Hyperbole, vitriol and bullets

In light of last night's shooting in Arizona, the issue on the table is freedom of expression. Much freedom is allowed when that it's used to distort and incite the masses. Giffords' shooting caused 6 lives, including Judge John Roll (on a Marchall protection plan) and a 9 year old girl.

We should learn that words and images have consequences:

I'm not saying Palin's "targets" caused Jared Lee to act. I simply point to a correlation between political rhetoric and people's beliefs. The vitriol, the constant use of guns together with the invocation of the Ur-Constitution¹, which makes up for something as bizarre as this send-a-warrior-to-congress poster:

Is politics essentially a realm of hyperbole, distortions and vitriol? Predictably, gun rights' inflated language gets mixed with a bombastic and bellicose anti-government rhetoric:

In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill argues that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

There is a "liberal" interpretation of Mill. We should be free to express ourselves. The state should not interfere (in Liberalism the State is the bogeyman). Ideally, we should be educated enough to read between the lines and make up our minds. No one should do it for us. But as we know from the Lee Laughners and McVeighs of this world, there are intolerant and violent individuals who will not be educated and will buy the rhetoric. What then?

What do you do with false facts, flawed argumentation, divisive language and dehumanizing metaphors? Are not these ingredients the perfect broth for "hate speech"?

In countries like Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark and The Netherlands hate speech is prohibited. In our country, in light of the First Amendment, our position remains ambivalent. 

How do you reconcile freedom of expression in a world with terrorism and political polarization? Is there a middle way?
________

Update: To illustrate my point. Just after the shooting, members of the ultra-conservative Westboro Baptist Church, known for their anti-homosexual propaganda proposed to picket funerals of Arizona victims. They published the following in their Website (appropriately dubbed www.godhatesfags.com):

God sent the shooter!

Your federal judge is dead and your (fag-promoting, baby-killing, proud-sinner) Congresswoman fights for her life. God is avenging Himself on this rebellious house! WBC prays for your destruction--more shooters, more dead carcasses piling up, young, old, leader and commoner--all. Your doom is upon you!

If these words not incendiary, what is?
_____
¹By Ur-Constitution, I mean the "original constitution w/o amendments." A constitution that many people in our country keep invoking.