[He-Whose-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Mentioned] gives out DOG WHISTLE to would-be Clinton assassins

[frankfrank]

This just doesn't end. More calls for assassination.

frank, Kentucky’s Tea Party Governor Matt Bevin took a prize for one of the most extreme statements at this year’s so-called Values Voter Summit -- and that is no easy task!

At the annual Religious Right gathering, hosted by the Family Research Council, Bevin said that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, for the country to survive would require the blood of both “tyrants” (you can guess who he is talking about here) and “patriots,” telling the audience:

“Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren.”

Sign if you agree: Governor Bevins reckless remarks are outrageous and dangerous!

PFAW’s Right Wing Watch, which broke the story, noted:

“Numerous speakers at last weekend’s Values Voter Summit suggested that the American republic might not survive a Hillary Clinton presidency. During the Obama administration it has become almost routine to hear far-right leaders talk about the possibility of armed revolution against the federal government. But it was still jarring to hear a sitting governor suggest that America might only survive the election of Hillary Clinton through bloodshed.”

And now Bevin is even fundraising off his remarks!

The suggestion by a governor that violence is the appropriate response to an election result he might not like is outrageous and dangerous, and Gov. Bevin’s extremism must be confronted.

Please take a moment to sign your name to our petition denouncing Gov. Bevin’s reckless remarks.

Keep Fighting,
People for the American Way

Paid for by People for the American Way.

 

[gsdx]

^ I shall never cease to be astounded that such speech is protected. I suppose nothing can be done until something happens.

 

[TX-Beau]

^ I shall never cease to be astounded that such speech is protected. I suppose nothing can be done until something happens.

I don't know, I'd rather err on the side of caution when it come to speech. Nor can the Fed just step in and silence someone. The way I understand it, is that speech must incite an action before it becomes criminal, so if no one tries to assassinate Hillary, no one gets prosecuted. Since that snippet doesn't contain an actual exhortation, to go out and kill a specific person - say "go kill Hillary for god" I suspect it would be hard to nail him for it, even if someone did the unthinkable.

Anyway I suspect that if someone wanted to do something, Hillary would have to sue - which is never going to happen.

 

[TX-Beau]

Ben's fantasies notwithstanding, I don't think the Fed would have standing to sue on her behalf. You'd have to find a lawyer who does this kind of thing to tell you what kind of actual chances she'd have, and what the laws governing it are.

Basically it's bad taste, un-American, possibly treasonous in my opinion, but then people like that think all of us in here are a scourge on the country that quite literally draws down the wrath of god on our heads.

 

[TX-Beau]

Oops, left out the point, I'd rather have people free to say what they think, than set up a process and bureaucracy within which someone (who gets to choose?) get's to decide who gets to say what.

 

[gsdx]

^ Hate speech is one thing. It's another thing to call for violence and the killing of another person. And I mentioned in my post that nothing could be done until something happens. By then, though, it's too late.

 

[TX-Beau]

^ Hate speech is one thing. It's another thing to call for violence and the killing of another person. And I mentioned in my post that nothing could be done until something happens. By then, though, it's too late.

Until there is an action, what prosecution for speech means is thought crimes, that isn't something for which I really want to start establishing precedents.

Anyway there are civil remedies for all kinds of speech, but until there is a crime, there is no criminal liability. You can sue, depending on what was said, where, and to whom, you might succeed. Calling for outright assassination of someone is indeed forbidden - but that wasn't what was said. It's what he meant, but then I also don't want to start establishing precedents for prosecution based on what I think you mean.

All precedents along those lines, will twist in your hands and then it's you getting tried for something the haters thought you meant.

Personally, I like knowing where the assholes are.

 

[jbrown329]

Freedom of speech means just that. I find what they say appalling, but it's their right to say it. It's also my right to tell them to fuck off.