Shooting prompts legislation to protect lawmakers, officials

[dooner]

Source: CNN

Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania, said he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/09/shooting-prompts-legislation-to-protect-lawmakers-officials/

[Ian David]

1. I disagree with this. Don't make it illegal. Just hold those who do it responsible.

However, I think the debate on this will be worth having.

[stray cat]

7. If it is legal how do you hold them responsible - inciting murder is a tough prosecution to prove

[AlinPA]

2. "Symbols" refers to you know who. nt

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Angry Dragon]

3. How about that legislation apply to everyone

no more special laws for politicians

[Downwinder]

4. At least "medical benefits for innocent bystanders.

[GodlessBiker]

18. Agreed. Our safety is just as important as theirs.

[Bold Lib]

5. Wouldn't such legislation violate the premise of equal protection under the law?

Either way I don't like it.

[DeSwiss]

6. K&R

"....a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols...."

- There. All fixed.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

8. I was waiting to see how soon it would take to make a new law

for "SPECIAL PERSONS". Why not change Member of Congress or Federal official to ANYONE! We all should have that right.

[dooner]

9. special persons...

I guess because the officials are public servants ... They are putting their necks out trying to represent us. Seems like we owe them some level of protection.

Perhaps this law would make people, like Rush Limbaugh, who incite people to violence, officially, domestic terrorists.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

10. We all should have that right. That was my point.

[Broderick]

11. Fifteen security folks

Have every congress person and senator protected by 15 full time security detail folks. Extend that to every state senate and rep and create a new agency with a czar to head it up nationwide.

[bossy22]

13. many congresscritters

would probably turn down such a detail. Many would feel that it distances themselves from their constituents

[boppers]

29. Heck of a jobs program, there.

Hard to find/train than many people that quickly, though.

[bossy22]

12. hope this never gets out of comittee

This is a bad idea and puts us down the road of defining "acceptable" free speech. Free speech includes speech that society might find vulger, disgusting, and/or abnormal.

Nor would this prevent further tragedies like this from happening. I am unconvinced that this person comitted his horrible act because of something glenn beck or sarah palin said/did. This guy was a nut- plain and simple. We've had seriel killers kill because their neighbors dog "told them" to do it.

[littlewolf]

14. self delete

[slackmaster]

15. I thought making a threat to harm or kill someone was already illegal

Even if you are threatening a mere Plebian.

[LisaL]

16. Be careful what you wish for.

Perceived as threatening? Really?

[bossy22]

20. Exactly

where would this line be drawn?

[valerief]

17. So what will RW teevee (meaning M$M news) and radio talk about ?

All they do is incite.

[Bold Lib]

19. So how many would have been prosecuted had this law been in affect

when "Death of a President" was made? This is a VERY bad idea.

[lunatica]

21. They can sure move quickly on a Sunday when their lives are in question

Within hours of the shooting and on a weekend suddenly they can't wait to pass legislation protecting themselves.

Yesterday when Jan Brewer was so hypocritically saying this crime was just terrible I could only think of the two people who died this week in Arizona because they couldn't get organ transplants because of her.

[fascisthunter]

22. good catch

I don't blame them but a very good point.

[lunatica]

24. My point is that they should move that quickly and passionately for

the welfare of all Americans. Trying to deny help for the 9/11 firefighters' fight for their lives just weeks ago was disgusting. There are children with no health care in this country whose lives are in danger all the time. The growth of the homeless is skyrocketing and that puts people at risk. People are dying for lack of medical care.

I guess my anger is beginning to build after this horrible terrorist tragedy. There's been plenty of hate filled and toxic rhetoric in Arizona coming out of the mouths of elected officials who are now claiming this is such a terrible shock.

Sorry for the rant. It's just that the hypocrisy I've witnessed this weekend is disgusting.

[fascisthunter]

25. you care... you are willing to see the whole truth

your anger is justified and I did not mind your rant. The hypocrisy is disgusting...

[beyurslf]

23. "that could be perceived" sounds pretty vague.

Couldn't a person afraid of everything little thing "perceive" danger in all sorts of innocuous statements or symbols? The cross was used to kill people, so could it be a symbol of a threat to someone? A law like this might be a good idea, but the wording would have to be precise.

[Tx4obama]

26. K & R n/t

[Odin2005]

27. And here comes the Authoritarians using this as an excuse for repression.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

28. I am astonished by how little security some figures have

I was at an event about a year and a half ago where a US Ambassador was in attendance and was just working the room with his wife. His security was one dude sitting by the door and appeared to be playing Brick Breaker most of the time. This was a US ambassador to a G8 country with less security than an American Idol contestant. I also wouldn't have been surprised if Mr. Brick Breaker was unarmed.

[Rex]

30. So they can't help 48 million people in severe poverty get healthcare

but they sure as fuck can help themselves when one of their own gets hurt!?!?! Why not make it a federal crime for a person to do such things against EVERYONE!?