Hypotheticals, Free Speech, and Over-reaction
Mark Byron made a mistake. He posted a rather confusing and extreme hypothetical scenario involving killing elected officials in order to change the political make-up of this country. The original post and a number of follow-ups make it clear that Mark was not advocating or agreeing with the scenario. It was simply a thought experiment, an attempt to think about the line between good and evil in are current situation.
As I said, I don’t think it was particularly well thought out or an intelligent thing to post. But I must say that the reaction for outweighed Mark’s original mistake. People immediately began calling him a psychotic terroristand even called for his arrest! Seems that freedom of speech goes out the door rather quickly in the blogosphere these days. But what really bothered me was people intentionally misreading his post and ignoring and dismissing his words in order to draw the conclusion they wanted.
John Hawkins had this to say:
Byron, who admits to having an “occasional violent thought come through my mind,” seems to be suggesting that someone assassinate a large group of Democrats so that the GOP can gain an overwhelming political advantage. Why else would Byron even post this plan that “has a following in the darker parts of (his) mind” and suggest that it wouldn’t be so terrible if it happened? While Byron also asserts that he does “not support the scenario that follows” multiple times, that simply doesn’t cut it as an excuse.
Hawkins simply insists that Mark was suggesting someone carry out the hypothetical scenario even though he has clearly denied doing any such thing. Here is what Mark says:
However, as much as I don’t like them, Justice Ginsberg and Senator Clinton aren’t Hitlers. We have a flawed but functional democracy and a legal system that generally protects our rights. Were we to advocate the creation of the CLF, we’d start down the road to anarchy, with militant liberals looking to kill off George Allen so that Mark Warner can name a replacement. It might be a short-term victory for judicial conservatism, but a long term loss for our society and the cause of Christ.
I will admit, given the emotional nature of the issue and the times, Mark should have clearly and unequivocally denounced any such actions. But just because he is sloppy doesn’t mean you can accuse him of wanting something to happen that he has specifically denied advocating. Hawkins calls Mark’s post a “murder fantasy.” That is straight out not true. Mark admits to having some dark thoughts run through his head and suddenly he is “this close” to doing them? This kind of reaction is ironic in light of the vehemence with which his attackers jump on him. Is a fair reading too much to ask?
Lastly, does context have any meaning? If you are going to psychoanalyse what someone really meant shouldn’t you at least take the time to read other posts and get a feel for this person. Anyone who looked around Mark’s blog would know that he is not an angry violent person. They would also know that he is not some sort of radical Christian reconstructionist or “Christian Fascist.”
I have to agree with this post and think it applies to all involved:
So put away the paintbrushes and THINK before posting a sweeping generalization about a certain group of people next time.
You’re right.
Mark should have clearly and unequivocally denounced any such actions.
I just clicked over from Insta after reading Byron’s post, and there are clear and unequivocal denunciations all over the post now. Were they not there originally?
That said, I do think there had to be a better way to make the point.
You’re wrong.
Mark was thinking out aloud, and people freaked out, cuz his thoughts did not fit the politically-correct viewpoint. Well, if you ever attend a rainbow gathering or other leftist/anarchist group meetings/gatherings, you will hear even more extreme ideas being espoused.
The salient point was already made, but bears repeating: you ‘put such thoughts on the table in order to reject them.’
Perhaps the “thought experiment” could have been conducted differently, but that is all that it was, the intended consequence of its positing being the exploration of a moral position. You might call his argument clumsy, but it is not evil. Mark clearly rejects the transition from civil to violent resistance.
Would that Ted Rall could claim the same.
Byron’s post struck me as the moral and philosophical equivalent of “The Turner Diaries.”
Sorry, but that’s the odor that it’s giving off.
To say it’s nothing more than an idle “thought exercise” seems as naive as saying that Ted Rall’s recent column is just an exercise in seeing “the other point of view.” Both of these guys are speaking volumes about what’s going on in their heads.
I am a liberal and I don’t like, nor read Ted Rall. I don’t think of Ted Rall as a liberal. He is too far to the left for that label. I think we, all Americans, need to stop talking hate speech. All those democrats were elected and represent millions of people votes. Are those millions of people evil? Are the people who vote republican evil? Come on – lets stop this kind of nonsense.
I guess no one around here remembers anything at all about the Firesign Theater’s broadcast of War of the Worlds as narrated by Orson Wells?
And the panic it caused?
Simply because no one thought to – check with the radio station first? Or, that the station didn’t think to embellish the event with disclaimers – until they started hearing about the mass panic?
Hhhmmm?
This is nothing new.
Back when FIDO net was THE thing a person made a similar suggestion. He was serious. He had even worked out a way to pay a bounty for the murders annonamously.
I had a number of personal discussions with the guy and he was not a raving lunatic. Just fed up with no hope. Incidently his perspective was libertarian.
Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it.
“…the Firesign Theater’s broadcast of War of the Worlds as narrated by Orson Well[e]s…”
(Wha!?)
I guess no one around here would think to run a quick Google and find out that the Mercury Theatre was the radio show that put on Orson Welles.
http://www.unknown.nu/mercury/
Firesign Theater was a comedy group. Such awesome research lends real credibility to one’s arguments.
