I’m not sure if the various death wishes for Sarah Palin made on Twitter and Facebook, as a result of false accusations that Palin’s electoral target map caused the Tucson shooting, constitute death threats. Saying you hope someone is killed seems to walk right up to the line, if not across it.
Screen shots of the death wish tweets are at Patterico, and a video montage is in my earlier post. Here is one of the Facebook pages created just after the shooting:
What is most remarkable about these death wishes is that they were done in the open and often with the identity of the person not hidden. The identities of the tweeters and the people who “liked” the Facebook pages were readily identifiable in many cases.
Why do these people, many of whom are professionals, feel no fear in expressing such death wishes in the open?
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
Adam, jsut so I'm clear on your position:
There's a difference between, say, a target used in archery or darts and something that looks similar (but not identical) to crosshairs from a rifle sight?
The target whioh actually has sharp and potentially deadly items thrown at it is MUCH less threatening.
Is that about it?
The latest rules for the Right reactionary cretins seem to be:
No use of arrows. No bullet points, no throwing star looking asterisks.
No flower petals resembling nightshade. No crosses that appear eliminationist in one orientation and oppressive Christianist in another. No deletion symbols.
No blood-red graphics, no black racist font or sepia photo tones, no feminine italics stereotyping.
The mode of message is now the message for conservatives, according to a Leftist priesthood which absolves its side of any consequences from its symbology and hyperbolic/metaphorical musings, death wishes and threats.
> I have given plenty of examples of her stupidity. I have likened her to a female George Bush.
Since you haven't established that Bush is stupid or that they actually are similar, that's not actually evidence.
> I especially liked when she couldnt name a single newspaper or magazine that she regularly reads due
Actually she did. You're just revealing that your sources are lame.
> to either fear of backlash if it wasnt the newspaper voters wanted to hear or stupidity from lack of reading.
Yet another unsupported claim.
Hint – the voices in your head aren't evidence.
I realize that you'd like to have a valid argument. However, that preference doesn't imply that you actually have one.
Leave a Comment