Washington (CNN) - Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania, said he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.
Brady's decision to offer the legislation comes less than 24 hours after a gunman attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, in a shooting that claimed the lives of a federal judge, and a nine year-old girl, among others.
"The president is a federal official," Brady said in a telephone interview with CNN. "You can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge.
"This is not a wake up call, this is major alarms going off," he said.
Brady is particularly incensed over a web posting by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during the 2010 election in which she targeted 20 House Democrats, including Giffords for political defeat. The posting showed a map of the United States with the 20 Democratic congressional districts identified by gun sights.
"You can't put bulls eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official," Brady said. "I understand this web site that had it on there is no longer in existence. Someone is feeling a little guilty."
But a Palin aide Saturday denied the web posting from the 2010 congressional campaign was designed to incite violence. Rebecca Mansour told conservative host Tammy Bruce that it was a political tool and noted it should have been removed after the November election.
Brady said he is hearing that the spouses of some of his congressional colleagues, specifically the newly elected members, are terrified and questioning whether they should remain in Congress. Upon hearing the news of the shooting Saturday, some spouses attending a freshman retreat in West Virginia, were "taking their children out of the daycare," Brady said he was told.
"The spouses are in an uproar," he said. "They are panicking."
Brady said it is now time to put an end to the hyper-charged language.
"The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down," Brady said, noting that "I've had my share of death threats" over his many years in politics.
Brady said he has not spoken to his House colleagues about the bill or a senator who might offer similar legislation. But Brady noted that he hoped to have it ready as soon as possible.
Brady stressed he is not "pointing at any particular party" noting that there is Democratic rhetoric and actions at times that he thinks is out of bounds. "You can disagree without being disagreeable," he said.
As for support for the bill, Brady said, "Why would you be against it?"
From CNN Politics
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
Well, they are now saying that this guy acted alone (the 2nd suspect has been found and cleared). It is apparent if you watch this man's videos that he was crazy. If you couple that with his drug use, its very easy to see how this bad series of events could have occurred.
This guy was going to kill his congresswoman and it didn't matter that she was democrat or republican. His indiscriminant killing of bystanders showed that he was lashing out wildly rather than this being a targeted assassination. There's also talk that they found a suicide note on his person when they caught him. Iwatched all his videos and he makes no mention of democrats or replublicans or Tea Party, nor does he mention "The left" or "The Right". He has a chaotic political philosophy that could only exist inside the mind of a very depressed crazy person.
Any of you who wish to paint this incident as the fault of any political party or somehow blame Rush/Beck/Hannity are merely wishing desperately for facts that don't exist.
It's just like when John Hinkley shot Reagen and said he did it to impress Jodie Foster. Loughner is just another crazy man with a gun who unfortunately slipped through the system.
It should have been in place a long time ago... We always have to wait for a tragedy to get things done, so very sad.
It would be more useful and benefit all Americans if Congress would enact effective gun control legislation.
I hope and pray Giffords' family sues Sarah Palin for everything she's worth because they do have enough proof to do so. And furthermore, suing will send a message to all politicians to "tone down" their political rhetoric. Never in my entire life have I've seen a so-called politician like Palin sprew such divisive and hateful remarks which were clearly her intent and it worked.
There is not one shred of direct evidence that this kid shot anyone based on political rhetoric he heard. Not one shred!! ZERO!
So who will be the judge of what is or isn't offensive? What is considered to be threatening? If I say that "I'm going to beat you soundly in the election", does that mean I'm going physically beat you up?
More stupid reactionary legislation and it will never pass anyway. This legislation is suppression of free speech. Under these loose definitions, I could silence any opposition argument I wanted by labeling it as dangerous hate-speech.
This country would never have existed if these laws existed when the founders of this country broke away from England. This law will only make things worse.
Those who were shocked by "You Lie" or ".....Reload" will support it. Not sure about about those who support that kind of language.
Excellent plan..........put the blame where it belongs.........Palin and her ilk!
