Hat tip Atlas Shrugs
A troubling new bill is being introduced in the US Senate by Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) while a companion bill has been introduced in the House by Rep.Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) that is directed toward "reporting hate speech". Atlas Shrugs has posted an article with details.
http://pamelageller.com/2014/04/sharia-america-democrats-muslim-legislators-seek-criminalize-free-speech.html/
Here is the actual Senate bill itself.
http://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2014-04-08_HateCrimes_Legislation1.pdf
Here is what I found on Jeffries' official website:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.3878:
The problem I have is who decides what constitutes hate speech? It's kind of like deciding who is an alcoholic. With some folks, it is obvious. With others, it's a matter of opinion. I have my own opinion of what I consider hate speech.
There also seems to be a tendency to focus on "hate speech" directed at "vulnerable groups". That's code for non-white. Does that mean that a hate site that spews venom against whites is outside the boundaries? What about La Voz de Aztlan, a virulently anti-Jewish site in Los Angeles operated by a couple of Mexican-American guys. In my opinion, that is a hate site. Would that site be included in this proposed government tabulation? Or is it going to be a case of selective enforcement? If so, that's right up the current Justice Department's alley.
Let's name one example of a white hate site. That would be Storm Front, which I believe the man who attacked the Kansas City Jewish Center, Frazier Glenn Cross, was connected to in some manner or another. I have seen Storm Front. It is anti-black and anti-Jewish. Whether they have been identified as being a direct catalyst of violent attacks, I have no idea. Ask the Southern Poverty Law Center, which I am sad to say has become too political in its outlook.
As previously noted, Cross has also quoted Max Blumenthal's words when he criticized Israel. Does that make Blumenthal partially responsible for what happened at the KC Jewish Center?
What I fear is happening here is an attempt to fall in line with what the Organization of Islamic Cooperation wants to see encoded in law world-wide- laws that criminalize any criticism of Islam. That means we must all be silent on Islamic terrorism, intolerance, persecution of religious minorities in their own lands, stonings, beheadings, riots and crime in Europe, as well as the desires of many to make Islam supreme over the US and the world.
Shhh.
And what happens to the Pam Gellers and Robert Spencers of the world (who are already banned in Britain)? What happens to the little voices like me? Am I a hate-monger that the government must monitor, write up in some report to Congress and perhaps ban-or prosecute? In my defense, I don't think I am a hate monger just because I write about the outrages in the previous paragraph. I make it a point that not all Muslims are doing these things. I make it a point to say that innocent people should not be penalized for the acts of others. But to some, that would not be enough. Who in Washington is going to judge whether Fousesquawk is a hate site or not? Eric Holder?
By all means, contact your representatives in Congress. Do it for the children.
Your own.
I already contacted both my Senators, but I don't have a giant lobby behind me and doubt if they give a hoot about what I think.
ReplyDeleteWe already have time and place restrictions on Free Speech and the last thing we need is yet another government agency making up new restrictions and regulations.
On the surface, this proposed law looks like it could be worthy. But, looking carefully beyond the intent, it is limiting our 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, with the POTUS and the Eric Holder DoJ, selectively enforcing the laws of the land, this proposed law can easily be abused to "punish the enemy". Last, with the POTUS and Eric Holder giving "Race-Baiters" and "Race Hustlers" value, by attending their conferences (think Sharpton) and Muslim Brotherhood groups supported by both, we would see significant damage to the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteSquid
Its a bad bill, poorly considered. It probably won't become law.
ReplyDeleteA law which provided that any speech appearing in electronic media that, if voiced in ordinary speech, would constitute prosecutable incitement to crime, may be similarly prosecuted, it might make sense.