Yet again I almost deleted this email because I didn’t recognize the author. I have 101 unopened emails this a.m. and I pitch what looks like junk. Possible to put “Public Notice” first on the address line so it’s identifiable? This happens a lot.
Or worse, or a certain pride in seeing her self as a "scary person".
As little as I want to say anything that would engender any sympathy for the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene? I wonder if she doesn't have an abusive father or husband, and that has convinced her that abuse equals strength.
"In a country with such a strong gun culture as the US, the consequences are particularly worrisome."
Amen. If not a single new firearm were to be sold after today, (a nation already awash in over 400 million of them,) and were 50,000 guns to be destroyed daily, it would take about 22 years for America to be gun-free. Firearms may tragically take a prominent role in 2024 politics.
It hasn't helped that we have an actual fake news station that profits off of the fears and biases of its viewers. Fox propaganda has long been connected to acts of domestic terrorism.
"This is a country where violence thoroughly saturates the national culture, and increasingly, mainstream politics." I absolutely agree with your positions on hate speech and violence. However, it is never discussed that this approach to use violence, verbal, emotional, mental and physical, is predominately done by men. Not all men, but too many turn to violence in its many forms to force others to do what they want. The bully and gun culture in the US also pushes this normalization. And yes, I know MTG and Boebert and some other women in Congress push gun culture but they are a very small minority of women, and they're as wrong as all the men that do this.
I'd be interested to hear some data as to whether or how much, threats of violence towards politicians has gone up versus down. I think this article conflates the issue of ugly speech with the problem of threats or actual acts of violence. Yes hate speech is an abomination but I honestly can't see how it can be attacked in the US with the First Amendment and I wonder if criticizing those who spout it makes them more angry, reinforces their sense of power ('look I'll do it again and there's nothing you can do about it") and gives unhelpful attention to it. Actual violence or talk that violence is OK is something that can be tackled. I think the US public can take on board the idea that stupid talk means that the crazy people in every society might be moved to do something really dreadful - definitely a worry in a country awash with firearms.
All speech is not allowed in all forums. We all are clear on some, such as not yelling fire in a crowded venue. That is to prevent stampeding people to death. In fact, inciting people to do things that leads to the death of people, is questionable speech. Right now, I do not see why the speech of threatening people is allowed. Is threatening people protected speech? No it is not! One can go to prison for threatening someone with harm, and frankly, I think that Jim Jordan should be brought to task on this. However, since Mob rule is the norm in the Republican party, they are all becoming inured to it, or leaving. We saw Illinois Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger decide to leave politics. I believe I heard him say his family was threatened. https://www.businessinsider.com/adam-kinzinger-trump-threats-against-him-his-wife-and-mother-2022-7
We have a big problem with politically motivated violence, and that is not addressed enough by the mainstream press. Therefore they contribute to the problem, by understating it.
The current state of the First Amendment protections is based on the idea that speech by someone must encourage "imminent lawless action." The focus is on "imminent." But this situation seems to me to be different from someone who doesn't just encourage but actually threatens a particular person. Prosecutors do have a tool there--18 USC Section 875(c) "Transmission in Interstate or Foreign Commerce of any Communication Containing a Threat to Injure the Person of Another." That is what Abigail Jo Shry is charged with after her threat to Judge Chutkan.
It would help if instead of just citing threats to self or family as a reason for action (like Kinzinger) the actual threat was reported to the DOJ for investigation and perhaps prosecution. Does anyone know if such is being done?
In Counterman v Colorado the court decided that the test for threats depended on whether the person making the threat was aware that others would think the recipient would consider it a threat. That is "looser" than the "objective view" that a reasonable person would have considered the statement a threat, but it seems to me that as a standard it leaves a whole lot of possibilities open.
Yet again I almost deleted this email because I didn’t recognize the author. I have 101 unopened emails this a.m. and I pitch what looks like junk. Possible to put “Public Notice” first on the address line so it’s identifiable? This happens a lot.
Thanks Christine. I understand the confusion and will think on a solution.
Thanks. It would be great if it could be fixed. I delayed my paid subscription because it’s been so frustrating. And you don’t want that!!😏
I just sent a message to Substack support to see if there's a workaround. Stay tuned and thanks for looping me in about this.
You have my sympathy Christine. Somehow you've got to put your Inbox on a diet!
