Law to Ban "Hypercharged" Criticism of Politicians

Rate this post

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:38:07 +0000

eowyn2

Yesterday, on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” a high school friend of Jared Lee Loughner said the Tucson mass murderer was apolitical.

Zach Osler said his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Loughner didn’t even watch the news:

He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.

There is not a shred of evidence linking Loughner’s murderous spree to politics, even less to “right wing” rhetoric. But that hasn’t stopped the Left, Democrats, and their media accomplices from piling on, demonizing conservatives and demanding legislation to curb free speech and gun rights.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is looking at legislative “ways to better police language on the airwaves.”

Louise Slaughter

Jim Clyburn

 

 

 

 

 

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), the third-ranking Demonrat in Congress, wants the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine — legislation to enforce “balanced” media coverage which will require conservative media to simultaneously present the liberal point of view.

Even worse, another Demonrat is proposing a bill to restrict free speech directed at politicians, giving members of Congress special protection from criticism. As Rev. Ted Pike explains, January 12, 2011:

Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania, said he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a member of Congress or federal official… Brady is particularly incensed over

Robert Brady

a web posting by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during the 2010 election in which she targeted 20 House Democrats, including Giffords, for political defeat. The posting showed a map of the United States in the 20 Democratic districts identified by cross-hairs… ‘You can’t put bulls-eyes or cross-hairs on a congressman or federal official…’ Brady said… it is now time to put an end to the hyper-charged language. ‘The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,’… Brady noted that he wanted to have it ready as soon as possible. (CNN)

Pike rightly asks:

Whose perceptions will determine if a word or image might incite others to violence? Will it be ADL or its lackeys, such as US Attorney General Eric Holder? Or perhaps the FBI, working in close communication with such “thought police?”

Brady’s legislation leads us into the mists of “thought crime” subjectivity….  Communicative tools of language and imagery with no serious suggestion of violence (such as Palin’s crosshairs) will become criminal. Use of an ever-longer list of forbidden words and images will become an offense against the state….

Under Brady’s bill, much of our free speech would be taken in order to keep the crazies calm. There are better, more proven ways society has found to deal with the insane. They include psychiatric drugs and mental hospitals, not federal speech crime laws that strip the majority of freedom.

H/t beloved fellow Joseph.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *