Criminalizing Free Speech: HR 1966 Sec 881

Here it comes. Thought crime and hate crime legislation. No one can attest to the vile nature of internet harassment, threats and insults more than I can, but I would never silence my "critics". This law is unconstitutional, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. It destroys the basic tenets of the Constitution. The left is ripping it to shreds. You can view the bill here.

This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.

If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age. (more here)

That this is even being proposed speaks volumes as to how far America has fallen. Here is the language in the bill:

a) 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.

‘(b) As used in this section-

‘(1) the term ‘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;

‘(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.

What this means? Recap here:

U.S. House of Representatives would make it a felony to offend someone online.

A felony.

Under this new law you would not just be slapped on the wrist and have to pay a fine.

You would go to big boy prison.

While most free speech activists have been watching the recent "hate crimes" bill, this much more insidious piece of legislation has received almost no notice whatsoever.

Just take a look at what H.R. 1966 actually says.....

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.

Whoa.

So if you offend someone on Facebook you could go to federal prison for two years?

Yup.

If your blog insults someone and causes them to feel bad you could go to prison for two years?

Yeppers.

If you are in a bad mood one day and you send fire off an angry tweet on Twitter that you maybe should not have you could go to prison for two years over it?

Yes indeed.

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

Talk about an attempt to chill free speech.

So if someone reads something that you have written and it makes them feel bad they can take it to the feds and have them come get you?

That is a very, very frightening thought.

The reality is that the government is increasingly trying to control even the very small details of our lives. They are even increasingly trying to control what we say and what we think.

Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of a free society. If we are not free to express ourselves without the fear that someone will be offended, then what freedom will we really have left?

The reality is that if we do not stand up to this, the United States of America will quickly become overrun with politically-correct "commissars" who are eager to throw anyone who disagrees with them in jail for "hate crimes" and "thought crimes".

Let's all take a look and remember these sponsors and the author when the next election comes up:

Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39]
and 14 Co-Sponsors

* Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]
* Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
* Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23]
* Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1]
* Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
* Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7]
* Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
* Rep. Phil Hare [D, IL-17]
* Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27]
* Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9]
* Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL-10]
* Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34]
* Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3]
* Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3]

Comments

[Sounder]

Build prisons then. Lots of them. They surely will be filled with Saarh Palin bloggers / haters. Right?

This law is worse than Canada's, where the thought police focus on commentary about minority, permanently aggrieved, groups. This law is about "distress to a person", specifically about "emotion" whose definition you will find, will be a leftard one only. Why is that? Notice the words "intent" and "emotional" here? Very subjective, not objective, like real laws. This law will be the end of America as we know it, if passed.

[BethG01]

Wonder if this bill could be stretched to cover "call-in" talk radio shows? It does mention the telephone, plus some are rebroadcast on the web.

[BethG01]

Guess we'll have to resort to old-fashioned non-electric phones when we might "offend" someone!

[jj]

bethg01:

re: your observation on "talk radio."

is there really any doubt in your mind.

i am in serious disagreement on one aspect of your comments, and that is the suggestion that somehow the way to deal w/ all this is to take to ground, and hide. i think that error.

i think the only way to fight it is through vociferous, boisterous, rancorous, foul & loud mouthed opposition, and by letting the leftists know that we will fight and die to protect our liberties. i see precious little utility in being "passive" or "passive sounding" here.

time to man-up, and man the barricades.

if we do not preserve our free speech, and our gun ownership, we have nothing.

and, it follows to me as the morning follows the rising sun, that the only way to preseve them is to use them, especially the weapons in defense of our oppressors. jefferson "tree of liberty" and all that. and, we must loudly demonstrate our willingness to do so.

we have to let our opponents know, that if we are going down, then a goodly number of them come with us. simply put.

john jay

[viper68]

Help me understand this part 'whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce...' Doesn't this mean that the so-called communication must relate to commerce in some way? I agree that it's unconstitutional as written, but why the commerce part? Thanks

[Sounder]

viper68, Interstate commerce is the transportation of products and services from one state to geographic points in other states. Commerce, according to the Free Dictionary includes: 1. The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations. 2. Intellectual exchange or social interaction.

