It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It Has Been Said That Without The 2nd...

page: 3
43
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 03:10 PM
link   
The section the OP is complaining about was passed back in 2000.

law.lis.virginia.gov...:1/


§ 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.
If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

2000, c. 849.


It passed the Republican-controlled Senate 40 to 0 and the Republican-controlled House 96 to 0. It was signed by Republican Governor Jim Gilmore.




posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

Might want to compare and contrast the language of the bill as it specifies a new “protected class” and also includes new parameters that are not physical threats. Besides if a law is on the books why would you need a whole new one?



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

It's not a whole new one. The only changes are the italicized/bolded text:


§ 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, (he shall be) is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.


There's no new "protected class." It just clarifies the jurisdiction that applies to the already existing offense. it covers the exact same acts the law from 2000 does, there are no "new parameters."



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

Freedom of Speech allows you to flip off a police officer or denounce him as a worthless piece of trash, correct? It is an expression of opinion. Not a prudent one, but still.

Does this not remove that expression of opinion against a government that has done things to cause such ire? Do you not see a proposed modification because your feeling were hurt at the same time as to cause a backlash by the People is a just a slightly bit self serving?

What’s next, children cannot receive Christmas presents if the Governor doesn’t get something too?



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

All I'm pointing out is that if you have a problem with the law, your problem is with the Republican-controlled Senate, House, and Governor that passed it back in 2000.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

Then why is it on the docket? Why can’t the current law be enforced? Are the changes necessary for some reason because they are exempt from the current law? Does the entirety of the state government need to be specifically pointed out when it should equally apply to everyone as is?



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I'm confused. Coercion, intimidation, and harassment is alreadly illegal (depending on the circumstances) so why is this a "protected class" or anything new? It seems like a pointless law reinforcing said laws for government officials for literally no reason. God, I wish I could get a paycheck for wasting so much time.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Again, the 2020 bill just clarifies the jurisdiction for prosecution. What will be illegal if this passes is exactly the same as what was illegal in 2000.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

So it'll be even more illegal? That's just stupid.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420

No, it’s exactly the same amount of illegal. All the new bill does is clarify what jurisdictions can prosecute the crime.



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

That really doesn't make any sense. It's a VA bill, the jurisdiction is the entirety of VA correct? Why would they need to clarify any jurisdictions? Murder is illegal, do we need new laws outlining exactly where it is illegal and/or who can prosecute?



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 10:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:19 AM
link   
AR 15s are tools of death ! Very offensive!



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 01:35 AM
link   
For those that think AR-15s or any type guns should be banned and Red Flag laws don't affect me, or the gov't would never do that to me... think again. Some sheeple still have their heads stuck deep in the msm doomporn fear mongering propaganda.
Just gonna drop this here. Forward to 2:30 to skip his intro. List #18 around 25:00 mark.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 09:05 AM
link   
So if I put a picture of the Governor in blackface with a floating scope bulls eye target on his face and maybe a video of his house blowing up, I could be arrested? Hollywood does this all the time do they not? How can they prove context, fiction, non-fiction?

Its called the first amendment and that one is backed up by the second amendment.



posted on Jan, 30 2020 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: BastogneFoxHole

I guess the intentions of another is determined by the feelings of the slighted. Which is Article 0.5 of the Trump Impeachment, Orange. Man. Bad.

If this slop passes, how long before the test of “I feel intimidated and threaten by that non-government person possessing a firearm. Which is a felony. And felons can’t have firearms. Because shall be guilty has been changed to is guilty, there is no need for a trial.” happens?



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: BastogneFoxHole

I guess the intentions of another is determined by the feelings of the slighted. Which is Article 0.5 of the Trump Impeachment, Orange. Man. Bad.

If this slop passes, how long before the test of “I feel intimidated and threaten by that non-government person possessing a firearm. Which is a felony. And felons can’t have firearms. Because shall be guilty has been changed to is guilty, there is no need for a trial.” happens?


I doubt my fellow man would let it go that far. Heck, they showed up for cow grazing rights. Wait until they red flag some innocent guy, attack him under cover of darkness and shoot him in his doorway. Opps, already happened. I guess we are screwed..




top topics



 
43
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join