Dem planning bill that would outlaw threats to lawmakers

[AndreaGail]

Dem planning bill that would outlaw threats to lawmakers
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 shooting 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.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has had to fend off a fresh round of criticism for a map posted on one of her websites targeting 20 congressional districts that voted for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the 2008 presidential election but had Democratic members that voted in favor of healthcare reform.

Critics originally took Palin to task for the apparent use of the crosshairs of guns to identify the districts. The controversy re-ignited Saturday after the shooting, since Giffords's district was included on the map.

Brady singled out the map as the type of rhetoric he opposed.

"You can't put bull's-eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official," he said.

However, a Palin spokeswoman denied Sunday that the image was intended to depict gun sights. Palin offered condolences to the Giffords family and other victims of the shooting on her Facebook page Saturday.

"The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down," Brady said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers?page=1#comments

[midnight rambler]

Brady told CNN that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections against threat currently provided to the president.

Indeed, His Majesty and His 534 colleagues DESERVE this. I especially like the "and officials" part. That means ALL. It will be well worth WHATEVER cost.

[sirgonzo420]

So I guess fuck equal protection under the law, then?

[uncletonoose]

Nuff Said!!

[BrewTech]

"
Critics originally took Palin to task for the apparent use of the crosshairs of guns to identify the districts. The controversy re-ignited Saturday after the shooting, since Giffords's district was included on the map.

Brady singled out the map as the type of rhetoric he opposed.

You can't put bull's-eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official," he said.

You see, my friends... this is how it's done. Manipulation of language and meaning.

The use of a map and symbolisms as illustrations (Palin's intent was to motivate voting in such a way as to rearrange the political landscape) has somehow been transformed into LITERAL threats of violence with a firearm.


You can't put bull's-eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official," he said.

The two events the critter is referring to have no connection in reality. It's Magical thinking. Honestly, I'm having a hard time being clear in this post because I can't really make the mental leap between reality and magical symbolic thinking in the way I need to.

Perhaps somebody here understands what I'm trying to say and can help out a bit?

[Spectrism]

language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official


Key word. You will become responsible for how someone else feels.

[midnight rambler]

language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official


Key word. You will become responsible for how someone else feels.


Right. Saying something like, "I will do all in my power to get you out of office" or "Your political career is over" will be PERCEIVED as threats.

[BrewTech]

OK, so you can't use crosshairs to identify a rival politician's political district, because of the relation to firearms. Gotcha.

Now that I think about it, it makes sense. Recently we had a similar issue happen here within one of the the local tribal governments... Kumeyaay band of Indians I think it was.

One council member made a list of the names political adversaries, but made the mistake of drawing an arrow pointing to one of the names on the list...

ETA: yes, that was supposed to be joke.

[YukonCornelius]

Thought police will be out to get you.

[chad]

minority report is coming.

[Spectrism]

And doing this will land you in jail.

http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/0296/bc3164a8-6ffc-470b-bffd-d937b50f7e1c.jpg?adImageId=2911938&imageId=299475

[chad]

did you know lawmakers in the house + senate have immunity from threatening each other, using threatening language, etc.? google it. more laws that apply to you, not to them.

[sirgonzo420]

did you know lawmakers in the house + senate have immunity from threatening each other, using threatening language, etc.? google it. more laws that apply to you, not to them.


They can "insider trade" too!

[Dogman]

did you know lawmakers in the house + senate have immunity from threatening each other, using threatening language, etc.? google it. more laws that apply to you, not to them.


Man they have been doing that kind of shit for years!
Their credo is "Do as we say, and not do as we do!"

[willie pete]

I think it Dr. Ron Paul that said, these guys come into Congress and leave millionares

[Dogman]

I think it Dr. Ron Paul that said, these guys come into Congress and leave millionares


Yep!

Leave way richer than when they first started.

Edit: More than what they were payed to do their jobs!

[Libertytree]

The truth of the matter is...whether they want to acknowledge it or not. The ones they should be very afraid of are those that say, infer or suggest nothing.

[midnight rambler]

I think it Dr. Ron Paul that said, these guys come into Congress and leave millionares


It's not just that they enrich themselves, but by being congresscritters they're just better than us common folk. Take for instance the extraordinary medical care that Giffords is getting. They called in "the world's best" "military specialists" - that's not something which you would expect to happen if you or someone you loved experienced the exact same sort of injury.

[madfranks]

You can't put bull's-eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official," he said.