[jj]

viper68:

the "interstate commerce" language dates from a supreme court case called "the heart of atlanta motel."

the constitution does not explicityl authorize congress to legislate in certain matters, such as civil rights. the supreme court in extending this authority to congress, did so by hanging this authority upon the peg of the "interstate commerce clause." it was a very important means of expanding federal jurisdiction into places it had not gone before.

hint: just so that you might understand more fully, be advised that there is virtually no human activity which does not impact interstate commerce, so far as modern courts are concerned. you sell eggs to your neighbors? it impacts the cost of eggs in duluth, minnesota. makes no difference where you are. do you get the drift?

pamela, friends:

one final note, before i leave off for the day and grant some respite to all, from the expression of my views.--

those who begin this affray, those who sponsor such legislation, must know that they do not stand apart from or above the fray that they start. as a matter of fact, in all such matters historical, such as politicians and partisans are the first consumed by this kind of conflict, ... , and our legislators will be no different. very well, then, let them have the courage of their convictions, let them stand in defense of them.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

p.s. viper68: all tele-communication, all email, is subject to regulation via the interstate commerce clause, and all aspects of it including "hate speech" would be comprehended as regulable under the clause, and most certainly, in this day and age, conduct using it could be considered criminal. that is the way that is. sadly enough.

[viper68]

Thanks for the info folks, and esp jj, now I can officially be pissed.

[JamestheFin]

You would think that idiots who've pushed this type of PC-think would see how problematic this has been north of the US border as seen in the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its battles with Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant over his columns on Islam. Let's hope the Senate votes this down. There's no way this is constitutional with regards to the 1st Amendment.

[Rose]

I sent this to my senators (TX), rep, Kyl, McConnell, and Boehner. I may think of a few more. I also called offices and left messages when I could.

Re: "Hate Crimes"

This bill is an insult, an outrage and an affront to every American.

It is a blatant attempt to criminalize political dissent and private prejudice, which are BOTH protected under the First Amendment.

The Declaration of Independence states that when Governments become (paraphrase and emphasis mine) DESTRUCTIVE of the ends for which they are formed, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government which will, in the Peoples' view, be most likely to effect their happiness and safety.

This is a line in the sand. If this passes, I will not obey this hideous illegitimate attempt at despotism. I will work to overturn it. And if that does not work, I will work for secession.

It is vile, vile, vile.

The philosophical bases upon which the independence movement of the late 1700's British North American colonies relied still apply today.

We are not all asleep out here.

And I will fight to the loss of my liberty, if need be, to defend the freedoms my grandfathers (WWI) and my father and uncles (WWII) and my neighbors (Viet Nam) fought, suffered and yes, DIED for.

I CALL ON THE MINORITY LEADERSHIP TO TRY TO STOP THIS HIDEOUS DESPOTIC ATTEMPT TO POLICE OUR MINDS.

CALL THE CONGRESS. CALL YOUR SENATORS. TELL THEM YOU WILL NOT OBEY SUCH BLATANTLY ILLEGAL "LAWS."

[Jane]

Truthful_one - In the UK and Europe it isn't Islamists whose speech is crushed by these laws - despite how hateful their rhetoric may be. It's always non-Muslims and Secular Muslims who are found guilty of hate crimes, for daring to speak out against the Islamisation of Europe. I understand your point about using the enemies force against them. However, given the attitudes of the existing Administration, it is wishful thinking to believe that these laws will actually be turned on Islamists. They won't.

[Achilles]

If they try to silence my voice, they'll have to listen to the sound of my rifle.

[pythagoras]

I think we should inaugurate the arrival fo this bill with a lawsuit: that we find this attack on our first amendment rights "offensive" and demand the imprisonment of EVERY political who drafted it.

The drafting of this legislation can be seen as constituting a hate crime in and of itself. We who value free speech are offended by this and find ourselves the target of a hate crime in brutal suppression of and by the state and do not support.

Let us prosecute imprison all who hate us enough to imprison us for speaking what we feel and believe. Those who are offended are and never were obligated to listen anyway. If it fails then we know we have a dishonest piece of legislation that is designed to create a tiered system of justice: freedom for a politically chosen few. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. (That is historical legislation on civil rights. Who would this bunch of Dems be to change that? Unless they didn't believe in the civil rights legislations of the sixties. Leftism hypocrisy be thy name).

[Mongol]

pythagoras:

That is the most logical reasoning I've heard about these kind of attempts to destroy our free speech. That is a damned good way to put it. And well said. Use it against the bastards who push it.

You should run for office!

[RalphB]

"All 'mixed economies' are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule -— executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses -— the nationalization or expropriation of private property -— and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw."

--Ayn Rand, "Collectivized 'Rights'" (1963)

Let's see...
one-party rule -- check
nationalization or expropriation of private property -- check
censorship -- check?
We're getting into uncomfortable territory, aren't we?

[Geoffrey de Bouillon]

The goal of this legislation is to muzzle political dissent. They are simply using offense of preferred/protected groups to get there.

It is time to march on DC with torches and pitchforks.