On Wednesday, the House voted to censure GOP Representative Paul Gosar in response to a violent video he had posted on his Twitter. (For those unaware, while a censure does not remove one from office, it is considered amongst the worst punishment, as it acts as a formal statement of disapproval.)
The video posted was an edited video of a clip from the Japanese anime “Attack on Titan,” which depicted Gosar killing a Titan with Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s face edited onto it. Gosar’s character then goes on to attack another Titan with President Joe Biden’s face edited onto it. Although Twitter has added a warning label onto the tweet, they state that it will remain available and accessible on the site for “public interest.” Fellow Representatives have reacted and responded to the video on Twitter, calling Gosar’s tweet “sick behavior.”
“When a member uses his or her national platform to encourage violence, tragically, people listen to those words and they may act upon them,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the vote. The House voted 223 in favor to 207 against. Amongst those in favor were all 221 House Democrats and only 2 House Republicans, Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. The resolution removed Gosar from the committees he had served on, the Committee of Natural Resources, and the Committee of Oversight and Reform, where he worked alongside Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. Gosar has not issued an apology of any kind, to Ocasio-Cortez herself or a public one, as of yet and refuses to do so. “If I must join Alexander Hamilton, the first person attempted to be censured by this House, so be it. It is done,” said Gosar in response to the vote. He later went on Twitter and tweeted: “This was a historic first to be surrounded by members of in the Well of the House in solidarity against the mob of censors. Everyone knows this censure was theater.”
Questions:
Do you agree with the House’s decision? Is the verdict fair? Do you believe that Gosar should have been punished more or less?
Do you agree with Twitter’s decision to keep the post available to the public?
Do you agree with Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (and many Democratic representatives) view on the impact posts like this have? Can one social media post really have that devastating of an impact? Why or why not?
Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/opinions/paul-gosar-censure-vote-necessary-alaimo/index.html
https://www.newsweek.com/minutes-after-being-censured-rep-gosar-retweets-offending-aoc-video-1650542
18 comments:
I can see where the House is coming from, but I do not agree with them. Gosar posted a video of a fictional anime show, in which he put his and other politicians' faces over the characters. It was an act of humor that probably had some trash-talk intent behind it, but that's just what comes with politics. I think that the verdict is fair because Gosar's post contained violence, but did not encourage or promote it. I believe that Gosar should've gotten a less severe punishment and that the House really went overboard with this one. I do think that Twitter's decision to keep the post public is a fine idea because it is a post of comedy and competition, not actually promoting violence. I do think that one video can have a bigger impact than one hundred videos, but it just depends on the content of the video. - Mason Ching
This entire situation is completely ridiculous. I slightly agree with Mason here that the House’s decision might have been too much, but I do see reason to set precedent here. Politics is developing into trash talking and Gosar was the one to take it too far by posting something gory and just not in good taste overall. There’s the whole point that our representatives should be held to a higher standard, and this post is simply stupid to say the least. Pelosi also has a point here, because Gosar has this national platform that can influence many people’s ideas and behaviors, so he really should be careful about what ideas he’s spreading, intentionally or unintentionally. The least he could do is apologize, but he won’t even do that, perhaps emboldened by Trump’s own tactics. This also reminds me of the whole blocking people-thing on twitter with Trump and AOC. I do think all this playground politics and trash talking should be censured because it should not be tolerated in the US government, though now I’m not sure how realistic it is to expect people to respect each other in Congress.
I understand why the house and officials are upset, there should be consequences to his actions and the video he posted but the punishment was too harsh. Gosar just posed a video of him and other representatives on a fictional animated show, it is a violent and graphic show but he didn't do any harm, he never told him anything malicious, he was just poking fun. This is how politics are now a-days there is a-lot of trash talking and mocking other representatives from the other party, punishing him now seems unfair they had to put a foot down. Twitter keeping up the post is fine as there is a-lot of other videos with the same nature and sometimes even more graphic, but I also agree why they punished him he is a national figure and alot of people are looking at him and hes in the spotlight and needs to be held to a higher standard but again, the punishment is too harsh.
