The First Amendment clearly protects speech that falls short of incitement to violence; my speech is not responsible for your actions, nor your speech for mine. But just because people can’t be held liable for something doesn’t mean they’re not culpable. America is waking up to that fact and not a moment too soon.
Derived from the Latin culpa (crime, fault, blame, or guilt), culpability conveys the idea of being blameworthy or deserving of censure. While it can be employed in a legal context, it is far more often used to imply moral responsibility. We seem to have forgotten the value of its role in society.
As far as we know, there was only one person directly responsible for the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk on a Utah university campus. And there was only one person directly responsible for the vicious murder of Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte light rail train. Both individuals are in the hands of the justice system now and, hopefully, both will meet their just desserts.
While only the murderers are liable for these two awful crimes, it’s unequivocal that many people online are culpable for them, their steady stream of irresponsible and over-the-top accusations creating a rhetorical environment that contributes to the instability of the unstable.
Some are culpable for aiding and abetting the delusions (and sense of victimhood) of the unfortunate souls caught up in the transgender movement. Others are culpable for stoking racial tensions that lead Americans to mistrust one another based on the color of their skin. Still others are culpable for whatever awful act of political violence comes next as a result of tarring those with whom they disagree with accusations of “fascist,” “homophobe,” “bigot,” and “Nazi,” among others. Some are culpable for all of these and more, to the point where 15% of registered voters believe (and are, incredibly, willing to admit to a pollster) that America is better off with Charlie Kirk having been killed.
That is not to suggest that lively and even heated political discourse is a bad thing (it was, ironically, something to which Charlie Kirk committed his life). It’s to suggest that responsible adults keep their words within responsible bounds, recognizing the culpability that accompanies over-the-top rhetoric.
Consider a recent social media post I came across:
My old man, my kid and I all fit ICE Barbie’s definition of what being “illegal” looks like.
First, no human is illegal.
Second, read a [G**d***] book. Although, can she read? Doubtful.
Third, my dad has done more to build this country than any of those fascist clowns, combined. He is WAY more “American” than any of them.
Fourth, if you hate my people and/or enable that dirty sewer rat in the White House, go kick a rock. (With all due respect to sewer rats.)
Lovely, isn’t it? This post has it all, from misogyny to a straw man argument to profanity to false accusations to vile disrespect (not to mention a few eighth grade grammatical mistakes and careless typos). There are, of course, worse examples, but not many coming from a senior elected official. The post concludes,
Sinceramente,
Javier Martinez
Speaker of the House (and “bad hombre).
(Yes, this immigrant is the Speaker of the NM House. Choke on that, haters).
P.S. I might be my ancestors wildest dream, but I’m also a fascist’s worst nightmare. Bring it.
What are we to do with statements like this, especially coming from our highest elected officials? As his signoff indicated, Martinez meant it sincerely. It probably doesn’t technically rise to the First Amendment level of incitement; if one of his social media followers goes off and punches a “fascist clown” in the nose (or worse), it’s unlikely he would be legally liable. But would he be morally culpable? Without question.
Even short of any violence that may or may not result from a post like this, it’s not helpful, especially in a state in which people are suffering from crushing poverty, dismal educational outcomes, and skyrocketing crime (for which Martinez’s party is fully culpable, having had a virtual lock on the levers of state government power for nearly a century). New Mexico is so gerrymandered that he may just not care. None of the “haters” of whom he speaks matter to his legislative majority, despite representing hundreds of thousands of people he lives among and alongside.
We all know social media can be a cesspool stirred up by boys in basements and boxer shorts (not to mention bots). When posts like the one above cross my feed, I typically shake my head and move on. But rarely does something this base come from someone so elevated, though it’s becoming all too common.
People in the public eye should know better. People in the public eye should do better. People in the public eye—and everyone else who has a conscience—should recognize that while liability must be something for which one is convicted, culpability can’t be escaped.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
