Guest post by Andrew Schwartz
The recent shooting of Congresswoman Giffords has reinvigorated those who seek to curtail the freedom of expression. Of course, they will not say it as such; instead they will use the tragedy as a precedent for why “language or symbols perceived as threatening or inciting violence” should be regulated and restricted within society.
Representative Robert Brady (D-PA), has planned to introduce legislation that will, in his words, “close down rhetoric.” However, this legislation that proposes to regulate perception—as does any bill attempting to limit liberty—begs a screaming question: by whom? Who can possibly be qualified to interpret the implications of one individual and proscribe to him a categorical standard created by his equals?
The left jumped at the opportunity—as if they had been patiently poised to do so on command—to blame the imagery of Sarah Palin’s political rhetoric during the 2010 campaign. The correlation was frightening, since her ad depicted Giffords’ district with political crosshairs, an image commonly associated with ballistic weaponry. They declared her implications were the cause of violence, and should thus be silenced.
But those who hastily drew their conclusions forgot two very elementary principles of statistics and logic.
The first is that correlation does not equal causation.
As more details come to light, it is becoming clearer that this man was no “right-wing” extremist, and was definitely not a tea-party member. I would venture to say that anyone whose favorite influential literature includes the Communist Manifesto and rails against capitalism is no fan of Sarah Palin and therefore extremely unlikely to be influenced by her advertisements to such a conclusion. No, his shooting of Giffords was not caused by Palin any more than the recent mass wildlife deaths have been caused by the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, despite the apparent correlation.
The second is that implication does not equal inference.
Even if Loughner was influenced by Palin (which he clearly was not), simply because one individual interprets the implications of another does not mean his interpretation—his inference—is correct. Individuals act because they infer, not because someone else implies. Only when the inference and implication are incontrovertibly demonstrated to threaten the life, liberty, and property of another individual, should both parties be prosecuted. Had Sarah Palin said, “We must now target this district to injure its representative,” there could be little doubt as to its desired inference. But to simply use a common political metaphor for focus, she nor any other person who uses such language and imagery can be blamed for actions based on a distant individual’s interpretation.
This bill, or any other legislation that attempts to restrict expression, will not further protect anyone in their lives, liberties, or properties. It may only create a false sense of security that one has the right to expect his individual constitution and character free from any inferred threat against him; but when that expectation is breached—real or simply perceived—his recourse is not to defend himself against words, but to demand a federal intervention into the intents of his offender based upon his own interpretation.
Implication and inference are inherently and eternally subjective. If we accept this maxim, then no congress or executive can objectively regulate or enforce this law, whether liberal, conservative, or moderate.
One cannot objectively legislate the subjective, because his own subjective biases determine what is “objectively” acceptable or forbidden. The only solution, then—as it is for any form of expression—is to simply protect an individual’s liberty to speak, whether in instigation or retort, and then to prosecute fully any action that infringes upon another’s life, liberty, or property.
To begin to blame an ideology for the actions of an individual is incoherent. It is no more valid to blame violence on political orientation than it is to do so on race or religion.
If we react prematurely and allow our political representatives to limit expression based on their, and our own, interpretations of what is acceptable, then we give them eternal power to silence any metaphor, satire, exposition, or opinion they find objectionable. And because prevailing ideologies in policy are fickle and cyclical, we as a society will soon be left with no free expression except that which is agreeable to the prevailing authority.
