5 Authors. 5 genres. 5 awesome writing exercises.
Check it out, and discover Sympathy for the Devil, The Guiness Book of You, 1k1hr and other exercises and bits of writing advice: http://sylsome.livejournal.com/10718.html?mode=reply
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
After the horrific killings in Arizona this weekend, and the near-fatal wounding of Congresswoman Giffords, the media is a-twitter about how incendiary language may have created a climate that led that troubled young man to buy a 9mm Glock and use it so disastrously. While I think it's hard to draw a direct causal relationship here, I do agree that the language of violence that has infiltrated American politics is, to say the least, very inappropriate. Sarah Palin's battle cry, "Don't retreat, reload," is the clearest example, and of course much has been made of her gunsight map that names Giffords as a target. Did she want people to go out and shoot political opponents? Quite doubtful. Was she careless and even irresponsible with her language? Most certainly.
Now Representative Robert Brady (D-PA) wants to make the use of language or symbols that could be seen as inciting violence against lawmakers a federal crime. I wonder, though, is this going too far in the opposite direction? How do you prove that language is inciting violence? Where do you draw the line? While I agree with him that the tone of our national conversation has gotten way out of hand, this sounds like the kind of law that could be abused by a paranoid or oppressive government. I don't think our government is oppressive now, but who can say what American will look like in 20 years? Could we become a nation with our most outspoken protesters locked up for their choice of words?
What do you think? What, if anything, should be done to curb the hate speech so carelessly bandied about by our "rogue" politicians? Should it be up to elected officials, or should the voters take the reigns on this one?