Total Emergency Alert Hate Bill Going Forward In Senate

reply to post by Lazyninja


THANKS Stars for you!!!
Yep, that's the one I'm talking about, but I'm just a squidbillie and to stupid to understand that the bill protects the First Amendment and does nothing to diminish the right of free speech.

Here is the essential text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] 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. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Sundancer]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Sundancer]

HR 1966 has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act). The bill is expected to sail through the Senate as it did in the House. It will provide federal assistance to the states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for “other purposes.” It creates special protective status based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:

Text

Here.........the above is what it's about. I'm guessing this makes me, and any one with a lick of reasoning a um, um, um, um, oh that's right, a squidbilly...and proud of it.

There is clearly an agenda to obliterate as much of the constitution as possible by amendments. Dystopia is at hand folks. The boot stamping upon a human face forever is at hand. How long before every right we have is gone? Thank God for ats where at least everyone can gather in one spot and discuss such things and make each other aware.

reply to post by 12.21.12


I can definitely see where your coming from. I'd "think" that people would begin to "see". Hopefully the "veils" will be lifted as the Polipuppets press forward with the agenda; which is fed to them.

Hey,
I was thinking about making a squidbillies club. If you'd like, then you can have an honorary member's squidbilly hat.

listen people, if you want to tear this bill apart then do it.

SHOW ME the proof that back up your claims.

I would like to see excerpts from the bill itself that will allow the government to do all the things your claiming.

as far as i am concerned your all being duped by the fanatic religious fringes of this nation who have created a campaign based on fear to stop what they see as an advance of rights for gays.

really i quite honestly feel for each and everyone of you.

and again rather than making silly comments like " oh, i suppose you support ALL legislation " try backing up your stance with PROOF. not silly games that deflect and detract from the issue at hand. mmmkay thanks bai.

Originally posted by TornMind

HR 1966 has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act). The bill is expected to sail through the Senate as it did in the House. It will provide federal assistance to the states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for “other purposes.” It creates special protective status based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:

Text

Here.........the above is what it's about. I'm guessing this makes me, and any one with a lick of reasoning a um, um, um, um, oh that's right, a squidbilly...and proud of it.

source? comparison tot he text if the ACTUAL bill? you dont get credit for an 'ounce of reasoning" till you show an ounce of reasoning.

Originally posted by Sundancer
reply to post by Lazyninja

 

THANKS Stars for you!!!
Yep, that's the one I'm talking about, but I'm just a squidbillie and to stupid to understand that the bill protects the First Amendment and does nothing to diminish the right of free speech.

Here is the essential text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] 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. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Sundancer]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Sundancer]

This really has very little to do with 'hurting someones feelings' and more to do with harassment and hostile threats, which by the way are already illegal. The laws against such action are just getting a bit more teeth because there seems to be a growing plethora of squidbillies who think hate and violence is the way to deal with all those people they dont like.

using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior

reply to post by WhiteWash


Sure, no doubt. It'll take the rights away of those who are even to dumb to understand the real heart of the issue. I can see many people who are in the 'alternative lifestyles' waiving their rainbow flags, and screaming "go girls!"......

However, the real truth to this as all issues, is it is designed to suppress all of us; even those who it claims to help.

Most legislation is passed in that manner. Divide, and Conquer; the PTB choose the target audience, and make sure they can get enough support from that group, to pass the legislation without to many issues...........In the end it enslaves US ALL.

Originally posted by Animal

This really has very little to do with 'hurting someones feelings' and more to do with harassment and hostile threats,

That does sound reasonable, doesn't it? But look at this part:

substantial emotional distress to a person

If you cause someone that, you're in trouble. Now over in the UK we laugh at the American legal system, where burning your lip on hot coffee or stubbing your toe can cause you "substantial emotional distress" and result in payouts of thousands of dollars.

Do you expect people NOT to milk this bill for all they can get?

reply to post by Animal


Dude if this bill were passed you'd so be in jail tonight.

I want Animal charged under HR1966!

He's harassed, me and caused me substantial emotional distress, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior!

First he couldn't even read and understand the bill all by himself, then when he got proof and figured out how to read it he called me a squidbilly several times. Maybe this law should be passed...


Animal -> Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)
With Bubba no less... OH YEH!

Originally posted by Sundancer
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic

 

The hate bill essentially says that if we hurt someones feelings online - we get arrested...

So that means if they hurt YOUR feelings that means you can sue them as well. So next time senate passes a bill you don't like, simply start legal proceedings saying your feelings are hurt , and that you cried.

reply to post by Lazyninja


So true. That's what all the stink's about. I know I want the police to be able to tazer me for hurting some furbys feelers online. NOT.

Originally posted by WhiteWash
There is clearly an agenda to obliterate as much of the constitution as possible by amendments. Dystopia is at hand folks. The boot stamping upon a human face forever is at hand. How long before every right we have is gone? Thank God for ats where at least everyone can gather in one spot and discuss such things and make each other aware.

