By Kevin D.
Williamson
Tuesday, May 17,
2022
Before the blood was even dry in Buffalo,
Democrats were asking the most important question:
“How can we well-heeled white progressives
most effectively use the murders of all these black people to our personal and
political advantage?”
The murderer in Buffalo didn’t kill
anybody you’ve ever heard of, and so the first thing to do if you want to exploit
the deaths of all these people — and that is what Democrats intend to do — is
to connect the crime to some famous name or prominent institution. It doesn’t
matter if there isn’t any actual connection: Just assert it, and that’s good
enough for the newspapers and the cable-news cretins and the impotent
rage-monkeys on Twitter. And so New York governor Kathy Hochul blames
social-media platforms. Amanda
Marcotte blames Tucker Carlson. Other hack Democrats blamed Donald Trump, the Republican Party, Fox
News, the National Rifle Association, etc. The usual suspects.
Democrats are looking for something
— anything — to cling to politically at the moment, because
they are terrified that they are going to get wiped out in the midterm
elections. And they probably are going to take a beating: Never mind that the
Republican Party doesn’t deserve to win — the Democrats deserve to lose, and
that’s what matters at the polls. What can Democrats do about that besides pray
that Marjorie Taylor Greene has an extra shot of espresso in her moonbat latte
this morning? There are options, but they are tough, and apparently it has never
crossed Governor Hochul’s mind (such as it is) to try a different approach:
Rather than cheap demagoguery and shunting great
streams of public money into her husband’s company, she might try competent governance and see how that works out.
Apparently, that never occurred to her.
Apparently, it never will.
Apparently, it never occurred to anybody in
New York to keep an eye on the lunatic who showed up at school wearing a full
hazmat suit. The kid who already was on the radar of the state police and the
mental-health bureaucracy. The kid who was asked about his post-graduation
plans and answered: murder-suicide.
As with so many shootings of this kind,
the massacre in Buffalo didn’t exactly come out of nowhere. The same is true
for the less dramatic kinds of shootings, too: There were at least 33 shootings
in Chicago over the weekend, and, when the data are in, we’ll almost certainly
find that the victims were almost all black and that the shooters almost all
had extensive prior criminal records, including prior weapons violations in
many cases. This stuff doesn’t just fall out of the sky. It is predictable as
the change of seasons. You won’t see a lot of headlines about those 33
shootings, and that is, in one horrifying sense, entirely appropriate: They
aren’t really news. News is something unusual, something unexpected.
We talk a great deal about crime in
Chicago, because it is a big, dangerous city, and it is one of the five U.S.
cities that the national media ordinarily pay attention to. Buffalo is a
smaller, more dangerous city, with a homicide rate just slightly above
Chicago’s: 18.38 per 100,000 vs. 18.26 per 100,000.
The vast majority of murders in these
United States are no surprise at all — we know with actuarial precision who is
going to do the killing, who is going to do the dying, when the crimes are
going to be committed, etc. We even know what policies would likely be
effective in preventing these crimes — for example, enforcing the gun laws at
the state and federal level, particularly the straw-buyer laws — but we don’t
do that, because that would be hard work and take up a lot of resources that
could be used for more important things, like paying cops to
eat Doritos and shoot Jim Beam on the taxpayers’ time and dime, paying cops to impersonate
garage doors, paying
Philadelphia homicide detectives in excess of $300,000 a year, and buying armored
attack trucks to patrol the mean streets of Norman, Okla.
There is much that could be done, if
anyone were willing to do it.
Here’s something I am not willing to do: I
am not willing to renegotiate the Bill of Rights every time some sexually
frustrated loser with a 5.56mm death-boner has a homicidal temper tantrum.
Set aside, for the moment, the inevitable
attack on the Second Amendment: Governor Hochul is targeting the First Amendment.
Never mind enforcing New York gun laws or funding more proactive policing
measures or maybe asking some more pointed questions about the kid who showed
up to school in a full hazmat suit, Governor Hochul intends to focus on an area
in which she has no authority, expertise, or influence: policing speech online.
From the New York Times:
When
pressed on how she planned to confront such hate speech online, without
impinging on First Amendment rights, Ms. Hochul noted that “hate speech is not
protected” and said she would soon be calling meetings with social media
companies.
The New York Times being
the New York Times, that “noted” obscures more than it
communicates. She didn’t “note” anything. She made something up out of whole
cloth. She lied.
(And I have my doubts about the word
“pressed” in that sentence, too, unless there was a New York Post reporter
on the scene.)