Yeah, my Gmail doesn't show the full sender. I have done this on occasion. I've learned now to check first!!
MTG "Guns aren't scary. Bad people are" - as she shows a picture of her morally bereft self shooting guns. 🤦🏻♀️
No self-awareness that she is a scary person!
Or worse, or a certain pride in seeing her self as a "scary person".
As little as I want to say anything that would engender any sympathy for the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene? I wonder if she doesn't have an abusive father or husband, and that has convinced her that abuse equals strength.
She divorced her husband after cheating on him with her CrossFit instructor.
OK, that fits what I think of her far better than that she's the victim of abuse....
"In a country with such a strong gun culture as the US, the consequences are particularly worrisome."
Amen. If not a single new firearm were to be sold after today, (a nation already awash in over 400 million of them,) and were 50,000 guns to be destroyed daily, it would take about 22 years for America to be gun-free. Firearms may tragically take a prominent role in 2024 politics.
It hasn't helped that we have an actual fake news station that profits off of the fears and biases of its viewers. Fox propaganda has long been connected to acts of domestic terrorism.
At the very least Jordan should say "hey.... thanks for the support, but don't threaten people on my behalf."
"This is a country where violence thoroughly saturates the national culture, and increasingly, mainstream politics." I absolutely agree with your positions on hate speech and violence. However, it is never discussed that this approach to use violence, verbal, emotional, mental and physical, is predominately done by men. Not all men, but too many turn to violence in its many forms to force others to do what they want. The bully and gun culture in the US also pushes this normalization. And yes, I know MTG and Boebert and some other women in Congress push gun culture but they are a very small minority of women, and they're as wrong as all the men that do this.
You really expect an aging dumb jock, like Jim Jordan to embrace anything other than a fascistic solution?
What kind of person would wear a shirt that read “Death To ____”? There are some genuinely lousy excuses for human beings out there.
I'd be interested to hear some data as to whether or how much, threats of violence towards politicians has gone up versus down. I think this article conflates the issue of ugly speech with the problem of threats or actual acts of violence. Yes hate speech is an abomination but I honestly can't see how it can be attacked in the US with the First Amendment and I wonder if criticizing those who spout it makes them more angry, reinforces their sense of power ('look I'll do it again and there's nothing you can do about it") and gives unhelpful attention to it. Actual violence or talk that violence is OK is something that can be tackled. I think the US public can take on board the idea that stupid talk means that the crazy people in every society might be moved to do something really dreadful - definitely a worry in a country awash with firearms.
All speech is not allowed in all forums. We all are clear on some, such as not yelling fire in a crowded venue. That is to prevent stampeding people to death. In fact, inciting people to do things that leads to the death of people, is questionable speech. Right now, I do not see why the speech of threatening people is allowed. Is threatening people protected speech? No it is not! One can go to prison for threatening someone with harm, and frankly, I think that Jim Jordan should be brought to task on this. However, since Mob rule is the norm in the Republican party, they are all becoming inured to it, or leaving. We saw Illinois Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger decide to leave politics. I believe I heard him say his family was threatened. https://www.businessinsider.com/adam-kinzinger-trump-threats-against-him-his-wife-and-mother-2022-7
While that may not be his stated reason for leaving, I suspect it could have contributed. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/31/us-political-violence-threats-against-lawmakers
We have a big problem with politically motivated violence, and that is not addressed enough by the mainstream press. Therefore they contribute to the problem, by understating it.
https://newrepublic.com/article/168391/political-violence-is-republicans-problem
The current state of the First Amendment protections is based on the idea that speech by someone must encourage "imminent lawless action." The focus is on "imminent." But this situation seems to me to be different from someone who doesn't just encourage but actually threatens a particular person. Prosecutors do have a tool there--18 USC Section 875(c) "Transmission in Interstate or Foreign Commerce of any Communication Containing a Threat to Injure the Person of Another." That is what Abigail Jo Shry is charged with after her threat to Judge Chutkan.
It would help if instead of just citing threats to self or family as a reason for action (like Kinzinger) the actual threat was reported to the DOJ for investigation and perhaps prosecution. Does anyone know if such is being done?
In Counterman v Colorado the court decided that the test for threats depended on whether the person making the threat was aware that others would think the recipient would consider it a threat. That is "looser" than the "objective view" that a reasonable person would have considered the statement a threat, but it seems to me that as a standard it leaves a whole lot of possibilities open.