Why do so many have difficulty respecting and preserving our free speech rights? Why do they seem to not appreciate that speech that almost anyone would accept doesn't need protection - it's the speech that some find offensive that does? And yet - it is important to preserve that speech, too. What one person finds offensive, another finds to be a critical component of our culture or laws or political system.
Ed Morrissey uncovers more attempts to squelch our ability to be free - and possible attempts to infringe on far more than "just" our free speech rights.
Look at HR 1966, introduced by Rep. Linda Sanchez last April in reaction to the suburban mother who drove one of her daughter’s acquaintances — a 13-year-old girl — to suicide. Bas cases make bad law, and that’s doubly true here. Look at this language and imagine how this could be used:
Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
‘(a) 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.
Who decides what constitutes “substantial emotional distress”? What is the definition of “severe” and “hostile”? What kinds of persons can claim victimhood under this bill? This purports to be a bill to prevent cyberbullying — which is hardly a crime wave in America anyway — but could easily be perverted to shut down “mean” bloggers.
Under this standard, almost anyone I know could be imprisoned - including yours truly!
The United States was formed to escape freedom from persecution. Let's not install the power of a few to shut down the freedoms of the rest of us.
But Peg, that is exactly the aim of the few--to shut off all contradiction or alternate opinion. PC wasn't designed to be nice, it was designed to suppress.
Posted by: Bill Keezer | Friday, July 10, 2009 at 02:21 PM