Spouting Off Like An Idiot (Or, Why Some Speech is Protected, While Other Speech Isn't)

Anne Coulter. Not a big fan. Then again, I don't know her personally. And I'm not a big fan of a lot of pundits, on either side. I think Laura Ingraham's got smarts a plenty. Kellyanne Conway really knows what she knows - she's a numbers person, and I have great respect for people who understand and use stats properly (like Ken Mehlman). On the other side there's Michele Mitchell, who wrote a great book, "A New Kind of Party Animal" and now works on Nova (almost wrote NoVA there - a force of habit).

But Coulter's always rubbed me the wrong way.

Anyhow, she opened her mouth last week, and made a really awful joke about poisoning a member of the high court. Not too funny (condemning the home of a Supreme Court member for a hotel - _that's_ clever). I put it in the same category as Pat Robertson's moronic statement about Ariel Sharon a few weeks ago - things that are just about the most moronic thoughts you can have, and really ought to best be kept to one's self.

So, this all went reported on on Andrew Kessler's blog (http://southpawspot.blogspot.com) - and while I hesitate to mention it, Kessler made a few more statements. I preface my thoughts by saying that I absolutely deplore and condemn the statements made by Coulter and Robertson both (which should be obvious by the paragraph above, but let's just make certain).

I'll get to what Kessler said in a moment, but let's just talk about speech, protection thereof, and the limits to individual rights.

We don't want to limit the rights of individuals to express themselves - in fact, it's just the opposite, we want to encourage as many people as possible to express themselves, especially when it comes to political speech. And essentially, all exercises of individual rights are limited by their implication of the rights of others.

In fact, all just laws are born out of that basic concept: I have a right to protect what's mine, but my right can't interfere with your rights in yourself and your property. Unless you're interfering with my rights.

Speech works the same way - you can say what you want, until that speech impacts on my rights. My rights to be secure in my person, for instance, which is why there are laws against making harassing statements, or making threats. Or why there are laws against slander and libel. Slander and libel cause me harm (though there are exceptions should the person being slandered be a public figure, or the statements so clearly untrue as to be implausible - as in Larry Flynt's satire of Rev. Jerry Falwell).

This is why there are laws against making threatening statements against public officials. See, unlike Mr. Kessler, I'm not going to make pronouncements as to the legality of Anne Coulter's deplorable remarks. They are deplorable and they merit an apology (and, perhaps, some soul searching on the part of Ms. Coulter as to exactly what she is trying to accomplish on this planet).

But I do understand why those laws exist - so that if the next Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan or Squeaky From (Frome?), Chapman, Booth, Guiteau, Hinkley or Unabomber starts making threatening statements against an official, something can be done about it. Moreover, so that those making the threats don't chill the free speech of those being threatened.

I've been on the receiving end of that sort of bullying. It's disconcerting. In my case, it didn't rise to the "Unabomber" level - thought it was somewhat more threatening than Ms. Coulter's remarks. But it certainly made me stop to think about the exercise of my rights.

Now, Mr. Kessler went a bit further than simply discussing Ms. Coulter's remarks. He then tried to paint the left as being free from such actions - and offered up the bet of $100 to the RNC if someone could demonstrate otherwise. He was somewhat specific, though a bit vague, as to the parameters - allow me to quote:

"No matter how angry liberal commentators get at the right, I can't recall one who has even joked about poisoning a public official. James Carville, Al Franken, Maureen Dowd- they all get pretty ticked off at the right. I'm putting my money where my mouth is, Ann. I will donate $100 to the Republican National Committee if you can show me proof that any of these people ever called for, or even joked about, the death of a Republican."

Now, I'm not certain if that $100 applies to just Mssrs Carville, Franken and Dowd - or to liberal commentators more generally. So, I'll cover my bases.

Randi Rhodes, Air America talk show host, May 10, 2004:

"They [the Bush Family] are the Corleones. The Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn’t his father take him, or his brother, one of them, take him out for a little, uh, fishing? You know, let him say some Hail Marys, he loves God so much. Yeah, take him out, you know, "Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee" -- POW!... Works for Me."

Then, on April 26 2005, Rhodes aired a skit saying, "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]." The "spoiled child" she was referring to was the President.

And to Kessler's more specific group is Al Franken. Franken, of course, famously (and gleefully) joked (in the form of a prediction) in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby would be "executed" for treason. (10/25/2005)

So, several examples of liberal pundits (including Franken) who either joked about the assassination of the President or the death of Republicans.

You want to let Ken Mehlman know your check is coming, or should I?

- Andrew Langer