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.

 

Dem planning bill that would outlaw threatening lawmakers

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
The simple question is this:

Should free speech cover inciting people to violence, the public posting of hit lists, and threatening to do bodily harm to someone?




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


IMO

yes.

We would not have this country without our founding fathers doing exactly those things you wish to stop. We already have laws against everyone of the things you mentioned and they already come very close to hindering free speach.

I answered your question now i have one for you

exactly where do you draw the line on PRECIEVED threat.........is .......we need to take this guy out of office.........a threat......it could be easily considered one........

and just who is going to decide for us rabble what is allowed and what isnt



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 



exactly where do you draw the line on PRECIEVED threat.........is .......we need to take this guy out of office.........a threat......it could be easily considered one........


If you had said, "We need to take (insert name) out." that can be considered a direct threat.

But, saying "We need to take this guy out of office" is not, it's all about context.

When Sarah Palin says, "Don't retreat, reload" it's obviously a threat, the reason, is because despite her lame attempt at explaining "reload" meaning to vote, it makes no sense contextually that way, but combine that with her SarahPAC picture, and you get the obvious impression that she is making a hit list and targeting specific people.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I have said about many politicions..........we need to get rid of them........is that a threat? I didnt mean it as one. I have also said they should be drug out of the whitehouse and shot for treason which would be easily considered a threat even though i used it as a figure of speach. My point is that you are on shakey ground limiting anyones freedom of speach, where will it end? And do you trust the government so much that you would allow them to pick and choose what can or can not be said in public......or privite?

If they would listen to what the people are saying they would not have anything to fear



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 



I have said about many politicions..........we need to get rid of them........


No, that is not a threat.


I have also said they should be drug out of the whitehouse and shot for treason which would be easily considered a threat even though i used it as a figure of speach.


That IS a threat. And I am not sure what you think a figure of speech is, but that's not a figure of speech. That is the exact kind of rhetoric that causes actions like the incident in Arizona. Some nutcase could take your line there and decide that it's such a good idea that they will try it.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


No

A threat would be I/We are GOING to drag them out and shoot them

And a figure of speech is where something is used to illustrate a point..........my point being that many in office are guilty of treason for ignoring the Constitution



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 


See, no, that's an assumption, you are assuming that Treason can be committed by ignoring the constitution, and frankly that's a wrong assumption.


Article III Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


www.archives.gov...

So, your assumption and threat is wrong on the basis that your idea of Treason is wrong to start with.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
It’s painful and tiresome having to wade through all these posts of partisan attacks and one side blaming the other to try to get some information. If this keeps up ATS will be essentially useless, and will just be the online version of the name-calling, accusations and noise we already get from mainstream media and cable news channels.

Since this Congressman hasn’t introduced the bill, I can’t comment on what it — if introduced — will say, so I will, unlike so many members in this thread, refrain from conjuring up scenarios about what the bill will do or to whom it will apply.

What I can do is, based on what the Congressmen said his intentions were, check the existing legislation he says he wishes to extend to all members of Congress, and form my opinion based on that.

Brady told CNN that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections against threat currently provided to the president.

The current statute is 18 USC 871 and what it says is—

Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The statute seems quite straightforward to me. It applies to everyone and specifies the type of threats that it criminalizes (threat to take the life of, kidnap, and inflict bodily harm).

Since the bill hasn’t been introduced we don’t know the language, so I have no way of knowing if it will amend or broaden the meanings and offenses the statute currently criminalizes, but if the bill will simply, as the Congressmen stated, extend the current protections of the President to members of Congress, I see no problem with it.

Sometimes, perhaps especially in times following a national tragedy, people seem to lose all perspective and are unable to grasp the differences between, in this case, dissent and violence or threat of violence.


edit on 11-1-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
If you had said, "We need to take (insert name) out." that can be considered a direct threat.

But, saying "We need to take this guy out of office" is not, it's all about context.


Wait, so because someone, in some place, with a slightly off-kilter mindset might take my words wrongly I must accept an abridgment of my free speech? Either statement above can be construed to fit a desired outcome; but as of late, it seems many folks to the left and to the right think that this is some spontaneous outburst of political lexicon gone wild.

So Lyndon Johnson would have been personally liable for one of the most leading, projecting and perceived threat upon another congressman for his ad "Daisy". But hey, this all just started since a black man is president....