Will this legislation include candidates who make such comments against their opponents? Will it include cable TV commentators?
I am a liberal and definitely feel the rhetoric has gotten WAY out of hand, but I wonder about this being unconstitutional. I guess as long as he specifies that said language or symbols are intended to incite physical or extreme mental harm to the elected official, but that is already illegal, so I guess this just upgrades it from a felony to a federal crime. But I'm sure some people will question this as restricting people's freedom of speech.
Personally, I think the best way to address this kind of danger is to try anyone who attacks or harasses an elected official with the intent to incite fear in the official and/or the public, and expects to use that fear to sway the discourse towards their own personal ideaology – to try them as terrorists and enemies of the state. That is, after all, what they are and we should start treating them that way. We need to start showing many Americans in this country that terrorism does not always come wrapped up in a turbin – that it exists in many forms and whenever a person uses fear and violence to express their ideaology it is terrorism pure and simple.
"You can't put bulls eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official,"
Yes you can. And you shouldn't go around threatening free speech every time there is an emergency. It is unfortunate, but in order to protect the rights of decent people we have to give the same rights to imbeciles like Sarah Palin as well.
Who would be against it? Anyone who saw Hitler come to power. Its is unbelievable what happened the other day. But having some law that can be used politically to arrest people would not have prevented this nut job from killing people!
That is a totally unacceptable attack on personal freedom of speech.
This is simply common sense. Palin started the "lock and load" rhetoric and continued with gun sights over members of congress. Presidential material or prison time?
About Time!! AND THEY BETTER PASS IT WITH NO DELAY AND NO MONKEY BUSINESS.i have said all along~it IS against the law already,to do,against the President and VP,what HAS been done to them.and it must always be against the law ,and,really is,but needs to be stronger now,to do that to ANY official.There are a LOT of folks who SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW,for the images and words used against the President,and.others,including Ms.Gifford, these past 2 years~a whole lot of folks.
He's right about one thing in particular: this level of absurd political hatred that we have for those on the other side is absurd. America was the strongest both economically and militarily when the left and the right came to the middle. Instead of that, we have people like Glenn Beck on one side and Keith Olbermann on the other, spewing their vitriol, and people just eat it up.
Instead of pointing fingers at people and political parties, we need to assign blame to faulty policies. We need to stop listening to politicians who don't give us the facts. People falsely believed that Bush was planning for a war with Iran, and they also falsely believed that Obama's healthcare plan included death panels. Both of these turned out to be false, but because their political opponents repeated it over and over again without ever providing proof, people believed them.
Democrat, Republican, or Independent, we're all Americans. It's time we started treating each other as such.
It's disingenuous of Palin and all the Tea Baggers to say that they bear no responsibility whatsoever in this matter. I agree wholeheartedly that this individual acted as an individual. However, Palin and crew have set the tenor of political conversation with the references to reloading and Angle's second amendment remedies. Don't forget all those signs of watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants at the town hall meetings last year held by armed protesters. These actions have made it okay for those that are unstable to consider it "normal" to have an armed response to those with whom they disagree. Words have consequences. If you don't want the consequences (or are desperately denying responsibility), then perhaps measuring your words would be better.
So it's not okay to incite violence toward a federal official, but it's okay for Congressmen to run around saying that Julian Assange should be killed.
They're using this for another hit against freedom of speech.
"language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official"
Wow, so who ever is in the justice department can decide that against the party out of power! Wow,, like all dems say never let an emergency go to waste. We have a right to protest and call our reps anything we want. Its America! Like Cory said, no law would have kept this crazy person from doing what he did. We all need to be praying for our country!
I've had to distance myself from a family member because of the "flakey" rhetoric and actions the last two years. She and her husband bought 2 more guns (semi-automatic) - they now have a total of 29 guns. These two people are in their 70's. They worship S Palin and t-baggers, and scare the bejesus out of their neighbors. It's gone too far. WAAAAAYYY TOO FAR.
