Clyburned

In the wake of the Tucson killings, pundits continue harping on harsh rhetoric and a "climate of hate." So a deranged man shoots someone (in a time when the violent crime rate is lower than it's been in decades) and they decide to bring up how nasty their political opponents are.  I could be wrong, but I'm guessing they're making themselves look bad. Here's a good example, one of many, George Packer online for The New Yorker:

It would be a kind of relief if Loughner operated not out of any coherent political context but just his own fevered brain. But even so, the tragedy wouldn't change this basic fact: for the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents. [...] The massacre in Tucson is, in a sense, irrelevant to the important point. Whatever drove Jared Lee Loughner, America's political frequencies are full of violent static.

Okay, so he can't see how the left's rhetoric is no better than the right's.  That I can understand--when the left's mainstream voices go nuts, Packer probably just nods and figures they're holding back.  But what has any of this got to do with Loughner's attack?  Even if Loughner were acting out of a "coherent political context" what diffference would it make?  Packer's just bringing up a hobbyhorse that he all but admits (since Loughner's motivation doesn't matter) is a non sequitur.

I'm still more bothered by politicians who think they can make hay out of this.  I guess the worst statements so far are from Representative Jim Clyburn.

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'

'Free speech is as free speech does,' he said. 'You cannot yell ‘fire' in a crowded theater and call it free speech and some of what I hear, and is being called free speech, is worse than that.'

Clyburn used as an example a comment made by Sharron Angle, an unsuccessful U.S. senatorial candidate in Nevada, who said the frustrated public may consider turning to 'Second Amendment remedies' for political disputes unless Congress changed course.

1)  I'd rather not have any politicians rethinking our "parameters on free speech," thank you very much. But if they do, I hope the Supreme Court reminds them they took an oath to serve the Constitution, not defy it.

2)  Clyburn wants "balanced" media coverage and the return of the "Fairness" Doctrine.  I don't think it's the government's job to interfere with the media this way, but please explain under what Orwellian scenario this will prevent crazy people from thinking bad thoughts.

3)  He invokes Justice Holmes' famous line about yelling fire in a crowded theatre.  Someone should compile a list of the countless civic leaders who have (mis)used this metaphor as an excuse to back up their plans for censorship.  Certainly it's a lot bigger than the list of those who hear military metaphors and mistake them for a call to arms.

4)  He disapproves of something Sharron Angle said.  Fine.  I'm sure there's plenty to disapprove in what many politicans say.  But how, under his regime, would there be any remedy for people hearing such words?  Would it be the media's job not to report what politicians say if it's too harsh?  I think the current system--where politicians speak openly and we decide whether to vote for them or not--works best.