Outlaw That Speech Because it MIGHT Be a Threat...

Email Print



It was only
a matter of time before the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy was turned
into a rationale for the government to take more of our freedoms.
This is how our government always responds to tragedy – it’s
almost formulaic:

Step 1 –
wait for tragedy to occur, or actually create the tragedy.

Step 2 –
spread propaganda through the media, so everyone believes your story
about the tragedy.

Step 3 –
pass laws, or institute policies, that take away people’s freedoms.

Step 4 –
justify the increased Tyranny by citing the propaganda in step 2.

This same process,
has led to the creation of most traffic laws, to the Patriot Act,
to "enhanced pat-downs," and countless other usurpations
of freedom.

Shortly after
Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head by a psychopath, and the
media started reporting about Sarah Palin’s crosshair map (which,
as far as we know had nothing at all to do with the shooting), I
began wondering how long it would be before we started seeing attacks
on our freedoms. In particular, I was expecting attacks on the second
amendment because Jared Loughner used a gun; and I expected attacks
on free speech (and proposals for more control of the Internet)
because Jared Loughner spoke out against the government on YouTube
and Facebook.

And, so it
begins. There is already an article on The
titled "Dem Planning a Bill That Would Outlaw
Threatening Law Makers." The article begins like this:

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.

Look at that
language. The language (or symbols) doesn’t have to be threatening
or actually incite violence. It doesn’t even have to be perceived
that way. If it could be perceived that way – through the widest,
loosest, and irrational interpretations imaginable – that is
sufficient to charge someone with a federal crime. This kind of
broad, widely subjective legislation would make it potentially illegal
to disagree with the government about anything.

the rest of the article

11, 2011

Email Print