Pennsylvania Democrat to introduce legislation to protect lawmakers

[GrantDem]

A Democratic lawmaker plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or images that could be interpreted as inciting violence toward members of Congress or federal officials.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/reports-arizona-rep-gabrielle.html#brady

[blue neen]

1. Here is some more of the article:

"Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Robert Brady told CNN that he plans to introduce the legislation as soon as possible. A Brady spokesperson confirmed to the Post that a bill is in the works but did not have details on a timeline.

Brady told CNN that he was especially concerned by the images of crosshairs used by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's (R) PAC in a map detailing its 20 targeted members, including Rep. Gabrielle GIffords (D-Ariz.).

"You can't put bulls eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official," Brady said. "I understand this web site that had it on there is no longer in existence. Someone is feeling a little guilty."

A Palin aide contended in a Saturday radio interview that the crosshairs images were "never intended to be gun sights."

[Statistical]

6. "You can't put bulls eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official," Brady

Which implies you can do to anyone else EXCEPT federal official. Sorry no dice. What is good enough for the people is good enough for Congress. What is good enough for Congress is good enough for the people.

[oneshooter]

2. The rights of the elite override the 1st Amendment of the masses. n/t

[Leftist Agitator]

3. Fuck this guy.

FREEDOM OF MOTHERFUCKING SPEECH!

Do I like the right's violent rhetoric? Fuck no.

But by God, they have the right.

[Statistical]

4. Bullshit. Lawmakers don't get special status.

If anything the law needs to be narrowly tailored to be Constitutional and at the same time extend to all persons. So inciting violence against gays or the clergy is lawful but not against politicians.

Congress is so willing to act quickly and strip rights after a major event. Patriot act anyone? Nobody read it. Just "something" needed to be done so they passed it and we are stuck with it almost a decade later.

[Cleita]

5. Good! Now maybe they can pass some laws to

protect the rest of us, like universal single payer health care that covers mental health care as well. If that young man had been under treatment for mental health issues and drug use, maybe this might have never happened.

[Bjorn Against]

7. I don't think this would be Constitutional

As much as I hate what the right is doing this law sounds like it goes way too far in restricting speech. Believe me if this passes it would come back to bite us, don't think for an instant that they would not use an extremely broad interpretation of this law to prosecute progressives who they don't like.