The Tucson shooting has kicked up a firestorm over incendiary political speech -- especially speech with violent undertones (if not overtones) -- and whether it is responsible for pushing the Arizona shooter over the edge. If so, is there culpability on the part of the speakers, or are they shielded by the First Amendment to say whatever they choose.
This is not a new controversy, just the latest iteration. It almost always lies at the heart of the speech disputes that wind their way up to the Supreme Court. Fall 2010 students studied the Westboro Baptist Church case (they are very pleased with the shooting by the way) as an example. We should be prepared to discuss whether there ought to be limits to political speech, but also if there are to be limits, how one determines what they are and how they are to implemented in a way that does not make the solution worse than the disease.
Here's some worthwhile debate on the subject.
Should we blame technology?
