As Australia struggles to reconcile the shocking alleged attack on independent MP Helen Haines this week, the fingers of blame and responsibility are being pointed in any number of directions.
Many are quite rightly decrying the erosion of fundamental decency and civility in our public and political discourse.
That is a real concern. And it has been noticeable for quite some time.
Australians have always possessed a healthy scepticism about politics, politicians and their motives.
But that is increasingly spilling over into something decidedly unhealthy and dangerous.
It exploded with malignant force during COVID as the boiling frustrations of lockdowns and isolation were weaponised by armies of keyboard warriors in blasts of thunderous, abusive, often threatening rage.
Some of that has subsided in the years since. But not much.
AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett revealed this week that her organisation’s National Security Investigations team is charging people with making threats against Federal politicians and other high office holders at the rate of almost one a week.
That is four times higher than in 2019, the year before COVID.
Barrett put that down to an increasing level of political polarisation and anti-government sentiment in the Australian community, leading to “a growing volume of online abuse, threatening rhetoric and intimidation”.
Politicians are pointing the finger of blame for that at the social media giants — again quite legitimately.
These platforms actively employ a business model that incentivises rage-baiting and rabble-rousing through algorithms that draw users into a self-perpetuating loop of anger and outrage.
They then commercialise it by selling advertising on this caustic content. Clicks bring bucks.
That is leading others to point the finger at the system itself and its inability to bring the tech titans to heel.
Again, this is a valid criticism.
The law is manifestly inadequate in dealing with the volcanic threat online.
That is largely because legislators face moral and legal hurdles in developing laws — standards of decency and fairness that the social media giants seem gleefully unencumbered by.
Political debates over hate speech laws and a digital duty of care have become bogged down in intractable arguments over where a citizen’s implied right to free-speech ends and where acts of criminality begin.
This dilemma of democratic freedom has tied the Parliament in knots as it attempts to codify new categories of online offences.
Police say one of the biggest challenges they face is proving intent in order to succeed with charges of higher severity.
Commissioner Barrett revealed this week that most online offenders are shocked when the police turn up at their door.
They almost universally claim they never intended to carry out their threats.
But issuing the threat itself is a serious offence. The maximum penalty is 10 years jail.
Recent decisions by the courts, though, show that most are issued small fines or placed on community service orders.
Many say those laws should be tougher. That, again, is reasonable.
But while the finger of blame and responsibility is being waved in all these directions, there is something more fundamental that should be considered.
Those who make these threats should be held responsible for their actions, but we all share a level of collective responsibility for the prevailing culture of anger and vitriol online.
We shouldn’t tolerate it. We should demand it be reined in. But we should also examine the political culture that has enabled this free-for-all to develop.
Politicians must take more care in what they say about each other and how they engage in parliament, especially in Question Time.
We in the media have an equal responsibility to treat the news with balance and context to avoid amplifying disproportionate anger.
The social media giants should do much more to police their own domains. And the corporate entities that advertise on them and profit from them should demand higher standards.
But it is the principal responsibility of all of us to moderate our own actions online and in the public square before moving against others.
We must not just say what we do but do what we say.
Collective standards can only survive if they’re supported by individual actions.
Maybe we should be willing to point the finger at ourselves first.