Heaven forbid we every think of killing anyone. Let’s just give all the terrorists a lollipop and be friends. Some of you PC assholes are enough to make a body with a strong stomach sick. As for Rall, that sorry prick should be put against a wall and shot.
Quite right, Nero.
I should have checked. My mistake.
At least someone did, and that is at least half the point.
When I started reading Mr. Byron’s post, I thought it was paranoid leftist hyperbole about how the crazy Christians were coming to kill us all, so I was quite surprised to find it take a turn into an explanation of why we shouldn’t kill the Democrats–yet.
I find his resons for opposing the hypothetical mass murder almost as repulsive as the plan itself; if I understand him correctly, the standard for the appropriateness of opposition to government policy (or private actions, see the previous post referring to abortion clinics) is based solely on effectiveness; both protesting Judge Moore’s monument and killing all liberal Supreme Court justices and Democrat Senators from states with Republican Governors are innapropriate because they would give too little lasting political change in return for too much bad PR for Christ.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to accuse someone of secretly supporting something they describe in loving detail and then (sort of) denounce… Particularly in this case, where I think it’s completely fair to assume he’s supporting the mass killing, if there were somewhat more advantageous circumstances.
–
Benjamin Coates
p.s.
M. Simon: are you taking about Jim Bell’s “Assassination Politics”?
“We have a flawed but functional democracy and a legal system that generally protects our rights. Were we to advocate the creation of the CLF, we would start down the road to anarchy…”
Seems like a pretty clear renunciation to me.
I’m not going to say whether I think this is right or wrong, but I can certainly imagine the hoopla that would have hit the fan if someone had said the same thing about Republican senators or presidents. The writer probably would have been spirited away by Patriot Act-wielding agents the instant it hit the net.
“I find his resons for opposing the hypothetical mass murder almost as repulsive as the plan itself; if I understand him correctly, the standard for the appropriateness of opposition to government policy…is based solely on effectiveness; both protesting Judge Moore’s monument and killing all liberal Supreme Court justices and Democrat Senators from states with Republican Governors are innapropriate because they would give too little lasting political change in return for too much bad PR for Christ…. I think it’s completely fair to assume he’s supporting the mass killing, if there were somewhat more advantageous circumstances.“
Oh get off yourself, this is ridiculous. Just because Byron used a totally Machiavellian analysis doesn’t mean that he doesn’t also reject the scenario for the more obvious reasons–that it’d be evil, treasonous, etc. If you can’t analyze something from a pure, cold, rational, amoral, heartless, calculating viewpoint in order to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of a particular course of action, you have clearly never participated in a marketing scheme or a campaign of any type (ad, political, etc.). Indeed, such thought amoral exercises are necessary for policymakers in areas like foreign policy; they must imagine the possible scenarios that can take place, and understanding the harsh reality of our Hobbesian world is imperative to formulating realistic responses to the various challenges we face out there.
I suppose the real question here is how would the more conservative members of this blog community feel if someone posted a long diatribe about assassinating the Republican members of the Supreme Court and Republican Senators from Democratic States.
It’s easy for someone to say, “I don’t support this.” But the author could be posting this to plant the seed in the mind of an unstable reader. Perhaps one of his students?
I really don’t you would be so kind to the author if he was talking about conservatives dying.
What is terrorism? Is terrorism only linked to Islamic principles? I would suggess the Irish will tell you differently. If you remember, the anthrax mailer didn’t send any mail to any conservative Senators, so this idea of Conservative vs. Liberal terrorism has already been created. For your amusement, I have taken the liberty of changing Mark’s language just a tad. I’m catholic btw, but I don’t subscribe to the current climate of hate speech the left and right are so fond of.
Note-I am NOT advocating the following fantasy episode, but it has a following in the darker parts of my mind.
WASHINGTON-January 6, 2004. A paramilitary organization calling itself the Islamic Liberation Front shocked the nation by a pair of brutal attacks this afternoon. A force estimated at about 200 ILF commandos stormed the Supreme Court building, killing 35 people, including five Supreme Court Justices. At the same time, a contingent of 1,000 ILF paramilitaries attacked the Hart Senate Office Building, where a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting was being held. Approximately 150 people were killed in the attack. Once the commandos had seized the building, they systematically killed 64 Senators and over 90 staff members . Here is a temporary list of the Senators we have lost. Killed were Bill Frist Daniel Akaka Trent Lott Byron Dorgan George Voinovich Mary Landrieu John McCain John Warner John Breaux Bob Graham Blanche Lincoln Mike Dewine Zell Miller
Hillary Clinton Michael Crappo Ernest Hollings Barbara Mikulski Kent Conrad Daniel Inouyye David Pryor Tom Daschle Tim Johnson Harry Reid
ETC. ETC. ETC.
Mark Dayton Ted Kennedy Paul Sarbanes
Chris Dodd John Kerry Chuch Schumer
Joe Lieberman was campaigning in South Carolina, and missed the assassins. The attackers turned themselves in to police, and are proudly confessing their crimes, cooperating with authorities.
If the governors appoint Republican replacements, there will be 72 Republicans in the US Senate until replacement elections can be held. Even if a few Democrats are named, there will be likely at least 60 votes to vote for cloture and appoint replacements for the slain Supreme Court justices, changing the balance of power on the court.