11 Comments

1. Ken  •  Jan 29, 2010 @3:33 pm
   

   I believe that another applicable term would be “terrorist,” in that his aim was not merely to kill one abortion provider, but to strike fear into the hearts of others, deterring them.

   Even Michelle Malkin agrees, for God’s sake.

2. bw  •  Jan 29, 2010 @4:40 pm
   

   While your feelings about the story in question are understandable, I question your implied claim of authority over the use of the term activist.

   It seems that, however misguided and deplorable his crime may have been, that he otherwise fit your definition of an activist.

   Is it, then, your contention that an act of violence disqualifies one from being considered an activist?

   Does said disqualification stem from ANY act of violence or only one committed in the furtherance of the cause in question?

   Is there a degree of violence necessary for diqualification?

   Does this rule vary in any way based on the cause in question?
   e.g. Did John Brown disqualify himself from being an anti-slavery activist?

3. Ken  •  Jan 29, 2010 @4:56 pm
   

   I can’t speak for Patrick, bw. But if I were making the same argument, I would assert that a label may be technically accurate but misleading or inappropriate depending on context. For instance, “White Man Roeder Convicted of Murder” would imply some sort of connection between Roeder’s race and his act. That implication would be false. It’s the same, arguably, with “Christian.” “Christian Roeder Convicted of Murder” would probably seriously piss off many Christians — because they would perceive the implication.

   Similarly, the use of a modifier can imply that the modifier is relevant to the act, not just coincidental. Using “activist” in this context implies “someone who does this sort of thing is an activist.” I don’t think it is reasonably read as “Roeder, who in the past has been an activist but now has killed a guy, convicted of murder.”

   Say that Roeder served in the military, overpays taxes, always votes, and cries during the pledge of allegiance. Would you think it appropriate to say “Patriot Roeder Convicted of Murder?”

4. Doug  •  Jan 29, 2010 @5:17 pm
   

   Seems to me that the term “activist” is attempting to portray pro-life people in a negative light by linking them to the murderer.

5. Bob  •  Jan 29, 2010 @7:50 pm
   

   @Ken: I’d be very hesitant to apply the label “terrorist” here. In my book, the difference between a terrorist and an assassin is in the choice of target: the assassin targets specific individuals toward a specific end, in this case halting a specific doctor’s abortions, while the terrorist does not greatly care who dies as long as the result is fear. Let’s try to keep the definition specific, and halt the growing misuse of “terrorist” to apply to everything down to people who let their dogs crap on the sidewalk.

6. TomH  •  Jan 30, 2010 @7:21 am
   

   Good journalism would dictate, that in this instance where the descriptive term is debatable, it is a matter of opinion and should be left to the editorial page. The headline would be better as ‘Roeder Convicted . . .” or in the New York Post ‘Roeder Up The River’

7. proofreader  •  Jan 30, 2010 @12:53 pm
   

   I think it would have been more accurate to say
   “Pro-Lifer Convicted of Murdeer”
   Now that’s irony.

8. proofreader  •  Jan 30, 2010 @12:54 pm
   

   Oops!
   That should be “murder”.
   Proofreader makes typo.

9. bw  •  Feb 1, 2010 @10:36 am
   

   But, Ken, his activism WAS connected to the murder, since the crime was committed, at least in his eyes, in the furtherance of his cause.

   And I’d guess that headlines at the time probably described Brown as an abolitionist.

10. Abdul  •  Feb 3, 2010 @12:53 pm
    

    He was an anti-abortion activist who enjoyed a legal presumption of innocence until the jury verdict, when he became a convicted murderer.

    Hence, “activist convicted of murder.”

    If George Tiller were killed by his wife’s lover, I imagine the headline would read “Paramour convicted of murder.” I don’t imagine the same level of outrage from Patrick.

11. Eduardo  •  Feb 3, 2010 @5:54 pm
    

    I don’t mind using “activist” here, as the man WAS an activist before he became a terrorist. And I say terrorist meaning one who targets civilians in order to further a political cause.

Leave a Reply