Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 15 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 1/14/11

Incendiary Speech

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   8 comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Paul Cohen

There has been considerable discussion this week about whether or not all of the inflammatory rhetoric that exists today in our media and in our politics might have contributed to the shooting in Colorado last weekend. Certainly it was not the only factor, but even if happened to play no actual role in this particular event, we all know that it had that potential and that it could play a central role in some similar future event. This inflammatory rhetoric is a problem for our country and a threat to the safety of all of us, not just to our political leaders.

Of course doing anything about the problem seems problematic due to the guarantees of our Constitution, and particularly by its First Amendment. We want to not only preserve the principles of free speech and freedom of assembly, we should all want to strengthen these rights. However, our courts have found that freedom of speech is not absolute and they have carved out exceptions. We are not allowed the freedom of fraudulent misrepresentation in business dealings and we are not allowed to incite violence. We are not allowed to defame others with the interesting exception of comments about public figures.

It would seem that another exception could be carved out by the courts, or preferably through legislation, that these same public figures have a special responsibility when it comes to incendiary speech. Because public figures can expect a large audience for their comments, the usual limitation that incendiary speech must be for immediate violence should be relaxed. In the case of public figures any call for violence or especially for killing should be forbidden and punishable by prison sentence. As noted before, public figures are already recognized as a special class when it comes to our free speech rights.

Our existing prohibition on incendiary speech was developed before the days of our mass media and it had in mind someone inciting a gathered crowd to violence. Today there is a new and every bit as serious danger of a prominent personality inciting violence that will only take form weeks or months later, possibly by a deranged individual. This is not unlike someone placing a bomb that will go off at some future time in some unknown location. It is not at all improper to regard either behavior as criminal.

Rate It | View Ratings

Paul Cohen Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Attended college thanks to the generous state support of education in 1960's America. Earned a Ph.D. in mathematics at the University of Illinois followed by post doctoral research positions at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Who Pays Taxes?

What Might be the Best Voting System?

What Could be Wrong with Ranked-Choice Voting?

Liberate Yourself from the Mainstream Media

Conservatives Without Conscience

Rethinking Which Voting System is Best

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend