Dem planning bill that would outlaw threatening lawmakers

Link

By Peter Schroeder - 01/09/11 04:08 PM ET

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 inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.
Brady told CNN that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections against threat currently provided to the president. His call comes one day after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shot, along with 19 other people, at a public event in Tucson. A suspect is currently in custody.
"The president is a federal official," Brady told CNN in a telephone interview. "You can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge."
Among the six people killed was Federal Judge John Roll.
While it is unknown at this time whether the shooter was politically motivated, that has not prevented a vigorous debate about whether heated political rhetoric seen during the healthcare reform debate and during the 2010 campaign is inciting violence.

Click to expand...

This lawmaker should be removed from office and place in prison for trying to violate the 1st Amendment. He broke his oath. Plus the left is trying to tie this to Palin.

While I don't think it is okay to go around LITERALLY saying "I'm going to kill Senator so-n-so!", I would worry that this bill might be too broad and have "a chilling effect on Free Speech."

Goshin said:

While I don't think it is okay to go around LITERALLY saying "I'm going to kill Senator so-n-so!", I would worry that this bill might be too broad and have "a chilling effect on Free Speech."

Click to expand...

Threatening people with harm should certainly be illegal, however, I think you are right in that we have to be very careful here in where we draw the line and not grab too much of that grey area.

American said:

Link


This lawmaker should be removed from office and place in prison for trying to violate the 1st Amendment. He broke his oath. Plus the left is trying to tie this to Palin.

Click to expand...

I think you're right. This kind of langauge is a part of English. "She had me in her crosshairs the whole time." "I don't want the teacher to target me." "Of, for God's sake, shut up. Don't give 'em any more ammunition than they already have." And on and on and on.

Hate speak may deserve censoring, but short of that, nah. Wrong. And, by that, I mean no one should be able to post up something that says, "Someone ought to blow _________'s head off for voting for X."

sounds like the dood shot the wrong congress critter (in before the law!!!!!!!) :2razz:

ReverendHellh0und said:

sounds like the dood shot the wrong congress critter (in before the law!!!!!!!) :2razz:

Click to expand...

Homeland Security SUV out front. Head out the back, Jack.

Their are several severe consequences with this proposal
1) "The president is a federal official," Brady told CNN in a telephone interview. "You can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge." Does this mean we provide Presidential protection, aka Secret Service< for all members of Congress? How long before state level legislators want it? County officials? City?
2) Continuation of above point... How is the expanded protections to be paid for ?
3) IF we the people are the power in the government would not creating a buffer between us and our voices in government do nothing les than disconnect the representatives making them out of touch with our issues?
4) Continuation of above point... If Congress is buffered would this create an elite mentality further creating division between the people and their voice?
5) Would their be exemptions during elections or are politicians promising to play fair from here on?
6) Could someone "trump up" these charges to prevent investigation into Congressional wrong doing?
I am sure their can be more added to this since this list was formed off the top of my head .

To my understanding legitimate death threats are illegal as it stands.

Sorry to this politician, but I'm going to deal with cold and simple logic here. The President is the single most important politician in this country. A senator is one of 100 people. A congressman is one of 435. The closest to the President would be a SCOTUS Judge at 1 of 9.

The kind of dedicated resources for checking out "potential threats" to the President is financially sound because of the gigantic impact on this country if a President were to be killed or severely injured. That same kind of impact can not be said to be likely if there is a death of a Congressman or Senator, and the cost compared to the amount of impact it would have is not reasonable.

If people are sending legitimate death threats, authorities should look into it just as they would with anyone else. And lets be honest, they're going to still look into it a bit more stringently and willingly when it is a politician whose getting them. However, there is absolutely no reason argument that the level of checking and investigation that goes on with regards to the President needs to be extended to all federal politicians. This is especially true when, on top of that protection, he wants to essentially outlaw speech in an extremely ambiguous way.

Goshin said:

While I don't think it is okay to go around LITERALLY saying "I'm going to kill Senator so-n-so!", I would worry that this bill might be too broad and have "a chilling effect on Free Speech."

Click to expand...

Is there any question that is the goal? The speech police.

.

Bad idea and bad bill

The primary reason, IMO, to give the President of the United States the protection he is getting, is because he is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. This protection provides both a continuation of govt AND continued leadership of the armed forces while at war.

Not all speech is protected. You cannot yell fire in an a theater; fighting words are not protected; speech that constitutes a crime, e.g. conspiracy, threat to ANYONE, etc (; and in some jusidictions is illegal to use profanity in front of kids (which, like obsenity can be broadly interpreted). First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Save the secret service for the POTUS, Vice President, Speaker of the House, etc., those that are in line for president. Use the FBI and local police for the others.