When does free speech cost a life?
When does free speech cost a life?
Only a few days ago, a tragedy lasting no more than a few minutes in Tucson, Arizona shook the foundation of this country over 200 years old. In an assassination attempt said to be possibly fueled by “political rhetoric”, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire outside a Safeway grocery store, the site of a neighborhood event held by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Less than 24 hours later, citizens and elected officials across our country have joined a heated debate that began decades before this unspeakable event. The topic of controversy: what shape does the boundary of “political rhetoric” form in a country where free speech is a constitutional right?
Ironically enough, Congresswoman Giffords recited the First Amendment on the House floor this past week during the reading of the Constitution. This amendment has forever defined our nation yet allows Giffords’ political enemies to put her in the crosshairs both figuratively and literally. Whether it was Sarah Palin’s political ploy months ago that targeted Giffords on a map of the United States or common criticism of politicians heard on CNN daily, political rhetoric has evolved to fit the times and the politicians. Since the shooting, lawmakers have advocated for the public to “tone down political rhetoric” and respect the opposition’s opinion. However, what is acceptable public conversation when decisions in Congress generate results as harsh as the rhetoric emerging from citizens guaranteed the freedom of speech?
Political conflict is not the fault of passionate demonstrators (obviously some more radical than others) rather institutional arrangements of a country founded by verbal and physical conflict. The democratic arrangement of our nation catalyzes the flow of ideas, ideas that spark debate fought by those we elect. These ideas have intense ramifications and redirect (positively and/or negatively) the lives of those that surround us. The problem at the core of this debate is what I like to call the “rhetoric of issues.” Passions inflamed by healthcare, abortion, DADT and other social issues have the ability to spark radical thought that either enriches or hinders the life of another citizen. For many in this country, a vote of “aye” or “nay” cast in Congress holds more meaning to the citizens themselves than the elected-official who casts it. As a result, people will speak out at great magnitudes to fight for their stance on issues that will ultimately shape the rest of their life.
The events that took place last Saturday must serve as a call for bipartisanship. It is no secret that America is directed by majority rule. As a result, the only tactic of the minority is to scream louder than the majority. Instead of perpetuating institutions that leave minority voters at a loss and force the use of radical political rhetoric in order to be heard, our elected officials need to act in a manner that truly represents the entire body of American people. Contrary to popular belief, decisions in Congress are allowed to result in a win for both sides of the aisle.