(image via Antzinpantz)

FREE SPEECH ALERT.....again.....

Boy they're comin' fast and furious. This time its a "cyber-bullying" bill. From Hot Air:

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.

If you cause "emotional distress" to someone its prison for you. And in case you think that is just fear-mongering, look at the UK and Canada. Canada actually prosecuted Mark Steyn for writing a book that Islamofascists took offense to. Those sensitive fascists. England bans speakers that they don't like (of course on the other hand, Islamofascists can spew hatred and call of death, for Chrissakes and receive government funding while they do it.
That is just fine). This is NOT hate speech in the UK:

· According to the Telegraph, just last week the leader of the radical Islamofascist group Hizb ut-Tahrir held a rally in London in which he called on his followers to support “jihad” against Israel. Four years ago, Tony Blair promised to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir from Britain.

· According to the Telegraph, last month the British government, led by Brown, was forced under pressure to deny entry to Ibrahim Moussawi. Until Conservative opposition arose, the Brown government had been prepared to admit Moussawi to speak at the University of London. Moussawai describes suicide bombers as “martyrs” and calls Jews “a lesion on the forehead of history.”

· According to the The Sunday Times (September 14, 2008), “Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.”

But as for a westerner being concerned with such comments, there's only one thing to say: "hater!" Gotta ban his ass. Again, Hot Air:

...The trend is that the left is always saying that we have a RIGHT not to be offended. Never mind that its not in the constitution. We have to never say anything that will ever upset anyone. I mean, how ELSE can Happy Gumdrop Land exist?

These terms are vague and easily manipulated for all sorts of purposes. If a blogger posted repeated criticisms of Carrie Prejean and published her modeling photos, wouldn’t that qualify, at least in theory? What about critics of Meghan McCain who caddishly focus on her appearance? Isn’t that designed to “cause substantial emotional distress”? Would bloggers doing either get prosecuted under HR 1996?

Why exactly is Congress taking up this issue anyway? The Megan Meier case was tragic, of course, and the woman who destroyed her deserves nothing but scorn, vituperation, and shunning. However, we aren’t exactly experiencing a wave of cyberbullying deaths, and it seems that laws already in existence for fraud, slander, libel, and harassment should apply.

When in doubt, Congress should re-read the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from passing laws restricting the right of free speech. They should also note that the Constitution is absolutely silent on any right to be free from “distress”, nor does it set the government as an arbiter on what constitutes “substantial emotional distress” or “hostile behavior” that doesn’t break the usual laws on assault, battery, trespass, and fraud. We do not need the Nanny State to treat us like children, and if we allow them to fill that role, we should not be surprised when those who hold power use it as a weapon against those who challenge them.

Before I get arrested for upsetting anyone, I just have to say:

Jugear's McMarxist

Jugear's McMarxist

Jugear's McMarxist

Oh! and Ahma-dinnerjacket is a genocidal manic.


Ah, that felt good. In the future I'll be able to kick back and say, "I remember back in the day when I could say what I wanted!"