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.
Seriously? Threatening an elected official, especially a federal official is a crime...it has been for a long time. This idiot decided to do it in Colorado and is now looking at a 10 year jail sentence if convicted.
If anyone thinks it's free speech to have some one threaten another's life, they should experience it for themselves.
Then Brady's proposal is unnecessary.
Here's another disturbing proposal by the same congressman:
Quote:
PHILADELPHIA - Congressman Bob Brady (D-Pa., 1st) says he'll introduce a law to make it a crime to publish Web site that places "crosshairs" on a Congressional member, in a reaction to a map that appeared on Sarah Palin's Web site.
It's OK with me if we make it illegal to threaten ME too. I don't consider a threat against someone to be "free speech", I consider it a "threat". I want them taken seriously and the person doing the threatening punished .
It's OK with me if we make it illegal to threaten ME too. I don't consider a threat against someone to be "free speech", I consider it a "threat". I want them taken seriously and the person doing the threatening punished .
So a target on a map should be considered a threat?
I do not believe Congress should pass any law that does not apply equally to all US citizens, be they elected representative, federal judges, or average citizens.
The Republic is government by the people. Not government protected by exceptional laws for the governing elite. A law that is good enough for one is good enough for all or not good enough for any. Congress should not be able to create laws around itself as a "protected class", IMO.
This is a great post. I agree, because if you start to make laws that provide unequal protection to Congress, federal judges, etc...then you creep closer and closer toward implicit threats. What I mean by implicit threats is disagreeing, criticizing or calls of alternative action being interpreted as threats against the government.
I believe that people should be able to criticize the government, call for alternative action, etc. and it must all be protected under free speech. Any special protections of free speech for specific groups is NOT free speech.
COLUMBIA — U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what's acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.
Clyburn said he thinks vitriol in public discourse led to a 22-year-old suspect opening fire Saturday at an event Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords held for her constituents in Tucson, Ariz. Six people were killed and 14 others were injured, including Giffords.
Given his own rhetoric in the past is Clyburn really in a position to throw stones out of his glass house? IIRC, Clyburn openly accused those who opposed Obamacare to those opposing the civil rights. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_259118.html
Perhaps some of these elected representatives need to take a good hard look at their own divisive rhetoric before trying to place controls on the free speech of Americans!
It's OK with me if we make it illegal to threaten ME too. I don't consider a threat against someone to be "free speech", I consider it a "threat". I want them taken seriously and the person doing the threatening punished .
It already is. What should be perceived as a threat? Both sides have used rhetoric that could technically be interpreted as a threat, even though it was only a metaphor. This is terrority the government should not encroach in, otherwise this may get the ball rolling into a direction we do not want to go. Do you think websites with targets on them should be illegal?
This is a great post. I agree, because if you start to make laws that provide unequal protection to Congress, federal judges, etc...then you creep closer and closer toward implicit threats. What I mean by implicit threats is disagreeing, criticizing or calls of alternative action being interpreted as threats against the government.
I believe that people should be able to criticize the government, call for alternative action, etc. and it must all be protected under free speech. Any special protections of free speech for specific groups is NOT free speech.
This is exactly the issue .... these "lawmakers" love the game of incrementalism, first its a direct threat ... then implicit threat ... then its any criticism that leads someone else to do something. These people are the real danger to society, not some lone lunatic.
We now have the constitution haters coming out of the woodwork with new gun restrictions, when they should be advocating open carry so that good law abiding citizens can defend against these occasional lunatics!!
Now, to say what hasn't been said .... notice how all of these types of shootings always seem to mimic each other ... and the response too?
Is it just a coincidence that both the Judge and the Congresswoman were decent, constitutionally minded Americans .... pro 2nd amendment types?
Is it not strange that the shooter was complained about by classmates, who reported him as dangerous and crazy .... and how he has been reported to have claimed he was being "mind controlled" ?
And why was there no security for this anti-illegal immigration Congresswoman outdoors just 60 miles from the Mexican boarder ... and why was a Federal Judge who has been standing against federal tyranny ... a real champion of the constitution (very rare these days) the targets of this maniac ?
This is a gift for the leftist gun grabbing, anti-constitution ruling crowd. Lucky Coincidence for them?
This is exactly the issue .... these "lawmakers" love the game of incrementalism, first its a direct threat ... then implicit threat ... then its any criticism that leads someone else to do something. These people are the real danger to society, not some lone lunatic.
Exactly! Incrementalism is mostly how we go to where we are now. Rational thought and decision-making don't seem to apply anymore.
I also believe we're so far removed from the times of dictators and kingdoms that current society cannot really relate or truly understand the concepts in the Constitution. There are many people in our society that don't even understand the importance of the freedom of speech.
Perhaps it would satisfy those that wish to silence all opposition to print a book with all the words they dislike highlighted in yellow. That would leave 'a' 'an' 'and' 'the' - but 'is' has already been redefined as we knew it.
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.
James Clyburn joins the finger pointers
