I don't disagree. However, I have yet to see anything that I consider in that realm. If one person misinterprets another's words as inciting murder, is the first person at fault? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the situation.
I think that the SarahPac website was in poor taste, but I honestly don't think that it was intended to convey the message "people should kill people in these areas". If it was, it does it exceedingly poorly. I think that it is far more likely that the cross-hair theme was chosen to appeal to the pro-gun demographic that Palin is courting.
To me, it doesn't pass the "reasonable doubt" test. I can understand that it doesn't for others though.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-08 11:04 pm (UTC)I think that the SarahPac website was in poor taste, but I honestly don't think that it was intended to convey the message "people should kill people in these areas". If it was, it does it exceedingly poorly. I think that it is far more likely that the cross-hair theme was chosen to appeal to the pro-gun demographic that Palin is courting.
To me, it doesn't pass the "reasonable doubt" test. I can understand that it doesn't for others though.