NY State Senators Say
We’ve Got Too Much
Free Speech; Introduce Bill To Fix That
Ok is this even true?
Because if it is, this is just becoming too scary for those of us that value America as it was and as it should be and as it still exists in our hearts and minds, but apparently a group of NY, Senators, (Big Surprise there) after watching Anthony Wieners, antics, and some of the other truly remarkable idiots, they produce, come out from under the rocks they hide under, to engage in this kind of evil you have to wonder if there will be an America for our children.
All I can say, about this news story is that it is an indication that they need to be voted out of office.
from the i-find-this-offensive dept source,
We’ve been pointing out a variety of attempts to push back on the First Amendment lately. One fertile ground for such attacks are local politicians carrying the “cyberbullying” banner, in various attempts to magically outlaw being a “jerk” online, usually by making it illegal to offend someone online. Of course, making someone’s action illegal based on how someone else feels about it is all kinds of crazy. It also would seem to violate the very principles of the First Amendment, which bar Congress (and local governments) from passing any laws that take away one’s right to free speech.
This is incredible, makes you want to think about “NOT” living in New York, because some day they may show up at your door with a muzzle, what a mess, this is, horrible when you consider what they are trying to use as a vehicle to limit free speech, soon they will pass a law saying that if you offend someone you might be jailed for it.
Even more offensive is this.
In the past, lawmakers pushing these laws have tended to simply ignore the First Amendment issue, and focus on screaming “protect the children!” as loudly as possible (never mind the fact that kids seem much less concerned about “bullying” than all these adults seem to think). However, it appears that some state Senators in NY are trying a new line of attack: going directly after the First Amendment and suggesting that current interpretations are way too broad, and it’s not really meant to protect any sort of free speech right. In fact, it sounds as though they’re trying to redefine the right to free speech into a privilege that can be taken away. Seriously: