What happens when the 'hate group' is government sponsored?

        Hal Turner   AP photo/Jessica Hill

On Wednesday, we looked at  some rather unsavory types who evidently misinterpreted my suspicion regarding proposed government attempts to suppress "hate speech," as evidence of some kind of ideological sympathy on my part for their group.  Hopefully, Wednesday's column cleared up any confusion on that score.

Here's the thing: although I despise such groups, and will condemn the venom they spew with my last breath, I will also spend my last breath fighting for their right to continue to spew it--and I see no contradiction there.  I utterly reject the notion that the First Amendment protects only speech that is not offensive, hateful, and just plain wrong.

Some, of course, would disagree.  With the asphyxiation death of a census worker in Kentucky, suspicion (and in some cases, near certainty) was raised almost instantly that the death was murder, and motivated by "right-wing paranoia and anti-government sentiment."  This, despite the fact that publicly available details are quite sketchy at this point, and the fact that some of the details that have been made available may not be true:

The cause of Sparkman's death is under investigation, and authorities have not ruled out suicide, an accident or homicide, said Kentucky state police spokesman Don Trosper. A full medical report on Sparkman's death is not complete.

State and federal officials would not say whether Sparkman was found with the word "fed" scrawled on his chest, as the Associated Press reported Wednesday, citing a law enforcement source. They would also not discuss whether he was working on census matters before or at the time of his death.

"I think to give this impression that he was strung up because he was a federal employee is giving a bad impression to the nation," said David Beyer, spokesman for the FBI field office in Louisville, which is working with state officials on the investigation.

Not only have these niggling details failed to quell suspicion that this was a politically motivated murder, they have not stopped some from placing blame at the feet of media pundits (and a politician) who are accused of "fanning the flames of right-wing hatred and anti-government sentiment":

These kinds of transparent lies would be hilarious to dissect if so many people didn't really believe them. Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh not only stoke the fear and anger in the hearts and minds of their listeners, but then they also suggest their audience should then direct that anger at the flavor of the months (gays, feminists, poor people, abortion providers, or the "Feds"). And then they act surprised when a sick person acts on their fear by lashing out violently.

The surprise and indignation from the right-wing is insincere. Violent rhetoric begets violence, and no one should act surprised when a Sparkman-like killing happens again.

That's where I fear "hate speech" laws are taking us--to where radio and television personalities will be held responsible for the sick, twisted, violent acts of sick, twisted, violent people.  Some even propose siccing the FCC on them (apparently proponents of this idea have a different version of the Constitution than the one I've read--one in which the federal government is empowered to decide who gets a public voice and who does not).

Is it possible that the time has come for the FCC to consider exactly what constitutes screaming fire over the publicly owned airwaves? And what if Mr. Sparkman’s murderer(s) is never found? How many other lunatics will be emboldened to make their own anti-government statement as the voices of Beck, Limbaugh and Dobbs echo in their ears?

Nobody ever intended our public airwaves to be turned over to irresponsible voices. Maybe the time has come for the FCC to worry a bit less about wardrobe malfunctions and a whole lot more about those who would use our airwaves to make a name for themselves at the expense of the public they are suppose to serve   – particularly when the expense comes in the form of blood.

And finally to the title of today's column, and the photograph.  If we are to sic the government on the "voices of hate," what are we to do when those voices are commissioned by the government?

A blogger who once kept tabs on extremist groups as a paid informant for the FBI was ordered held without bail today while awaiting trial on charges that he threatened the lives of three federal judges.

The blogger in question is rabidly anti-semitic Harold "Hal" Turner, who is charged with threatening the lives of three federal judges, after writing on his blog that they "deserved to be killed" for denying incorporation of the Second Amendment in a case in Illinois.  The FBI acknowledges that they have, in the past, employed him as a paid informant and agent provocateur.  Although that relationship was apparently not in effect at the time of his articulating his wish for the death of the federal judges, that was exactly the kind of thing he was expected to say when on the FBI payroll.

What I cannot help but wonder is what those clamoring for "justice" against the "hate speakers" would suggest we do when the "hate speech" comes at the government's behest.