Let’s pick up where we left off last week.

Intolerance directly or indirectly begetting (1) threats of or (2) actual physical violence may ultimately reflect something along the spectrum from disrespect for others to disregard of the rule of law.

It’s often smart to pull back on the rhetorical reins long before loose language rises to the level of implicit threats, much less explicit threats.

Since the Sept. 10 assassination of Charles James Kirk, many have called for pulling back on the rhetorical reins.

Toning it down.

Being respectful of others.

Such calls have been correct.

Many have followed them. In the wake of the Kirk assassination, have you heard of any riots? How about arson, looting, or shootings? Did anyone board up windows out of fear?

Consider this: On Sept. 27 in State College, Pa., thousands of college-football fans wore bright white T-shirts with “freedom” in capital letters across the front.

Does that sound familiar? It’s the shirt Kirk was wearing when he gave his life for the cause.

≤ ≤ ≤

Now imagine what would have happened if Kirk’s fate had befallen his antithesis, whoever that might be.

That’s right. You needn’t imagine, because you know from history what the answer is.

Would all supporters of Kirk’s antithesis have engaged in rioting, arson, looting, or shootings? Would they all have created a need to board up windows? Of course not.

Yet among such supporters would be philosophical descendants of the Jacobins of the French Revolution who thrive on –and foment– disorder.

So it’s safe to say that if Kirk’s fate had befallen his antithesis, rioting, arson, looting, or shootings would have occurred, and boarding up windows would have been in order.

As for boarding up windows, it’s safe to say it would have been as if a hurricane were on the way.

≤ ≤ ≤

When adherents of law and order from across the political spectrum call on Jacobins’ descendants to pull back on the rhetorical reins, tone it down, or be respectful of others, Jacobins’ descendants may say they agree.

But if they say they agree, then some in all likelihood aren’t being candid.

You, faithful reader of this column, are, as the saying goes, smarter than the average bear. You may try your hand at rewriting the previous paragraph. But strip the niceties out of “some in all likelihood aren’t being candid.”

Go ahead. Try: “But if they say they agree, then (fill in the blank).”

Whatever the rhetorical advantage of telling them to pull back on the rhetorical reins, tone it down, or be respectful of others, it will be hard to convince them not to foment disorder, given that fomenting disorder works considerably to their advantage.

As you read here last week, lawlessness begets lawlessness.

Telling them to stop and expecting them to stop would be like telling criminal-gang members to behave and expecting them to snap to attention.

Good luck with that.

≤ ≤ ≤

It’s tempting to recall that those intentionally inciting violence have included elected officials.

Yes, some elected officials themselves–but not only elected officials–have intentionally done so.

Please recall, for example, incitements targeting U.S. Supreme Court justices from the steps in front of the court building. When such threats are snarled into microphones, they’re no accident. They’re no unfortunate slip of the tongue.

Admonishing such demagogues to mind their manners is unlikely to convince them to stop.

Yet it can encourage electoral opposition to them and others like them. Such admonishments can thereby be helpful even if it never changes demagogues’ behavior.

≤ ≤ ≤

Meanwhile, don’t be surprised if those inciting violence–regardless of whether they’re elected officials–defend their incitement by citing the First Amendment.

Yet inciting violence isn’t protected speech under the First Amendment, any more than shouting fire in a crowded theater is.

Nor is there any First Amendment right to associate to incite violence.

≤ ≤ ≤

It won’t surprise Randy Elf that those inciting violence cite the First Amendment incorrectly.

COPYRIGHT 2025 BY RANDY ELF