Log In | Register
People on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum have been politicizing the recent Arizona shooting incident. The left is pointing to Palins web site and demanding "investigation" with some on Newsvine spreading a "petition" for Sarah Palin to be charged as a co-conspirator. The right is saying that the killer had the Communist Manifesto as reading material and he smoked pot so they had to have been factors as well.
The common thread here is that killers like these are molded slowly by societal influences, taking soundbites from whatever source sounds good to them and using them to support their underlying ideologies. They usually don't simply turn on the TV, listen to Sarah Palin and immediately go out and "do her bidding". Some of those societal influences are the music on the radios. If you don't think that kids listening to the cop-killer, date-raping rap over and over aren't at least adversely affected by those lyrics, then you can't claim that Sarah Palins' websites are more culpable here. If you do, you're being disingenuous at best, and giving Sarah Palin more power than she deserves.
There are plenty of external influences around these days that tend to soften up violent attitudes and behaviors that aren't coming from the Tea Party or Palin. Look at the video games available for purchase at any store for proof. That, coupled with violent music lyrics, violent movies available for rent or purchase, all serve to disengage people from the violent reality that is death. The Columbine killers are classic examples.
So, if the left is as purist as some would have them believe, why are some people demanding that Palins' rhetoric be silenced because it espouses violence while turning a blind eye to other media influences that blatantly embrace violence? Some consistent reasoning is needed here.
Either we need to look at all violent media outlets, left and right, in the same light, or accept that there are some walking among us that will take a soundbite from whatever source is handy and use it to justify to themselves a violent outburst. If we are to look at all outlets, do we then need to rein in the 1st amendment rights of all in the name of public safety? Or just the 1st amendment rights of those we disagree with?
