Sarah Palin and Gabrielle Giffords

[peteryoung]

“But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.”
– Representative Gabrielle Giffords, March 2010

For those following the Gabrielle Giffords story, the comment thread at this post at politicartoons has screencaps of the comments that are being deleted from Sarah Palin's Facebook page. A common activity: Rule No. 1 is Do not make Palin look unpopular, racist, insane or in any way wrong, on her Facebook.

EDIT: Whoops... looks like that entire post has just been deleted as well. Whatever. They're here too.

Comments

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Are you seriously saying that people shouldn't be able to edit critical messages from their Facebook page? Of course they should; it's their personal page. I'm forever removing things from my Facebook page (mostly people inviting me to play silly games to be fair). But all my sympathies are with Sarah Palin here; a sentence I thought I would never write.

I agree

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

It different from people editing things they've said and then removing them in restrospect. No matter what you think (and I have to say I'm not convinced that it's reasonable to "blame" SP and her supporters for this shooting) the principle is that you own your own page and select what is published there.

Re: I agree

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

the principle is that you own your own page and select what is published there

Agreed, as with LJ. She's most likely not deleting the comments herself but hiring an aide to do it.

I have no problem with people moderating their own internet space, although she also uses Facebook as a campaigning space which brings an extra responsibility. She's a public figure, so if she allows people in she ought to be able to show she's strong enough to let people express dissent or disagreement without fear of censorship, and that includes those who visit her page to condemn her frequently violent rhetoric. Not everyone who disagrees, or points out something factual yet unpleasant, is a troll.

Or maybe she just wants to be surrounded only by those who do agree with her, and we know where that can lead. I think with Palin image means everything and substance nothing.

Edit: I would add, of course, yes if it's personal abuse and directed to her or her family, of course delete it.

Re: I agree

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

Looks like we have to disagree: I find the deleted messages anything but factual.

Re: I agree

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

Well yes, her connection to the shooting isn't factual, but her history of violent rhetoric certainly is.

Re: I agree

[hnpcc]

I think it's reasonable to say that they've helped create a climate of violent words which has contributed. From today's reports the guy appears likely to have undiagnosed mental illness - what little I've read of the writing/transcripts of the youtube stuff is reminding me of stuff I've seen from Frank Vitkovic - but I think his choice of target was heavily influenced by the current climate in the society he's living in.

Would he have done the same thing without that climate? Difficult to say - he might have still targeted that Congresswoman - or he might have developed a grudge against the US Postal Service, or Walmart or whatever.

As to deleting comments - I'd have less of an issue if she'd deleted the abusive ones and posted an answer to the moderate ones asking if that's what she intended. I guess for me there's echoes of the "pro-Life" rhetoric - lots of very violent speeches and then "oh but we didn't mean for anyone to actually go out and murder people! That would be wrong!" when someone does what they've been suggesting all along. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask exactly what is meant on a page which is being used as a political platform and expect an answer without the comment being deleted.

Re: I agree

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

We have a pretty good law against 'hate speech' incitement here in the UK, so I'd be interested to know what's the closest thing the US has (if anything).

For Palin to simply delete comments that are critical of her in her capacity as a public figure goes completely against all the many speeches she has made about the importance of 'freedom of speech'. Clearly, all along she's only ever been talking about her freedom of speech and her 'right' to use it however she sees fit, including incitement, and she's not actually bothered about anybody else's and has a history of actively suppressing criticism of herself.

I'll say one other thing, though: Palin probably feels there is an element of scapegoating in all this, and she would probably be right, probably because it's easier to point the finger at her hate speech than try to figure out the twisted motives of a disturbed man. Hopefully she will now tone down her rhetoric and her deliberate use of violent imagery.

Also, a point of order re. my comment above about using Facebook "as a campaigning space which brings an extra responsibility". That really should say "ought to bring", as there are no written rules about precise responsibilities when using social media.