I agree with the House's decision and believe that censorship is a fair punishment. Gosar may not have intended to promote violence, but as Pelosi said, people still may act upon his words. Failing to punish Gosar sets a dangerous precedent that this kind of behavior from a US Representative is acceptable. Gosar's actions have no place in the US government and only add to the division and hate between parties. Additionally, his refusing to apologize and even comparing himself to a founding father is ridiculous. As AOC said, "What is so hard about saying that this is wrong? This is not about me. This is not about Rep. Gosar. But this is about what we are willing to accept." She also points out that claiming that the video doesn't mean anything "betrays a certain contempt" for their work as Representatives because he's saying that what they say and do there doesn't matter.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/582029-ocasio-cortez-blasts-gosar-mccarthy-over-anime-video-showing-her-murder
I agree with the statements Mason and Anthony have mentioned. As someone who has seen the video from a different social media platform (TikTok) I feel as if this emphasizes the power the media holds. Thus, I agree that posts and social media have an impact on individuals even if they ultimately have the decision to accept or reject these opinions. Ultimately, the media is so widespread now that the video does have the potential to have a “devastating” impact but personally I feel as if it was more comedical than violent, suggesting that the House’s decision seems pretty harsh. I can see the intent of wanting to appeal to a younger audience through pop culture, but as a younger individual who has watched Attack on Titan, I find it more comedical and cringey than informative and violent. Without giving too many spoilers, an article even mentions that although the anime is related to politics, there is an irony behind the video. The anime warns how mistreatment and falling into one’s own belief system creates an enemy out of another group, but Representative Gosar appears to depict Democrats as someone separate from them. Thus, even though I do believe he should be punished as a figurehead should be held accountable for their actions, I don’t believe that it should be this extreme of a punishment as his team was probably just trying to attract a younger audience (even if it did ultimately fail).https://www.postapocalypticmedia.com/gosar-attack-on-titan-video/
I believe that the House’s decision was more than what it should have been. Censorship in itself is theater, there are no ramifications. Losing his seats in two committees is more important. However, based on his post-censure Tweet, it appears that he remains unflinched.
Yes, I do agree with Twitter in that it should be available for people to see. Some will sadly see it as a call to stick it to the other party instead of working together.
To answer the question if I agree with Speaker Nancy’s Pelosi’s view on the impact posts like this have is this. It’s certainly not a harmonious post. At best it calls for sticking it to the other party. At worst, it adds fuel to an already burning fire between the two parties and their more extreme constituents.
With Gosar's high position in Office, it is irresponsible of him to have posted such a video. With our already highly polarized government, having some of our leaders pose violence against each other (even if it's satire) only serves to increase public polarization and distance us further from general compromise and peace. If Gosar wanted to attack Biden and AOC's policies and beliefs, so be it. But if he will express his disagreement by posting a ridiculous video, it seems immature to me. I do agree that the House's response is somewhat extreme, given it was merely a video. This comes to show the extent to which media has dominated our society.
While I do agree with the Houses decision to censure Paul Gosar, I also disagree with the idea that a singular video such as this can incite large amounts of violence. Was the video appropriate? Absolutely not. Should he have apologized and taken responsibility after called out for it? Obviously. A public government official, especially at that level, should not be spreading videos like that. However, despite my thoughts that him spreading the video is inappropriate and spreads a poor message (as described in Anthony's comment), I also do not think that the video itself is problematic. Videos like these are not indicative of a desire from Gosar to kill Ocasio-Cortez and Biden, nor is it encouraging others to do the same; this is a satirical video based off of a TV show that portrays Gosar as a hero and AOC and Biden as villains. The idea that this kind of video is contributing to political polarization has much more merit, in my opinion, than the argument that it incites violence. I think that it is a stretch to claim that "Gosar posted this video and wants to KILL government officials!!!" He simply does not like Biden or Ocasio-Cortez, and I think that the only underlying message of the video was perhaps his perception that they are evil (which while polarizing, is not inherently a threat to their safety). Because of this, I also agree with Twitter's decision to keep the video online, as I think it would be an unnecessary censorship.