When Sarah Palin says, "Don't retreat, reload" it's obviously a threat, the reason, is because despite her lame attempt at explaining "reload" meaning to vote, it makes no sense contextually that way, but combine that with her SarahPAC picture, and you get the obvious impression that she is making a hit list and targeting specific people.


When has metaphors been lost upon people? Maybe we need some reeducation in the poetic arts. Was it a good metaphor? Not really, but it played to her base of responsible gun owners. It also could be played as 'reload' your batteries, its a long haul. So it looks like contextually it is only a certain group of people that want to steer her words into a box that fits a need.

I could actually prove to you that those are not targets, but rather topographical markings that are used in cartography. Would you even care? Doubt it because the mind has already been made up. I could show you maps from past elections that showed bullseye upon them, but they are of the Democrat party, so that would be a straw-man and ad hominem because it would show that this is nothing new, cannot be directly attributed to this kid, and serves only one purpose which is becoming more evident by the day now. Stifle the speech that whomever is in power disagrees with.

But without evidence, there are still those that are saying without a doubt and with absolute proof, this punk did it because of some political map that showed markings above districts that were of interest to another party. That the likes of talk-radio must have subliminally and covertly implanted the idea to go fire a gun at a woman's head. To shoot randomly within the crowd thereafter. Yep....sounds plausible to me because that is the message I want to pound into peoples' heads daily from here to 2012.
edit on 11-1-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
He's 'targeting' the type graphics, speech and depictions of Palin's 'crosshairs' map.


Divide and Conquer, even if it's your own party .... if you will.

makes not a tinker's damns sense .. but is what it is.



Then do we also need to take a hard look at Target stores and their advertising?

I mean what if a member of congress drives by one, or receives one of their ad flyers in the mail and feels threatened by it?

Just saying this to point out the slippery slope that would be created if people go through with their knee-jerk fear reactions.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I find it disgusting that any politician, on the left or right, would seek to benefit from this tradgedy. They were elected and work for us, the American people. They aren't seperate or special, they are supposed to represent us. If they dont feel secure, perhaps they should find another way of making money. It's a proven fact that occasionally elected officals are taken out by nutcases................they new this before they voluntarily ran for office. It's kind of like being a cop or soldier, you know someone may just take a pot shot at you. I think any of these sobs that try and benefit from this should definitely be remembered during the next election and run out of town on a rail.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
...

The current statute is 18 USC 871 and what it says is—

Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The statute seems quite straightforward to me. It applies to everyone and specifies the type of threats that it criminalizes (threat to take the life of, kidnap, and inflict bodily harm).

edit on 11-1-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)


Interesting. The US code states a written threat delivered through the mail or a letter carrier or otherwise make such a threat. Is the Internet considered such a medium? Also states "knowingly and willfully" which means it's an intentional threat to do harm, not something along the lines of a presidential candidate saying about the sitting president "Let's take 'em out!"

I'm not going to go over all 50 states but seems that laws are already on the books, as I've already stated, to cover this sort of thing: in Virginia, threatening bodily harm to anyone is a felony, punishible by 1-5 years in prison; Connecticut, a felony, 1-5 years in prison; California, a felony, up to 3 years in prison....


Do they charge players on a football team when they say to the opposing team "We're going to kill you!"? Nope. The intent to "literally" kill isn't there. Same thing with political campains- there is no intent to kill in uttering phrases like "let's take them out" ; they are not threats of bodily harm but merely figure-of-speech meant to invoke passion among the voters so they participate in the vote.


edit on 1/11/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
hahaha @ whoever said Sarah Palins Hit List.

Like shes part of the mafia or a brute hit squad to take out high profile targets.

Maybe shes protecting us from the terminators.

People are so deathly afraid of Palin that they will pin almost anything they can try to think of on that woman.

And the people blaming her on T.V., well, lets just say that real news investigators/journalists would never stoop so low.

Odd thing is though, some people are actually buying it.

Edit to add- On Topic- This bill can not get anymore pathetic. what an embarassment it is to have dolts like this running our government. Im glad they care so much about us that they spend their time lokin for ways to protect themselves.
Sad little creatures, I almost feel sorry for them.

edit on 11-1-2011 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
...
This bill can not get anymore pathetic. what an embarassment it is to have dolts like this running our government. Im glad they care so much about us that they spend their time lokin for ways to protect themselves.
Sad little creatures, I almost feel sorry for them.


Yes indeed. Instead of wondering why people are thinking of them in the current light they've placed themselves in and how to remedy the ill will from the people, they seek to restrain the people they work for.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join