Those under attack don't have to prove causation. Those who threaten must prove a LACK of causation

[Bill USA]

The attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of six others has prompted a debate about the affect of heated political debate - to include "hate" speech and threat rhetoric - on people. Some are saying that the use of threats and hate-speech contributes to some committing acts of violence (in particular upon people identified by those who use inflammatory hate speech). Others say that the shooter was a mad-man whose crime "began and ended with him" and cannot be connected to any statements made in the ongoing political debate. Members of the GOP seem to be feeling just a bit defensive on this point and have proclaimed nobody can PROVE that their hate speech and threats against Democrats actually directly 'caused' or 'contributed to' this imbalanced person's attempt to kill Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

This line of defense has been picked up and repeated by the defacto Public Relations wing of the GOP, the Corporate media. But this defense is wrong. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE - BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT - THAT HATE SPEECH CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THIS TRAGEDY. GIVEN THAT HUMAN LIVES ARE AT RISK HERE, IT IS UP TO THOSE WHO INSIST ON USING HATE SPEECH AND THREATS UPON THOSE WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE, TO PROVE - BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT - THAT THEIR HATE SPEECH DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO VIOLENT BEHAVIOR (TO INCLUDE ASSASSINATION) BY PERSONS KNOWN OR YET UNKNOWN. (i.e. those who will commit such acts in the future)

To the contrary to what many in the Corporate Media have been saying (in reading Conservative 'copy'), IT IS NOT A PARTISAN ACT TO QUESTION/CRITICIZE THE USE OF HATE SPEECH (by politicians and radio/tv personalities) AND TO URGE/INSIST THAT THOSE WHO USE HATE SPEECH SHOULD DESIST FROM SUCH A PRACTICE - UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE SUCH INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE DOES NOT INCITE (CONTRIBUTE TO) THE WEAKER IN OUR SOCIETY TO COMMIT DESTRUCTIVE, CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST PEOPLE. (It only seems partisan because virtually all the concern about hate-speech is being voiced by Democrats. But that is only true because almost all the acts of violence have been perpetrated upon Democrats and almost all the statements of hate and violence have been directed at Democrats by Republicans and Tea-Partiers. To say that this is a partisan issue is to propose that using hate-speech and threats of violence is a perfectly acceptable means of advancing your political position. Well, I guess in a sense it is partisan then, since only one party seems to regard hate-speech and threats of violence as acceptable methods of political persuasion.) Is it infringing on anybody's liberties or exercise of their right of free speech to insist that they present their arguments for their policies based upon their merits and to provide a logical argument why their policy or program is better (in functional, practical terms) than the policies proposed by those with whom they disagree - WITHOUT RESORTING TO HATE SPEECH OR THREATS - DIRECT OR IMPLIED? Clearly it is not.

THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. It is an issue of individual rights which goes to the heart of our democracy. Making threats on persons can limit their exercise of their rights of free speech and assembly and this then threatens our democracy. Anybody who says he believes in democracy should be against any practice or any person who acts in a manner which threatens our democracy. I cannot see why anyone should stand back from calling out those who attempt to infringe upon anyone's right to free speech - by use of hate-speech, personal threats (explicit or implied) and by the demonization of opponents.

[JohnWxy]

1. right on the money. THose who use hate-speech and threats must supply the evidence this does NOT

contribute in any way to persons committing acts of violence. THe Repubs and their golems in M$M are stating it backwards.

(would have recommended but was too late)