Posted on 07/11/2009 1:22:22 PM PDT by BillyBoy
There are going to be many senatorial changes in 2010.
Can we make this backfire? In other words, could people calling Ann Coulter (pick any controversial person) names on the Internet be imprisoned and fined as cyberbullies for writing horrible things about her?
Wait til he runs for Senate he’ll trick a bunch of Republicans into voting for him.
Don’t we have laws that prevent people from harassing others? The medium shouldn’t matter should it?
OTOH, there should be a free pass to whomever beats the piss out of the bitch who went after the 13 year old.
"Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary"
Thought you might want to see what the RINO is up to over the weekend while we speculate on the "Is he out? Is he in?" Senate campaign.
This man is pure scum, I have more respect for bird droppings.
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Sounds Un Constitutional.
As my congressman, he tricked me in the past. Not this time.
Of course, since Kirk is also with the RATs on hate crimes, we already know he's not a proponent of freedom of speech.
Surely this bozo is not going to win the Republican nomination for Senator from Illinois. Correct????
This whole Kirk/McKenna thing is so confusing. I don’t know what to think about it.
Are you sure? I hope so but they always seem to manage to trick us. Here, let's practice:
YOU: I ain't voting for you Kirk!
KIRK: I understand why you're mad but I did what I believed in.
YOU: Still not voting for you.
KIRK: Okayyyy but you're going to help Obama maintain his 60 Seat, filibuster proof majorityyyy...
HUGH HEWITT, OTHER WAFFLY TALK SHOW HOSTS: It's true. It's time to put that stuff behind us. The choice is: Socialist or Mark Kirk. You have to vote for Mark Kirk!!!
YOU: No, you jerks! I ain't falling for it this time.
Does this mean if I hurt the widdle feewings of some anonymous slob over at DU who really does live sans job in his mother's basement I can go up the river for two years?
Who/what defines "the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress" and "severe, repeated, and hostile "?
(Hint: you cannot ever assume that "common sense" will prevail, nor that definitions will be universally applied--especially in the age of 'protected classes'.)
How does someone "monitor" for this without invading every electronic communication on the web and elsewhere? Unlimited power to the thought police?
While I understand the premise, and I agree fully that what the people did to inspire this legislation was reprehensible, should everyone throw out another slice of the Fourth Amendment to attempt to prevent what something so simple as common decency would never have permitted? Or is this just to have the ability to prosecute whomever is deemed offensive after the fact, when it won't do the victim any good? Or is this to impose ambiguous restrictions (unconstitutionally vague ones) on speech?
IMHO, the accts of the people who maliciously tormented that girl are nothing which can be adequately punished this side of Hell, anyway, but that diecision will be made well above my pay grade.
Any legislation which might define the mere, repeated, and vehement political disagreement with someone as severe, hostile, and causing emotional distress and punishable by law is something we decidedly do not need, and just the thought upsets me deeply.
It is bizzare and I don't know how it will play out (my guess is when the dust is settled, Kirk be the anointed choice for Senate). What I think it shows is that the IL GOP establishment doesn't have their act together as well as they did the last two election cycles when they were totally united with the goal of getting Topinka nominated for Governor and Sauerberg for Senate.
You have to remember, McKenna was the hand picked establishment choice for that Senate seat six years ago and finished 4th behind Jack Ryan, Oberweis, and Rauscshberger. Now he's ILGOP Chairman and exercises a ton of control.
They're also divided on the Governor's race, as both Dillard and Schillerstorm are "moderate" types from DuPage County (the HQ of the GOP establishment in this state) who have established reputations of reaching out to RATs. On paper, Schillerstorm is more powerful as the Chairman of the DuPage County board, but in reality Dillard has more clout since he has enormous seniority in the legislature, was a top ranking official for Edgar & Thompson, and still controls the DuPage county GOP even though he "officially" stepped down as Chairman two years ago.
I suppose one would have to live in Illinois to understand what kind of power each of these people yield and how they relate to each other.
But it seems to me we're seeing cracks in the combine over which RINO to run.
DailyPsyKOSis.com is so screwed!
Another wonderful idea on paper but too easily used to hurt someone that you don’t like what they say!
What does “law” even mean any more? Is this an attempt to micromanage every utterance and oversee every dispute in the land?
“Political correctness” run amok.
For me, the rules should be simple enouth to be understood by everybody.
#1. Do not go out of your way to aggrieve others.
#2. Do not be aggrieved too easily.
#3. When there can be no compromise between #1 and #2, send both parties into exile.
#4. Attempts by either party to return independently will be met with force. Both parties may petition for return simultaneously, when it has been determined that they have resolved their differences.
Yeah. It became personal after his cap and trade vote. It also makes sense from a pragmatic point of view. The economy is going to really get worse with the socialists in charge. People like Kirk just give them cover. The RINO vs. Socialist game doesn't work for me on this one, although it certainly has in the past.
Kirk is my congressman, too, and I am a conservative (no longer refer to myself as a Republican), and I have also had it with Kirk. It started with his amnesty stance, then his cap-and-trade vote (yes, everyone is for less pollution, but that doesn’t mean you have to crush the economy with cap-and-trade), and now this. I will never vote for him again. Our country is collapsing, and it is just as much the fault of the RINOs as the Democrats. The only way we turn this around if we can get some true conservatives in office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.