hostile blogger? You may face jail time.

[avatar4321]

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97257

The current statute they are talking about is pretty weak. but where do these things start? At what point does it come to clearly unconstitutional action?

[Kathianne]

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97257

The current statute they are talking about is pretty weak. but where do these things start? At what point does it come to clearly unconstitutional action?

Free speech in this country would likely be eroded, bit by bit. This would be a bit.

Another bit was the new 'hate crimes', what a bunch of nonsense. Crime is hate, trying to shrink the minds of criminals regarding motivation is a joke.

[mundame]

Free speech in this country would likely be eroded, bit by bit. This would be a bit.

Another bit was the new 'hate crimes', what a bunch of nonsense. Crime is hate, trying to shrink the minds of criminals regarding motivation is a joke.


I suppose the problem is incitement; that's behind all these new efforts, like Britain banning some Americans. Some people incite to crimes; some people incite to revolution, and that is likely to get more frequent. What does the state do about incitement? In Britain they let the Muslims alone to preach violent jihad week after week in the same way as we never noticed blacks were doing much the same sort of hate speech as with that Jeramiah Wright ---- because we thought they were all marginalized, so it didn't matter. That's why only the speech of white males mattered: they are supposed to be the only dangerous ones.

Surprise, the Brit Muslims organized to kill just as the jihad promoters proposed. So that's a problem now and they have to rethink it all.

[5stringJeff]

Threatening speech is already illegal. No other laws need to be passed to maintain its illegality on the Internet.

[avatar4321]

Threatening speech is already illegal. No other laws need to be passed to maintain its illegality on the Internet.

That's what I said when I saw it. this law is just an encroachment by the federal government.

Ive seen the statute, the way its written it looks like an idiot did it. They try to justify it using the commerce clause. The way its written it doesnt even do what they are claiming it does. Its only during interestate commerce that the statute applies. Seriously, how many people are hostile and threaten people while engaging in interstate commerce????

"You're a worthless *%(@@* #*(#(#&# and im going to kill you. So how many widgets do you want?"

Seriously, who does business like that?

[5stringJeff]

That's what I said when I saw it. this law is just an encroachment by the federal government.

Ive seen the statute, the way its written it looks like an idiot did it. They try to justify it using the commerce clause. The way its written it doesnt even do what they are claiming it does. Its only during interestate commerce that the statute applies. Seriously, how many people are hostile and threaten people while engaging in interstate commerce????

"You're a worthless *%(@@* #*(#(#&# and im going to kill you. So how many widgets do you want?"

Seriously, who does business like that?

You mean besides the Teamsters?