The house was completely justified in censuring Gosar. A censure really doesn't do anything beyond extreme disapproval of, in this case, Gosar posting the video. If this happened in any other place of work, the person would be fired immediately. We should be holding our politicians to an even higher standard, but at least to this. Furthermore, after getting censored, guess what Gosar did. He retweeted the same video. Competition and comedy are different from videos depicting a representative killing another representative. I don't think anyone will go and act on the video, but this type of behavior by a representative is not acceptable. I recommend all those who believe that this was too harsh to take a look at what others have been censured for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_representatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded. Almost all of it is for unparliamentary language or insults which are much less extreme than posting a video depicting violence towards another representative. This is literally what a censure is for. Also, note how all those votes were overwhelming majorities, while this was almost only along party lines. Paul Gosar clearly does not feel any remorse, and would likely do similar things in the future. This also isn't the end of Gosar's political career. If (or likely when) republicans take control of the house, they will definitely reinstate Gosar onto his committees. There is also a funny video of all of Gosar's siblings endorsing the candidate that was running against him during his representative race. This censure was the appropriate move for the house to make, and I am not shocked, but disappointed that over 200 representatives thought this behavior was appropriate. These are the people responsible to run our government and he is posting a photoshopped video of him attacking another representative.
I agree with the House's decision to censor Paul Gosar because releasing that video on twitter was inappropriate and illustrates his immaturity. As a elected public figure, Gosar should not be degrading other colleagues even if their political ideology is different from his. However, I don't believe that this video will instigate violence as some house members believe. While it may contribute to the divide between Democrats and Republicans because it portrays the two groups as opponents, I doubt there will be any additional act of violence. However, I do think the media has exaggerated the message behind the video. While it is still wrong for Gosar to share this video on social media, there is no evidence that he wants to harm any other government officials and this was a mere act of immaturity and ignorance.
The House was definitely right in censuring Rep. Paul Gosar after his tweet as it contained motives and depictions of violence, behavior that should not be seen in officials that represent our country. I largely agree with Lilly’s claims that a censure isn’t even “extreme,” as others have pointed out, rather it’s just the House saying “that wasn’t cool — don’t do it again.”
Failure to censure or discipline Gosar for his actions sets a precedent for other high-ranking government officials and the general American public that actions similar to those of Gosar are fine, as there are no consequences for it.
Obviously, Gosar won’t saunter into the White House and kill Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and President Joe Biden. However, the video implicates his flawed epistemology which sets a bad example for other representatives.
From the perspective of representation, this is an interesting dilemma. This representative was elected in a certain district and is mean to voice the opinions of the district to Congress as part of the representative democracy that is America. While he retains the power to vote on legislation, he is unable to exercise the power of serving on committees. Since this power is not constitutionally mandated the rest of Congress is able to remove him from them. This raises the question: is serving on committees the right of each representative as their job in Congress? It terms of how it is bring implemented, Congress does not treat it as a right because of its absence in the constitution. This goes to show how the Congress has changed since the founders imagined it, and how each member of Congress is still not fully independent from the others (especially in the House - the Senate is more equal and independent).
The way I see it, it is up to Congress to decide how they form relationships between each member - essential to writing legislation. Stripping of committee assignments is just a way of representing negative relationships in Congress. Paul Gosar did a bad job as a Congressperson by alienating himself; I do not see this as an attempt to censure him or restrict the right of his district to represent themselves. What it does show is an imperfection of representative democracy - some delegates are more talented and skilled than others so one constituency can have more say just because its delegate is a better politician. Maybe Gosar's actions will show his constituency he is not very good at politics because of how he alienated himself, and they will elect another candidate.