He's talking about Sarah Palin's map showing "targets" on all her "enemies":

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/sarah-palin-map-gabby-gibbons-1-8-11.jpg

Those symbols look more like surveyor's benchmarks to me, you know, the thing you use to mark a location?

[Neuro]

You can't put bull's-eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official," he said.

He's talking about Sarah Palin's map showing "targets" on all her "enemies":

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/sarah-palin-map-gabby-gibbons-1-8-11.jpg

Those symbols look more like surveyor's benchmarks to me, you know, the thing you use to mark a location?
Yes, doesn't look at all like the symbol a real terrorist would put on a target...
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/wtc_target1999.gif

[Apparition]

Hmm, didn't Congress enact a law in the late 1700s which criminalized any speech critical of federal politicians?

Well, I guess the idiots could closer to repeating history again.

[madfranks]

Hmm, didn't Congress enact a law in the late 1700s which criminalized any speech critical of federal politicians?

Well, I guess the idiots could closer to repeating history again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

John Adams (only the second US President) signed into law the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials.

[nunaem]

Hmm, didn't Congress enact a law in the late 1700s which criminalized any speech critical of federal politicians?

Well, I guess the idiots could closer to repeating history again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

John Adams (only the second US President) signed into law the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials.


Isn't that still in effect but unenforced?

IIRC they used it to arrest Eugene Debs.

[Book]

IIRC they used it to arrest Eugene Debs.



Debs' speeches against the Wilson administration and the war earned the undying enmity of President Woodrow Wilson, who later called Debs a "traitor to his country."[35] On June 16, 1918, Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio, urging resistance to the military draft of World War I. He was arrested on June 30 and charged with 10 counts of sedition. His trial defense called no witnesses, asking instead that Debs be allowed to address the court in his defense. That unusual request was granted, and Debs spoke for 2 hours. He was found guilty on September 12. At his sentencing hearing on September 14, he again addressed the court, and his speech has become a classic. Heywood Broun, a liberal journalist and not a Debs partisan, said it was "one of the most beautiful and moving passage in the English language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

[madfranks]

Hmm, didn't Congress enact a law in the late 1700s which criminalized any speech critical of federal politicians?

Well, I guess the idiots could closer to repeating history again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

John Adams (only the second US President) signed into law the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials.


Isn't that still in effect but unenforced?

IIRC they used it to arrest Eugene Debs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

The Sedition Act (officially An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States; ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. It was enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 (the day before Adams' presidential term was to end).

Vice President Thomas Jefferson denounced the Sedition Act as invalid and a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, which protected the right of free speech, and a violation of the Tenth Amendment,[1][2] arguing that:

1. ...the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government...
2. ..."the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the {Sedition Act is} altogether void...

Jefferson more strongly argued the Federal Government had overstepped its limits in the Alien and Sedition Acts by attempting to exercise unjust powers. Virginia and Kentucky passed resolutions (secretly penned by Jefferson and James Madison) openly denouncing the acts.

[nunaem]

My mistake. Debs was found guilty of violating the Sedition Act of 1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918) which was repealed in 1920.

[palani]

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/pufendorf/puf-218.htm

The duration of the citizens' particular duty is, so long as they fill the office from which the duty springs; and when they leave the same, the latter too expires. In the same way the general duty lasts as long as they are citizens. But they cease to be citizens, if they leave with the express or tacit consent of the state, and fix the abiding-place of their fortunes elsewhere; or if for some crime they are exiled and deprived of the right of citizenship; or if they have been overpowered by the enemy, and compelled to submit to the rule of the victor.

[ShortJohnSilver]

Debs' speeches against the Wilson administration and the war earned the undying enmity of President Woodrow Wilson, who later called Debs a "traitor to his country."[35] On June 16, 1918, Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio, urging resistance to the military draft of World War I. He was arrested on June 30 and charged with 10 counts of sedition. His trial defense called no witnesses, asking instead that Debs be allowed to address the court in his defense. That unusual request was granted, and Debs spoke for 2 hours. He was found guilty on September 12. At his sentencing hearing on September 14, he again addressed the court, and his speech has become a classic. Heywood Broun, a liberal journalist and not a Debs partisan, said it was "one of the most beautiful and moving passage in the English language.


Such was the *ssholishness of Wilson that he refused pardon or clemency to Debs from his own AG 3 or more times.

Harding who was the next president, freed him without a pardon (time served) on Christmas Day, less than a year after taking office.