(Image source: Flickr)

BY MALLORY PERRYMAN

You're watching multisource politics news analysis from Newsy

In the wake of the Tuscon shooting that left six dead- and Congresswoman Gaby Giffords clinging to life, one lawmaker is calling for a bill that would outlaw threatening speech and images directed at federal officials.

Democratic Representative Robert Brady says- members of Congress should have the same protections against threats as the president.

REP. ROBERT BRADY (D-Pa.): “What I’m saying is you can’t put a bullseye, you can’t put a crosshair on a website on us. FLASH It’s absolutely bipartisan. Nobody can do it.” (Fox News)

Bullseyes and crosshairs- two icons that have been at the center of discussion as the media debates whether violent rhetoric can incite actual acts of violence. Here’s why.

You’ve probably seen this image circulating the blogosphere. It’s a 2010 image from Sarah Palin’s PAC. Palin’s camp says- those are “survey symbols”, not crosshairs.

But the Democratic National Committee is the reason for all the “bullseye” references. This is a map pointing out Democratic targets after the 2004 elections.

Police haven’t said whether the man behind the shooting was politically motivated- but a national conversation about the “vitriolic” rhetoric that may have pushed him to the extreme was sparked by an unlikely source- the Pima County, Arizona Sheriff.

The sheriff has taken some heat for his comments- here, he explains his position to NBC’s Matt Lauer.

SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK (Pima County, AZ): “This is a free country. I’m not suggesting we do anything to try and tamper with free speech. I’m suggesting that the mood of the country is contributing to some of the problems.”

So the sheriff thinks lawmakers and pundits should dial it down….and Representative Brady wants to criminalize the crosshairs/bullseye talk. But a Slate blogger says- what about the First Amendment?

“Any call to cool ‘inflammatory’ speech is a call to police all speech... Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. …The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom.”

But on MSNBC, two analysts echo a position that’s become very popular since the shooting- this isn’t a finger-pointing issue, both sides need to watch what they say.

HAROLD FORD JR.: “For those who have a microphone and those who have views and opinions, be aware. Liberals and those on the left and certainly those on the right, be aware that people are listening.”

JOHN HEILEMANN (New York Magazine): “The thing that’s more powerful it seems to me is the emotions behind those words. I mean there’s ways that you can use martial, the language of battle, that can be used lightly and not have this kind of vitriolic anger behind them.”

Representative Giffords remains in critical- but stable condition. You can find more coverage of the Tucson tragedy, including an analysis of what motivated the shooter right here. We’ll leave you with a video of Gaby Giffords- reading her favorite passage from the Constitution- days before her attack.

REP GABY GIFFORDS (D-AZ.): “The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
 

Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy

Transcript by Newsy