They are in an uproar!! They are paniking!! It's the same all over again. The regressives go for the emotion and not logic. They are coming for the protection that you believe you have under the 2nd amendment. If any of the bozos had thought they were threatened by the various billboards, flyers, mailings etc. that depicted crosshairs – were they crosshairs/target symbole over a person, a distrct, unconstitutional building etc. – they would have done something well before this. I guess Target will really have to watch their ad campaigns. If the congresswoman was really the focus of this deranged idiot (or should I say alleged be cause he hasn't been judged by a jury of his peers. BTW, who would his peers be – congressional members?) ; why were there so many others killed and wounded? Anyway, no politician is ever worth the effort to bring harm to them or anyone associated with or around them. They are inconsequential until they start abridging your freedoms; then, vote them out. They really fear the ballot box more than physical violence.
I disagree with the said legislation in some parts.. but what I agree with others on is this country need some sort of coherent gun control laws!!!
I knew it was only a matter of time before our 1st ammendment rights would be under attack. The shooting was horrifying, as it always is when tragedy strikes. I lived through the shootings at Fort Hood just over a year ago, I vividly remember Columbine and Virginia Tech; I would never make light of these events. However, "language or symbols percieved as threatening or inciting violence" is so completely subjective that it would be very easy to use this new legislation to scare Americans into silence, not allowing them to speak out against their government if they disagree. Not to mention the fact that many people work out their frustration and anger through words, artwork, political satire and cartoons, etc. which sometimes are extremely exaggerated in order to make a point and they are protected by the 1st ammendment. I should be able to yell, scream, stomp my feet and swear at my government when they are not doing the right thing without fear of reprisal. I would never, ever employ violence in this manner, but I do get mad and disagree at times; words are a non-lethal outlet for anger and frustration. And the right to disagree with the government is a cornerstone of American freedom. I think the very last thing we should do is allow the government to use this tragedy to take away our rights. It's disgusting and uncalled for. "He who would trade liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty or security and will lose both".
The sad thing is that this legislation is needed at all.
A law against speech. There's a great idea!
But why can't we have a law against murder too? Because with an anti-murder law, all the killing would stop.
It would be much better if Politicians and celebrities like Palin would just think before talking and creating web pages that are over the edge. Crosshairs only means one thing and a person with morals would not use such a page. This is not Palins fault but you cannot unring the bell, of that Crosshairs page, it was downright nasty and even though she never intended for anyone to be shot there is still a level of responsibility. There are unwritten codes of conduct in sports and there should be a code of ethics when it comes to people or politicians that bear false witness and spread lies and fear. The code could simply be called "Think before you act". There are people that make millions from their hate filled speeches and write books of lies and get rich and tour the country without regard for anything but money and it is time they bear responsibility of their actions
Another knee-jerk legislator with tunnel vision. Passing legislation should not be a coping mechanisim. This is not a gun rights/control issue. It is a mental health issue for which we will never find a solution; it will never be acceptable to lock up mental defectives indefinitely or even supervise them 24/7, even if it were possible to identify each and every one.
What happened is indeed tragic; however, I think the American public is tired of Politicians having their own special health care, not participating in Social Security, getting retirement pay after short periods of service, etc. I think that a politicians life is not worth one day more in jail than if a homeless man is assaulted. Again, my empathy to those anyone who is attacked by the raving loons of our society; but, setting Politicians even further apart from the average American they are to represent will not make the loons go away.
I think such legislation is too subjective to be passed. People need to apply their own common sense and values and not allow themselves to be subjected to the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and is ilk. Consuming bad food as a metaphor; eventually poop happens is a diarrhea like what is unfolding now. In time, a better value system will emerge, because whether left or right; garbage in will be garbage out. We are in a fight yes. It is like a game of football. We can beat each other up to win but there are rules governing fouling.
The shame is on the voters for rewarding such bad behavior.
Would this law have prevented this tragedy? Would ANY law?
Too bad 6 innocent folks had to die before a law was passed making it illegal to incite others to violence.
