[Deo volente]

Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to uses threatening words or symbols or incite violence against a lawmaker or federal official.

How would one define "threatening" for the purposes of the legislation? This is a vague word that opens up all sorts of possibilities for prosecutors, and all sorts of grief for freedom-loving Americans. Would ALL political speech that incorporates war or military metaphors now be outlawed? Who decides what is "threatening" language?

What about a candidate who talks about "targeting the seat" of an opponent? Or,"we have him in our sights, now go out and get him!". I could go on and on.

[Truth29]

"How would one define "threatening" for the purposes of the legislation? This is a vague word that opens up all sorts of possibilities for prosecutors, and all sorts of grief for freedom-loving Americans. Would ALL political speech that incorporates war or military metaphors now be outlawed? Who decides what is "threatening" language?"

The answer is obvious. If a conservative uses such words, it would be hate speech and illegal. If a Democrat/leftist says the same thing, it is a lawful exercise of free speech. Selective enforcement would be a dream for the Marxists.

[JrsyJack]

Would ALL political speech that incorporates war or military metaphors now be outlawed? Who decides what is "threatening" language?

Come now this is an easy one...disagree with a liberal Dems = threatening language...go directly to jail, do not pass go.