As we explore the evidence surrounding the attack on Paul Pelosi, the debate has arisen as to the attacker’s mental health. One commentator noted that being radicalized, as this individual apparently is, can not be classified as mental illness. If this is the prevailing medical view, well that’s just nuts.

There is a reluctance to call the elephant in the room a mental case. One might make the argument that Jeffrey Dahmer was of sound mind when he kidnapped, killed and ate his victims because he was capable of planning and knew the difference between right and wrong. Some of this may be rooted in the criminal justice system, where a insanity defense automatically makes it difficult to obtain a conviction.

I am not suggesting that the attacker of Pelosi is crazy, but I am suggesting that what he did and wanted to do is just batshit nuts. If we can agree on that much, then we can see a way toward a clearer understanding.

It is similar to predicting who is at risk for addiction. If one or both parents have a history of addiction, their offspring are 50% more likely to become addicts themselves. Statistics. A radicalized individual can very well be said to be addicted. The drug of choice interferes with everyday life and becomes out of the addict’s ability to control. Because the idea of listening or watching something cannot be considered illegal or damaging activities gives these individuals greater license to pursue such input regardless of how deep the rabbit hole.

Freedom of speech is limited. Yelling fire in a crowded theater has always been the benchmark for determining what is protected speech. Why? Because such speech, if untrue, causes harm to others especially if the person knows the speech is untrue. Now let’s explore media speech. There is a constant yelling of “fire” that breeds in some vulnerable individuals a flight or fight response. It is purely an emotional response which negates the capacity for critical, rational thinking.

But yelling “fire” is also coupled with directions to the exit, a way to save yourself. All of this is perpetrated without any real evidence of a fire, but merely the possibility of danger by fire. The directions seem so sincere that it draws these individuals to get further information for the escape plan. Then once the plan is realized in the minds of these individuals, anyone who attempts to impede their escape must be eliminated. There is no time to try to convince them of their error.

What seems logical is to regulate such hate speech. This is not easy, nor should it be. But if a media personality is encouraging the fears of their listeners to the point of endangering both themselves and those around them who appear to be the source of the danger, that should be monitored and sanctioned. And who would be in charge of such oversight. The FCC seems like a good start. Not politicians, not church leaders, not cultists.

In the meantime, we as members of a free and open society, must be aware of and vigilant about the information we allow into our heads. We must be cautious and savvy consumers of so-called news. It has always been true that our sources of news have bias. It is incumbent upon us to be aware and conscious, not oblivious and sedated.