringing loaded guns to public events, including those attended by the President, was considered defensible. Can you even imagine, just for one moment, what the reaction would have been if the people protesting the Bush administration had shown up brandishing automatic weapons? Or spoke openly of murdering judges and violently overthrowing the Bush administration? Or if a politician had publicly applauded as a “great American” someone who had just referred to himself as a “proud left-wing terrorist?”

Heck, during the Bush administration there were cases of people being arrested for wearing the “wrong” t-shirt.

What’s changed, I wonder? Why this unprecedented tolerance for threats of violence against not only an administration, but anyone who supports its policies?

What’s different about this president? This adminstration? This time?

What could it possibly be…?