Fascism comes to America
Courtesy of the ObamaLeft, of course. Quote from the legal experts at The Volokhs:
"Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through "Severe, Repeated, and Hostile" Speech?
That's what a House of Representatives bill, proposed by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others, would do. Here's the relevant text:"Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both....
["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...
["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.
1. I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite / campaign promise breaker / fool / etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior" -- unless, of course, my statements aren't seen as "severe," a term that is entirely undefined and unclear. Result: I am a felon, unless somehow my "behavior" isn't "severe."
2. A newspaper reporter or editorialist tries to do the same, in columns that are posted on the newspaper's Web site. Result: Felony, unless somehow my "behavior" isn't severe.
3. The politician votes the wrong way. I think that's an evil, tyrannical vote, so I repeatedly and harshly condemn the politician on my blog, hoping that he'll get very upset (and rightly so, since I think he deserves to feel ashamed of himself, and loathed by others). I am transmitting a communication with the the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." (I might also be said to be intending to "harass" -- who knows, given how vague the term is? -- but the result is the same even if we set that aside.) Result: I am a felon, subject to the usual utter uncertainty about what "severe" means.
Source
I imagine SCOTUS would strike it down but the more people Obama appoints to SCOTUS, the weaker that protection will become. If I were an American blogger, I would be headlining this story, writing to my Senator, my House Rep., the Governor of my State and politely writing to the supporters of the bill and raising the sorts of issues that the Volokhs identify. Even if an exemption for all political speech were inserted, that would be worthwhile.
If "emotional distress" is prohibited in this context, will it eventually be prohibited in other contexts too -- such as relationship breakups? Fancy going to court if your girlfriend gets upset by something?
8 comments:
translated into plain old English: "if you say something the government doesn't like you're
going to prison for 2 years"
Rationally speaking, there's no way something like this could get by a SCOTUS challenge. Then again, there are powerful forces in this govt. who's aim is to remove rational thinking from the court and replace it with emotion and political correctness.
Thanks to the weak-minded and utterly gullible voters, we now have a country controlled by one political party. This party is very comfortable using intimidation, lies, coercion, and deceit to get their way. They rule with an iron fist and simply sweep any opposition aside. The will of the people, such as it is, is routinely ignored.
Sound familiar? Think Berlin of the late 1930's.
The letter I sent:
Dear So and SoI am writing to you to voice in the strongest possible terms my opposition to H.R. 1966, the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act" introduced on April 2, 2009.
This bill, while well intentioned, is too broadly worded to be enforceable, and is quite likely an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
The term "severe" is not defined, the requirement to know the defendants "intent" requires mind-reading ability, and the act could be interpreted to prosecute political activists who are often routinely "hostile" to those whom they oppose.
It is a bad bill, and worse law, because of these and other issues.
It is also an unnecessary Federal intrusion, as 46 states already include electronic communications in their harassment laws.
I also question which Article of the Constitution authorizes the United States Congress to pass bills governing private electronic Communications.
Please oppose this bill. It is a dangerous sledgehammer for a problem that does not truly exist.
Sincerely,
My informationI suggest everyone in the US send a copy (or something simillar) to their own reps in Congress!
Nice job Stan, but you're sending it to the very people who want this kind of power over us. This thinly veiled bill is an attempt to stifle opposing political views, something the left is infamous for doing.
WORD OF THE DAY
HOLLYWOOD, n.
A twisted place where commie morons who should be car wash, or fast food workers get paid big bucks to play let's pretend.
Not to worry Pilgrims.....
The A.C.L.U. will come to the rescue!
First this has to get through Congress and while they've often shown they're not completely honest this particular bill is just bad enough they can be convinced to kill it before it goes very far.
Lots of extremely bad ideas get proposed in Congress but it isn't until they pass and get signed into law that they become true problems.
OTOH, Sanchez has just handed her opponent in the next election a powerful hammer to beat her with.
Anon 12:13 AM,
You make a good point but, this congress, and this administration will do and say "anything" to further their leftist political agenda. They are also very aware of the power of the internet, a power they would love to somehow harness. But far more important to them, it's a power they are dying to tax. This may simply be the first step.
Post a Comment