A sad day in America.
I would be against it because it is unconstitutional...to answer the Congressman's question.
You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre just for fun. You should not be able to target rival politicians with gunsights and call it a "political tool". This should be called the Sarah Palin Bill when it passes.
Sure, the rhetoric has been off the charts the last several years from both sides of the aisle. Threatening anybody is unpleasant and in a few forms, illegal. To make general suppositions about the intent of someone's speech and then suppress it based on your definition of their intent is to bar freedom of speech. Crosshairs and bullseyes have been marking targets of a non-shooting sort for years and years. This is simply reactionary politics. He asks "Why would you be against it?" Well, because I've read my copy of the Constitution and this would be in direct opposition to it.
Though well intentioned, it is band-aid legislation. The US has become a country, culture(s) and people(s) that glorify violence in sports (take cage fighting for example, football, etc.) and now even in " cross-hairs' "political rhetoric, that sell it as an entertainment commodity, that has substituted it for dialogue and tolerance, and that has mistakenly come to believe it is justified as a means to whatever end one wants even sanctioned by the US constitutional amendment of the right to bear arms though by "a well regulated Militia." And yet religion is booming! There is something wrong with this picture, isn't there?
of course this guy was a loon and so far appears not to have had some the fired-up sometimes hateful political rhetoric been the reason for the shootings. But still it should not have taken something like this for Congress to act on what has been going on since the 2008 election. We are lucky during some of those Healthcare forums and Tea Party rallies that something like this hadn't happened yet. It seems though many turned a deaf ear to it because they were afraid to upset their base and might not get elected or re-elected. Now all we have is the right and left pointing fingers at each other. I'm sure the talk shows this week are not going to do the mea culpa thing and continue to pass the buck
"Paul
There is not one shred of direct evidence that this kid shot anyone based on political rhetoric he heard. Not one shred!! ZERO!"
So what you are saying, Paul, is that this lunatic just happened to walk into that store and started shooting? That he hadn't heard that Rep. Giffords was going to be there? That he didn't specifically target HER and shot her in the head as an innocent bystander? REALLY?!? This IS the result of the hate merchants that permeate our radio and TV airwaves, both left and right. Words of intolerance and hate spewed by people day after day on our airwaves WILL (and did) catch someone imbalanced enough to act upon those words. Words have consequences. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater will get someone to act. So will "Don't retreat; RELOAD!" These merchants of hate, on both side, need to be stopped. We should be a civilized society, and be able to discuss and, yes, compromise on our differences in a civilized manner. I applaud Rep. Boehner, and Rep. Cantor for their reactions to this, and, yes, I am "reaching across the aisle" on this one. Let's hope that it does not stop with initial reactions and translates into a new realization and civil discourse, as we are ALL Americans, and we ALL want what is best for our country. I also hope to see Rep. Giffords take her rightful place in the House, and I pray that day comes soon and she recovers.
That legislation should include political campaign speeches that are inciting, and everyone, for their political beliefs, views and affiliation. Innocent men and women have been murdered by these extremists over their beliefs and association with a political party or cause.
It's already very illegal to threaten the president, so it's really not a big stretch (or an added insult to the first amendment) to extend that to other members of political office. Even if you don't say that you, yourself, are going to personally assault the president, if you are using language to incite others to do it, it is still a federal offense.
There is simply no excuse for using violence, perceived or real, against anyone. Much less in political discourse.
Thoughts and prayers go out to Congresswoman Giffords, all families, and friends affected by this tragedy. The situation highlights the need for everyone to take pause and responsibility for our actions.
America does not need misguided promotion of violence no matter how unintentional, any more irresponsible crosshairs on maps, nor demagogues on TV, radio, and the Internet pushing wild conspiracy theories over gold or other nonsense that can have adverse effects, instead of promoting positive efforts.
Our choice of words truly matter to one another. Please think about it going forward.
