Incitement to Riot: Why talking heads need to have different standards than private citizens.

[BreweryYardRat]

Freedom of speech. It's wonderful, but we might need to take a closer look at our interpretation of the "incitement to riot" rule.

John Q. Redneck sitting out in front of his trailer, screaming drunkenly about "Them damn commie pinko liberals! Someone needs to do something about them!" is one thing. Keep an eye on him, but he's probably just mouthing off and beating his chest.

Talk show hosts who have millions of listeners/viewers, screaming drunkenly on-air about "Them damn commie pinko liberals! Someone needs to do something about them!" is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

We all know that a few weak-minded people have gone out and committed murder after slurping up that stuff for hours every day. We're going to see more murders if the talking heads don't shut up. People with authoritarian/follower personalities are going to have a semi-conscious perception of a media personality as having more authority than John Q. Redneck.

We need to tighten up the "incitement to riot" rule so it's much stricter in application to media personalities. Maybe make it slightly stricter for politicians too (I'm remembering Palin's rallies and Bachmann's crazed ravings), but that'd be tricky to do without setting risky precedents.

Problem is, I'm short on ideas for exactly how that could work. Suggestions?

[Gman2]

1. Wrong. We need stigma.

Laws Shmaws. We need to have them FEEL what assholes we consider them. AS it becomes like a pedophile, to be an armed insurrectionist, there will be no need for a draconian law.

[customerserviceguy]

2. I just don't agree

Your suggestion sounds a bit like, "I'm all for petty thieves being able to have a right to a fair trial, but when it is someone prominent, we need something that takes away their lawyers!"

The "incitement to riot" laws deal with the fact that group dynamics with a live speaker work differently than reactions to what might have been published in a newspaper. Mass crowd behavior has been studied for centuries, now by the psychologists and socialists, and in the old days by kings, popes, and other political leaders. It's always potentially more dangerous when the rabble is roused in person.

Yes, a media personality on TV seems to have a much more bully pulpit than does a man standing on a wooden soap box a hundred years ago, but that man on the soap box was likely the only person within earshot of the people who could hear him. The media personality is just one voice among dozens or even hundreds on a TV dial.

[droidamus2]

6. The original point

Is the effect on the 'follower' personality. I would surmise that this type does not tend to browse the 1000's of voices in the media, especially the electronic media, but tends to have a select few (FOX, Rush, Hannity, etc) to whom they listen. Which is very much like the 'in person' effect you speak of. I think print media is totally different as it is much less passive from the consumption point of view. With talk radio, tv hosts and networks and such I think there needs to be some investigation of how much this is like 'a crowd'. Part of the inciting to riot is the echo effect you get in a crowd where one person says something that is then picked up by others and the emotions rise to the point of generating a pack mentality. I believe it is possible to get that same effect through the electronic media though the reaction obviously isn't quite as immediate it can still have the result of echoing incitements to violence until those with narrow points of view and exposure to differing points of view find them to be acceptable.

[customerserviceguy]

7. And I disagree that somehow TV is more inciteful of riots

than newspapers are. A group dynamic where you have people in the same real space is just so much more compelling. It might be basic primate behavior, when one ape sees a leopard, he quickly convinces the others to flee en masse.

There's no question that TV and websites with video are more interesting than a dry newspaper or magazine, but the printing press was a very effective tool before electronic communication came about. The same revolution that they encouraged two hundred and thirty-three years ago recognized the difference between leading a mob in person, and creating incendiary writings that were reviewed by people in private.

In short, I believe that whatever protections our society has crafted and refined for print media over the last two centuries should be similarly afforded to radio, television, and Internet sources. You disagree.