From the perspective of representation, this is an interesting dilemma. This representative was elected in a certain district and is mean to voice the opinions of the district to Congress as part of the representative democracy that is America. While he retains the power to vote on legislation, he is unable to exercise the power of serving on committees. Since this power is not constitutionally mandated the rest of Congress is able to remove him from them. This raises the question: is serving on committees the right of each representative as their job in Congress? It terms of how it is bring implemented, Congress does not treat it as a right because of its absence in the constitution. This goes to show how the Congress has changed since the founders imagined it, and how each member of Congress is still not fully independent from the others (especially in the House - the Senate is more equal and independent).
The way I see it, it is up to Congress to decide how they form relationships between each member - essential to writing legislation. Stripping of committee assignments is just a way of representing negative relationships in Congress. Paul Gosar did a bad job as a Congressperson by alienating himself; I do not see this as an attempt to censure him or restrict the right of his district to represent themselves. What it does show is an imperfection of representative democracy - some delegates are more talented and skilled than others so one constituency can have more say just because its delegate is a better politician. Maybe Gosar's actions will show his constituency he is not very good at politics because of how he alienated himself, and they will elect another candidate.
Like many others, considering Gosar’s position and influence on the public, the House’s decision to censure Gosar was definitely justified. While I understand that some argue this was intended to be a lighthearted joke, the overall message of the post clearly highlights Gosar’s lack of respect for AOC and Biden. Considering that Gosar is a co-worker with AOC and works under Biden, these public postings are especially inexcusable as it does not create a safe work environment. Additionally, I think this censure was necessary as it holds Gosar accountable. Especially in today’s tense political climate which has often led to mud-slinging the opposition, inaction towards Gosar’s post would reinforce this heinous behavior and create an environment in which blatantly disrespecting peers is acceptable. As for the question regarding whether or not social media can have a devastating impact I believe this notion is a bit too strong. While social media can be negative and incite violence, as seen through Gosar’s posts, I also think that social media allows can hold people accountable for their actions, as seen through the negative response to Gosar’s post.
This comment is by Lauren Mok because she is unable to post comments due to technical difficulties:
Like many others, considering Gosar’s position and influence on the public, the House’s decision to censure Gosar was definitely justified. While I understand that some argue this was intended to be a lighthearted joke, the overall message of the post clearly highlights Gosar’s lack of respect for AOC and Biden. Considering that Gosar is a co-worker with AOC and works under Biden, these public postings are especially inexcusable as it does not create a safe work environment. Additionally, I think this censure was necessary as it holds Gosar accountable. Especially in today’s tense political climate which has often led to mud-slinging the opposition, inaction towards Gosar’s post would reinforce this heinous behavior and create an environment in which blatantly disrespecting peers is acceptable. As for the question regarding whether or not social media can have a devastating impact I believe this notion is a bit too strong. While social media can be negative and incite violence, as seen through Gosar’s posts, I also think that social media allows can hold people accountable for their actions, as seen through the negative response to Gosar’s post.
While I understand that the house officials are in turmoil from the reaction to the Twitter video, I see the reactions as just. Officials in our government are human like the rest of us. however, as they represent us as a whole they need to be held to a higher standard, being more sensitive about what they put out on social media included. I feel that this mistake is something that should be forgiven but not overlooked. The argument is that someone who was not born into the age of technology does not understand the effect of social media and what is put on there, however, Gosar is definitely aware of the role he is fulfilling. There probably was no intent to actually do harm but more in a comical sense, however with the times changing such media being posted to a public platform is not something a government official should be partaking in.
Traditional "freedom of speech" guidelines don't always apply to people in power. Yes, they are free to say whatever they want, but they have a massive platform of dedicated supporters underneath them, that take their words very seriously. Such people in power must think and tread very carefully when posting online or making statements of any kind, and this is an example of that. This censure is completely appropriate, and Paul Gosar was 100% in the wrong. Portraying divisions like this only further polarizes the American people, doesn't accomplish any productive goal, and drives people apart. At the worst, this kind of media is dangerous, and justifies/encourages violence across party lines. The House was right to do what they did, and this should serve as an example to politicians to think before they post.
Post a Comment