A good rule would be to not pass legislation when you're hysterical. Congress will find it hard to believe but you can't legislate away all problems.
Why don't we just put the Constitution in the trash? One person wants to throw out the first amendment (freedom of speech) and another wants to throw out the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms).
What happened is terrible; but, these knee jerk extremist reactions are scary. Wouldn’t it be better to get the facts first?
Mark David Chapman was influenced by "The Catcher in the Rye." John Hinckley was influenced by the movie "Taxi Driver." Charles Manson was influenced by the Beatles song, "Helter Skelter."
Where does it end?
Just today I read on CNN, "Rosanne Barr Blasts Palin" and "Roseanne Barr...took shots at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during an interview." Should these be considered "violent images?"
Who decides whats inciting violence? The standard is too vage. Bad idea, knee jerk reaction. Funny how the congress is reacting so swiftly when they feel threatened. They are the ones who when an attack or diaster strikes the public tout the "dont panic "mantra. Time to take thier own advice. BTW what about all the kids who are shot everyday in this country? Dont see 24 hour coverage about them. Are they worth less? The fact is in the real world some lives are valued and some not so much. Sad commentary on this society. How many kids were shot just today in this country? What about that violence? What about all the kids in this country that live in fear daily? WHAT ABOUT THEM!!!!! The silence is deafening for them. But we will hear about the fear in government for day and and days and days.
In reading the rantings of this deranged man who apparently thought he was intellectually superior than anyone else, I find it highly unlikely he was inspired by anything Ms. Palin said. This bill is just another boorish attempt by another inept politician hoping to make a name for himself.
Where was the outrage regarding dangerous rhetoric when the left in America openly wished for the death of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney....culminating with a film showing George Bush being killed. I have never seen that type of vitriol come from conservatives. I have never seen a conservative wish for someone to die. I have seen it from the left countless times. Please pray for all who lost their lives in this tragedy, as well as for the soul of this crazy young man.
Sounds like a wise peice of legislation given what just happened.
This is moment of awakening. It's easy to be angry and takes lots of strength, not to be. We must summon that inner strength and pray for our nation. Pray for the likes of Sarah Palin and other extremists, that they might emancipate themselves from the shackles of ignorance and intolerance. Pray for those who embrace violence as an a means to achieve a goal. We all saw this coming and some of us cheered. When Joe Miller of Alaska and Sharon Angle were campaigning with a well-armed militia marching behind them. We cannot afford to militarize our body politics. The danger is colossal.
Amazing. No evidence whatsoever that the shooter was in any way influenced by "hate speech", and Brady want a law that makes it "a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official." Note the "could be perceived as". Incredible. I guess the 1st Amendment gets tossed with the 4th. From what I know about Gabby, she seems a very decent, thoughtful intelligent and fair-minded Representative. Don't disgrace her with this garbage.
Amazing. 6 people die and our legislatures 1st turn to free speech. The 1st bill should be ramped up security and tighter tracking and profiling measures for individuals on target lists; pure and simple. Just for an exercise, lets say this bill was law during the Bush years? What would have happened then to those with their full rights to protest, verbally spout and display their pure hatred for that President? I personally witnessed signs showing Bush being hanged. Does that warrant going to jail for a political hate-crime? Congress had better concentrate on their security first, calming their rhetoric and setting the example for resepectful discourse and debate second, and then move on to business.
Congress doing for their security what they did for their health insurance – pass a law so they are better protected than anyone who is paying for their benefit. How about a law protecting not just themselves but the many citizens who are routinely threatened by crazies? – police, doctors who do abortion, bill collectors. Leave it to Congress to move quickly to protect themselves and forget all about their constituents.
"This IS the result of the hate merchants that permeate our radio and TV airwaves, both left and right."
Yes, I'm sure the liberal shooter spent a lot of time listening to Beck and Limbaugh and Palin and everybody else.
This would be a great peice of legislation, although I think it is a little subjective and large. Could be perceived makes me uncomfortable, it's a very wide swath of speech to target.