[droidamus2]

8. Where I'm coming from

I guess where I am coming from is there is nowhere near the emotive value in the written word that you can get from actually hearing or hearing and seeing a person on the electronic media. I am no expert so I don't know if studies have been done to see if there is an 'incite' reaction (maybe less than in person but still there) or not. I think there is a difference between preemptive control of the media as far as free speech and making media liable for when they misuse their bully pulpit. There has to be some level of responsibility (maybe not government enforced) for the use of the public airwaves and electronic systems. This is always the gray area of absolute rights like free speech if you start letting people chip away at the edges of the right then eventually you have lost the right all together.

[customerserviceguy]

11. And I think that present generations of people

have become relatively inured to electronic media. I seem to remember an early Edison motion picture that showed a train barrelling down the tracks, seemingly headed straight for the audience, and causing alarm and a bit of panic, but we look back at that and laugh.

People know that the airwaves and the Internet are full of a lot of hot air. I can easily ignore a TV show, radio broadcast, or web site without the person doing the speaking even know I am doing so. Now, if I get up and leave a public speech in an auditorium, I'm sending a visual signal to others there, possibly even the speaker, if I'm in the front few rows.

Unless I really want to make a statement that the speaker is full of it, I'm likely going to stay in my seat. This confirms that the speaker's words are in some small part 'accepted' by me. And if I loudly cheer those words, the people around me are inspired to cheer themselves, just to get on the bandwagon.

That's why I insist that media viewed by either one person or a very small group is more like a newspaper or magazine than they are like a speech in the public square.

[RandomKoolzip]

3. I dunno - I kinda like the first amendment.

Disturbed and/or mentally unbalanced people will commit illegal or anti-social acts regardless of the nature of the trigger which sets the act in motion. A person who is prone to murder could just as easily be set off by the color of his slurpee as he could be set off by a Glenn Beck speech. That Glenn Beck has a platform that reaches millions of minds makes this equation no less true, IMO.


I know RW radio and RW TV is despicable stuff - it really really is - but the first amendment's in place to protect the most despicable stuff as much as it's in place to protect the stuff everyone can agree on.

[Posteritatis]

10. It's troubling how many DUers became selective on civil rights after November. (nt)

[kywildcat]

4. I propose taking names and stripping

people of their gov't benefits. Seriously. I've noticed many of the 'protestors' are older. How many are enjoying the fruits of my labor-ie Medicare? Take them off the gov't dole. Plane and simple. The clueless twits my age-who haven't any children serving in either war-grab those kids, suit 'em up and ship 'em out. They like wasting money on war? Then let them do the heavy lifting. Drive much protestors? Get off my frickin roads. Clean water? public schools?
I seriously belive at this point-these 'protestors'-are hopeless. Why waste any more resources on them?
And the media? a take over is in order.

[Posteritatis]

9. Well isn't that civilized (nt)

[OHdem10]

5. We all have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

At the moment, it appears the Righties are more incensed and
fired up enough to take to the streets. To be fair, I think
we all know it is not in their nature to march and protest.
Conservatives. It takes a lot to get them out.

In listening to reports, many of those present are all roiled
up over both parties.

Do not be fooled. Naturally the GOP, are trying to channel
these people their way. The truth is and they admit it
they are trying to bring them into their party.
It would help for Democrats to listen. Glenn Beck is working
for Republicans. Conservative Groups are courting them and
were able to get some conservatives out.

Both parties have done poor job communicating and thus
we have marches and protests.

This started with the stimulus. To a person on the outside
both Bush and Obama never explained to Mainstreet why the
Stimulus was needed? It came across as the Government taking
their taxees an saving Wall Street. We are once again sending
humongous amounts to Afghanistan. Then speak of Health Care
and we cannot afford it. No matter how they stand on HCR
the idea we have money for foreigners and Big Business but
never for Taxpayers.

Never forget the Republicans on the Hill are much more conservative
than their constituents.

[customerserviceguy]

12. You've stated it well

What if we had used their tactics when the Iraq and Afghanistan wars started? If you question whether or not it would have worked, just remember what happened forty years ago when people stopped being 'polite' over Vietnam.