Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We already have laws condemming verbal assault or inciting violence. Enforce those before giving this, or any government, the power to completely censor speach.
Without knowing if the shooting incident with Congresswoman Giffords was politically motivated, The Hill is reporting "Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or incitingviolence against a federal official or member of Congress."
From what we know, this crackpot had been in touch with the congresswoman as early as 2007 as they found her correspondence to him in his home. We also know he was acting so disturbed in a math class that students, at the time, said they were afraid of him. There are photos now of a skull in his yard. I guess what I'm trying to say is, "Do you think this incident is being used to do something else?
"Could be perceived" by whom? If an actual threat is made, aren't there already laws on the books to cover it and define "could be perceived as inciting." Our Justice Department didn't perceive two menacing New Black Panthers with weapons outside of a voting booth as threatening.
I don't know if that's the actual language in the bill or merely The Hill's take on it but "that could be perceived" and "inciting" sounds like to me a too easy way to shut down political discourse like in this forum and do another stab at shutting down talk radio. I don't object to politicians being more safe and secure from nutjobs but I sure hope the actual language of the bill is more precise than "could be perceived" and defines "inciting" because it sounds to me right now like the incident is being used for other purposes.
The Black Panthers at that polling station were armed?
We already have laws condemming verbal assault or inciting violence. Enforce those before giving this, or any government, the power to completely censor speach.
The law can then be use for ANY opposition to the "will of govt" as a perceived threat.
Very disturbing, but the article gave no detail at all other than "we want the same protection as the president", but then it discusses words and images that are perceived threatening. That is puzzling - there are already laws that outlaw legitimate threats to anyone, we need no new laws in that regard.
So do we want the government to define when we are threatening someone, other than an outright "I am going to kill someone". Do we want a society were it is illegal to carry a sign with an X over a picture of a policitian? Think of the implications. We live in a free society - we take the good and the bad with it.
LOL...who were they threatening to club? The way i remember that incident, it was at a polling station that had pretty much all black voters, wasn't it?
No! They are trained physically, mentally and with their equipment. Not to mention, regularly evaluated as to their competence.
you mean there aren't cases of Police Officers assaulting an din some cases killing civilians???
Really?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