Could this be the Living Constitution movement gone completely ape# crazy Me thinks so.

Originally posted by Animal

as far as i am concerned your all being duped by the fanatic religious fringes of this nation who have created a campaign based on fear to stop what they see as an advance of rights for gays.

Here's an original thought: Let's criminalize "Behavior" and not "thought/words." Remember the adage, "sticks and stones . . ."?? Seriously, this country, NO, this world is becoming a pc buffet. People who scream nonsense are simply idiots, but they have a right to be idiots. It is the individuals that actually do something to harm another person physically either by denying life liberty or property that should be forced into rehab/ or sanctioned servitude. (This is to qualify my use of the word "behavior" above)

Keep the laws simple and by all means keep them consistent.

reply to post by Lazyninja
Absolutely, excellent thoughts; the degrees of absolute perversion of truth rippling through the US will be immense.
reply to post by Sundancer
Hey, now now, We are members of the um, oh yes "Squidbilly" squad.......Okay, well, "sigh", I'll defend Animals right's here, and now. He should have the right to speak no matter how stupid it sounds, but if this bill goes through, then we should press charges...ha ha ha.
reply to post by DataWraith
Hey, if you can get Animal to call you a Squidbilly, then maybe we can all work out some kind of reparations from him? Hey, now there is an idea. Viva the squids?...ha ha ha

Here's a snippet of the bill:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] 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. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)

reply to post by TornMind


I guess squidbilly is a derogatory term against rednecks. Now would rednecks be a social or an ethnic group? Or maybe it's a slur against people with learning difficulties? Also might be an idea to get screenshots of the repeated namecalling. Now somehow we just have to quantify the amount of emotional distress that y'all, I mean...you all, are feeling.

I better add something here so I'm not offtopic

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.

Now do we really trust the cops, lawyers, judges, to follow this part of the bill to the letter? To follow the spirit of the bill?

Also
1: When does something become "repeated" Is it twice?
2: How do you measure hostile behaviour over the net? (text)

If the average person actually heard about this part of the bill, your courts would be full of people making complaints about their neighbours, or internet drama. Luckily(?) they won't, because the liberal media have glossed entirely over the tv, radio and internet parts which we're talking about.

This specific electronic part of the bill really has a much bigger impact on the internet media and blogging than it does on people like us. Arguments will continue as they always have done over the net, so don't worry about that. But I think privately owned websites and blogs -in other words, ones that people have paid for so they can't be shut down by google- will find themselves being shut down because of violating this bill.




[edit on 14-7-2009 by Lazyninja]

reply to post by Oeden

Here's an original thought: Let's criminalize "Behavior" and not "thought/words." Remember the adage, "sticks and stones . . ."??

I think what you wrote was absolutely beautiful.
reply to post by Lazyninja


Um, yes, der, der, der, I'm u one them' ther' squidbilly's???

I've never heard the term; don't have a clue what it means, but that animal meant it as some kind of derogatory put down.

As far as rednecks? I'm not. I've met people of all sorts; all groups have their good, and bad. One reason I personally believe there should be no restrictions on freedom's of speech.


[edit on 14-7-2009 by TornMind]

reply to post by Lazyninja


Ha Ha LMAO! "screenshots of the repeated name calling"

Speaking from experience I can tell you it's most definitely a slur against people with learning difficulties if they're picking on a redneck.
And I think I'm going to need one of them expensive lawyers cause I aint smart enough to quantify the amount of emotional distress that I'm feeling all by myself.

KA CHING! KA CHING!

Originally posted by Sundancer
reply to post by Animal

 

Dude if this bill were passed you'd so be in jail tonight.

I want Animal charged under HR1966!

He's harassed, me and caused me substantial emotional distress, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior!

First he couldn't even read and understand the bill all by himself, then when he got proof and figured out how to read it he called me a squidbilly several times. Maybe this law should be passed...


Animal -> Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)
With Bubba no less... OH YEH!

dude i feel REALLY bad for you. fun to pic the bits and pieces that you THINK support your position sadly even in this case you have failed to comprehend what you read. I like how you have made this into a joke to try to make you look like your right and you know what your talking about and I am somehow wrong.

enjoy your box.

and by the way, because of the TaC of ATS I refrain from calling ANY member anything other than their name or the occasional 'mate'. You can ignore that too if it makes you feel a bit more right.


[edit on 14-7-2009 by Animal]

Squidbillies is a cartoon, just so ya know.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Animal]

Hopefully, they will be able to go into churches and arrest those hate spewing preachers that are inciting attacks on innocent LGBT people. Might be able to disban these pits of vipers also based on the hate they preach.

reply to post by Bramble Iceshimmer


If they are inciting violence, there is already laws against that. If they are simply choosing to disagree with their choice of sexual preference, gay people should not gain the right to silence those who question their choices. There should never be a protected or second-class heirarchy of citizenship.