The Internet is an unpleasant place to be for the average person today. Across social media sites, news organizations and blogs, hate speech is prevalent following the Arizona shootings which claimed the lives of six people and injured 14 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
As both public figures and citizens express a mix of sympathy and anger over the tragedy, the prevalent theme is blame. From Former Gov. Sarah Palin's "crosshairs map" to President Obama's "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," 2008 fundraiser speech, no political direction is safe from target-calling; neither is the public.
Ad hominem attacks aside, however, even FBI Director Robert S. Meuller III agrees that words do matter:
"The ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that not only threats but also hate speech and other inciteful speech is much more readily available to individuals than quite clearly it was 8 or 10 or 15 years ago," Mueller stated in a news conference, reports the New York Times.
One only has to look at the comments at CNN, where the news organization has compiled reactions to the Arizona shootings by public figures, including those of Obama; Palin; Rev. Al Sharpton; and several other congressional, state and federal government officials and figureheads.
Among the hundreds of reader comments, blame for the Arizona shootings is unsurprisingly distributed among some of the most polarizing figures in government and the media, not limited to "Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'reilly, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin" per commenter RWRistheAC, and "Michael Moore, George Soros, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Paul Krugman," according to RickB.
There is no lack of Tea Party references either.
Yet, while the argument seems to be whether or not words are to blame for the Arizona shootings, in arguing the point, many responses are as inciteful as those in political question. Stronger examples of vitriol can be found beyond the walls of CNN, from Twitter to political blogs.
Hate speech, violence and politics -- Then and now
That said, this is not so different from the responses seen following 9-11, which followed with several hate crimes and was a time rife with religious intolerance - from Christians to Muslims.
Even the 1990s were not so warm and fuzzy, when Rush Limbaugh dominated the air waves and Internet discussions (then called Usenet).
True, hate speech is more readily available in this post-iPhone era, and there is no taming the Internet, barring (almost) unthinkable legislation. Yet, before that, the culprit was cable television, and once upon a time (hardcopy) books were a threat, long before the days of Mark Twain. Though the division and violence in our country is disturbing, it is not so new.
It is up to the public to pull the plug, click the mouse, change the channel, identify threats and dampen flames. If public figures elevate their discourse, it cannot hurt, but the collective influence of the public should not be overlooked as we monitor our own dialog as well.
Sources
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html
http://themediaoasis.com/hatevictims.html
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/08/reactions-to-shooting-of-rep-giffords/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10shooter.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
There are no comments yet