Correspondents’ dinner shooting reminds us that words matter.
The attempted assassination attempt at this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner and other recent conversations about political violence have brought up a pretty simple but important point: the way we talk about people matters. During a press conference held shortly after the dinner, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche asked, “what do you expect to happen” when public rhetoric consistently targets an individual or a group. Whatever side of the issue you’re on, it’s a cautionary reminder that words don’t just stay words. They shape how people think, and sometimes how they act.
That concern shows up in a lot of different policy debates, including how the media, politicians, and the general public talk about people on public registries. When the conversation turns into labels, constant fear-based messaging, and blanket assumptions, it becomes harder to see people as individuals or even have an honest discussion about real solutions. Over time, that kind of environment doesn’t just fuel misunderstanding, it also invites people to take matters into their own hands, including vigilante-style violence, that we’ve also seen a lot of lately.
At some point, we need to step back and recognize that this approach (dehumanizing a population, citing false and inciting statistics about recidivism, calling people on the registry “monsters”, etc.) doesn’t actually make communities safer. It just keeps the cycle of violence going. More fear, more division, and more violent reaction instead of solutions. If the goal is safer communities and better outcomes, then the focus has to shift away from rhetoric that escalates tension and toward facts, context, and policies that are actually grounded in reality.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“What did you expect would happen.” is exactly why the Online registry is an uncontestable punitive hit-list. It radicalizes people with hateful, devisive rhetoric.
When parents fail to lock up their firearms and a teen goes out with those firearms and murders people, the parents can be held responsible.
Is there the potential, along those similar lines, when public rhetoric slanders us to the point that we are being targeted for assassination, that we could sue those individuals for being accessories to violence?
Don’t see that as likely
Let’s not forget the party currently in power has been using Predator Panic ™ to justify targeting undocumented migrants.
Hi DW. I don’t totally disagree with you, however on that topic, while agree that like PFR’s not all undocumented migrants are out there committing violence. The difference is this. Every day they are in the US undocumented/illegally here they are committing a new offence. Therein lies the difference. undocumented migrants are just by being in the US are committing new crime. Rhetoric has been a source of provokement ( i think i just made up a word ) going all the way back to the first man.
While not 100% similar, immigrants face a few similar challenges as we do. Just as our immigration policy is confusing and complex, so are laws targeting Registered Persons. For example, missed paperwork or an appointment can make an immigrant here legally not so and can lead to arrest. Missed paperwork or an appoinemt can make a registered person non-compliabnt with registration and can lead to arrest. There are stereotypes of undocumented immigrants (example: the idea they all crossed the southern border illegally) that isn’t truly how most “illegal” immigration occurs. And of course, the negatibve stereotypes about Persons Forced to Register I ddon’t feel needs repeating.
The sex offender registry isn’t just unconstitutional, it takes away People’s “DREAM’S”
It is essential to acknowledge that words indeed have consequences, especially when they originate from the highest office in the land. This dynamic is perhaps most visible in the way we talk about those on the sex offender registry; when the conversation shifts toward dehumanizing labels and blanket fear-based messaging, it strips away their humanity and is often used to justify vigilante violence under the guise of “protection.” President Trump has frequently utilized this same rhetorical blueprint against his political rivals, consistently pioneering a brand of language that invites such aggression. By labeling domestic opponents as “vermin” that must be “rooted out” and identifying American citizens as “the enemy within,” he frames fellow human beings as existential threats rather than people with rights. Just as dehumanizing rhetoric against those on registries encourages people to take the law into their own hands, this presidential rhetoric creates a dangerous environment where violence is seen as a legitimate response to those who have been cast out of the “human” circle.
Yes, and especially egregious is the utterly unscientific and hateful word “predator”.
We MUST STOP using it for any human being!
The fact that it is codified into law is appalling!