As a matter of constitutional law in the
United States, there is no such thing as “hate speech.” It is not a legal term
at all — the words have no legal meaning. As such, there certainly is no
exception to the First Amendment for “hate speech,” a fact that is well
understood and attested to by boatloads of constitutional
scholars holding many different political
points of view. It is the
unanimous position of the Supreme Court. This is not new. Governor Hochul, who has a law degree on her sad little résumé (Erie
County clerk and bank lobbyist) ought to know better. Perhaps she has
forgotten. Perhaps she missed that day in law school. Perhaps she is a cheap
demagogue who ought to be ashamed of herself and of whom New York ought to be
ashamed.
There is no such thing as “hate speech” as
a matter of constitutional law in the United States, and the sort of thing that
is classified as “hate speech” in countries that do have such laws is — pay
attention, now — exactly the kind of speech the First
Amendment is designed to protect: offensive, unpopular, detestable, the
kind of speech that most people consider immoral and indefensible. The kind of
speech nobody likes or wants is the kind of speech the First Amendment is there
for — the other kind of speech doesn’t need any protection. Here is a useful
heuristic: If you immediately want to suppress somebody’s speech, then that is
probably the kind of speech the First Amendment was made for. We write down our
laws for a reason, and that reason is because your gut instincts can’t be
trusted and because we don’t want our civil rights to depend on whatever kind
of daffy electrochemical misfire is happening inside that three-pound ball of
meat Kathy Hochul calls a brain on any given Monday morning.
Like “hate speech,” “assault weapon” is a
term without meaning. (“Assault rifle” is a term with a formal military sense, and if you think that we should not ordinarily sell them to civilians,
then, rejoice: We don’t.) The shooter in Buffalo was armed with an ordinary
modern sporting firearm, a 5.56mm semiautomatic rifle — the most common rifle
in the United States. It was not, contra the Washington Post,
“modified.” The Post headline reads: “Suspect in
Buffalo shooting modified Bushmaster so it could hold more ammunition.” But as far as I can tell it was only “modified” by putting this magazine
instead of that magazine into the rifle. (Magazines holding
more than 10 rounds are illegal in New York State, but the law is effectively
unenforceable, and it wouldn’t make any difference in these cases even if it
weren’t. EDIT: He would have had to break the lock that keeps the fixed
magazine in place, a simple task taking about two minutes, which is what he
did. So I suppose the rifle was modified in the sense that a locked-up bicycle
is modified when a thief breaks the lock to steal it.) The killer seems to have
chosen the Bushmaster brand because it has been associated with similar
shootings. This is a reminder that there is no major daily newspaper in the
United States of America that is capable of writing about firearms competently.
Another line of argument that has been put
forward: We shouldn’t let 18-year-olds buy firearms. I am open to that as a
policy reform — we don’t let 17-year-olds buy firearms, and that doesn’t seem
to me incompatible with the Second Amendment. But if we are going to treat
18-year-olds like children, then we have to go all the way and raise the age
for voting, the age of sexual consent, the age for marriage, getting a tattoo,
joining the military, etc. If we are going to take away 18-year-olds’ civil
rights, then we have to take away their bank accounts and credit cards, too.
The civil right enshrined in the Second Amendment isn’t something that some
Supreme Court justice magically pulled out of his penumbra — it is right there,
in writing. That means it deserves the highest level of protection and
deference — and that means that there are a lot of things that 18-year-olds can
lose before their explicitly constitutionally guaranteed rights.
New York already has a “red flag” law on
the books. I think those laws are probably unconstitutional, but some legal
scholars whose opinion I value disagree. In any case, nobody even bothered to try to take the shooter’s guns
away under that law — even after he very publicly expressed his desire to carry
out such a massacre.
But, by all means, let’s all go chasing
around 4chan and Twitter and see if we can’t sort this all out.
Kathy Hochul is an unserious politician
representing an unserious party in an unserious state in a largely unserious
country that is kept on the road mostly by sturdy guardrails inscribed in an
18th-century document that some guy wrote
with a feather. Events such as the one in Buffalo
require a serious response, but there is nobody around to provide one, at least
not in elected office. What we have is mediocrities, demagogues, and
grandstanding ghouls happy to climb atop any pile of dead Americans, no matter
how high or how mangled, to do a little TikTok dance in the blood and sing a
verse of “Happy Days Are Here Again.”
But, really, I am sure this is all somehow
Tucker Carlson’s fault.
No comments:
Post a Comment