Racism

Could Politically Incorrect Speakers Be Charged With Aiding and Abetting Hate Crimes?

|

On Tuesday I noted that, contrary to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assurances that the protections for First Amendment rights in the federal hate crime bill are stronger now than ever, the latest version (the one that will become law) omits language that the ACLU considered crucial. Hans Bader and Byron York, both in the Washington Examiner, point out another way in which the bill has become less freedom-friendly on the way to passage: The conference committee that resolved differences between the House and Senate versions dropped an amendment written by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) that said the bill should not be applied in a way that imposes a substantial burden on First Amendment freedoms "if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."

The bill now says that it's OK to impinge on people's First Amendment freedoms even if they are not conspiring to commit a violent crime or deliberately inciting one, as long as the burden "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." In light of this more permissive language, Bader argues, the new law could be combined with the federal "aiding and abetting" statute to justify prosecuting people whose speech allegedly influenced others to commit hate crimes, even when that result was unintended. For example, a minister who inveighs against homosexuality could be prosecuted if a member of his congregation assaults gay people.

This is the sort of scenario cited by many conservative opponents of the hate crime bill. It never seemed very plausible to me, and I still think the courts would reject such cases on First Amendment grounds. But it's hard to see the purpose of the change highlighted by Bader and York unless it was meant to allow prosecutions that go beyond violent criminals to the people who allegedly shape their thinking.

The latest version of the hate crime bill is here (PDF); it begins on page 1471 of the file, and the "compelling governmental interest" exception is on page 1488. More on hate crime laws here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

109 responses to “Could Politically Incorrect Speakers Be Charged With Aiding and Abetting Hate Crimes?

  1. Some people are more equal than others.

    1. It’s sad to see Jacob Sullum post this after it happened, and after his long campaign for which he urged readers of this site to go to DemTownhalls and extract a pledge to keep the protective language in.

      Why, I distinctly remember post after post where Sullum forcefully demanded that visitors of this site actually do something for once.

      I remember it like yesterday. It happened. It really did.

    2. Yes the fact that we punish murderers differently based on whether the murder was premeditated is a gross injustice.

      1. People like you are why I drink.

        1. “A woman drove me to drink and I didn’t even have the decency to thank her.”

          — WC Fields

      2. Jebus effing christ on a pogo stick Tony. Are you this stupid on purpose?

        I know that the difference between intent and motive has been explained to you in crystal clarity. If you don’t get it by now, you are hoplessly retarded.

  2. “This is the sort of scenario cited by many conservative opponents of the hate crime bill. It never seemed very plausible to me,”

    It is very plausable Jacob. You don’t have to be right on the law. All you need to do is find one judge and one prosecutor who agrees with you. Once you bring the charges, the accused either has to say fuck you and take it all the way to the Supreme Court and take the small risk of losing or pled to some lesser bullshit offense and make the the thing go away. Either way, the guy is stuck fighting a criminal case and spending 1000s of dollars and months of his life doing so. Win or lose, all you need to do is charge a few people and the message gets out, it is not worth it to say things that the government doesn’t like.

    These people are not your friends Jacob.

    1. Yeah Jacob, that guy who made and sold the dog videos probably never heard of “crush porn”.

    2. FWIW, I think you are exactly right, John.

    3. It’s definitely better to keep a bad law from coming to pass than to spend years fighting it after you’ve been charged.

      The plausibility comment seems embarrassingly naive.

    4. When this happens, police everywhere will be the enemies of the nation.

  3. We really are on the way to becoming Western Europe.

  4. Also Jacob, it gives the Feds a reason to investigate the living shit out of anyone they don’t like. Suppose there is some reverend who says a few bad things about the sodomites in his sermons and the local AUSA doesn’t like it. And suppose one of the reverend’s paritioners gets into a bar fight with a gay. At that point the AUSA can go investigate the living hell out of that reverend and harrass the shit out of him on the basis of that law. At that point, who cares if the law is unconstitutional and a case is never brought? The AUSA can make his point and suppress speech without ever bringing a case. It is called “chilling effect”.

    1. Sodomites????? Really, bro????

      I think you have shown how little you have to offer the conversation with a stupid comment like that.

      You are also over 50 and the world has passed you by. Wait. Nope. Hold on….

      NOW it has passed you by.

      See ya! Surely and most definitely wouldn’t wanna be ya! You idiot.

      1. Are you fucking retarded? It was used in the context of an old school preacher.

        1. C-Dog..

          Hate speech against retards! Arrest that man!!

      2. Seriously, dude – context:

        Suppose there is some reverend who says a few bad things about the sodomites in his sermons

      3. Seriously, read the comment and understand this thing called context. The comment was making fun of the hypothetical preacher by having him use such an outdated and over the top term like “sodomite”. Irony, humor, learn it, live it, know it.

    2. Would that mean Reverend Wright would go to jail if he gave an anti-American speech before a terrorist attack? If so, sign me up.

  5. This is the sort of scenario cited by many conservative opponents of the hate crime bill. It never seemed very plausible to me

    The fact that it’s happened in Canada (and, IIRC, Australia and the UK) doesn’t make it plausible?

    But in any case, reassurances from the government that “oh, yeah, it would give us that power, but don’t worry, we’d never abuse it to the letter of the law” are even less plausible.

    1. None of those places have freedom of speech in their constitutions. So that’s a gigantic difference.

      1. It ought to be a gigantic difference. However, it requires freedom of speech to not just be in the Constitution, but to be taken seriously.

        The hate crimes bill would seem to authorize such prosecutions. Do you argue that it is unConstitutional?

  6. This is the sort of scenario cited by many conservative opponents of the hate crime bill. It never seemed very plausible to me

    The fact that it’s happened in Canada (and, IIRC, Australia and the UK) doesn’t make it plausible?

    But in any case, reassurances from the government that “oh, yeah, it would give us that power, but don’t worry, we’d never abuse it to the letter of the law” are even less plausible.

    1. Interesting what an accidental double-click can do.

  7. By golly Jacub, maybe those icky conservative have a point about those hippie dippie liberals Reason likes to lay down with?

    1. We only lie down with them when they’re hawt.

  8. I would say that anyone appearing on Bill Mahr’s show is in fact committing a hate crime.

  9. Is there any reason to suppose that the US would not follow Europe lockstep in this sort of idiocy? How is it that we have managed to elect as the bulk of our representatives people who do not even comprehend the principles on which the country itself was founded? Do they seriously believe that the purpose of the 1st amendment is to protect, as Bill Buckley once said, “good” speech?

  10. By the way, York moaning, “In the past, Democrats knew they couldn’t get away with a trick like stuffing a hate crimes bill into a defense measure because there was a Republican president to threaten a veto. But now, President Obama says he’ll proudly approve the improbable combination of national defense and hate crimes,” is hard to empathize with because both sides pull this crap all the time.

    1. …both sides pull this crap all the time.

      I’m astounded by how many people remain blind to this.

  11. As pointed out above, its another stick for the thought police to brandish.

    The Sword of Damocles doesn’t need to actually fall to do its job, you know.

    The fact that Congress is going out of its way to facilitate the use of this statute to prosecute mere speech should tell you all you need to know.

    1. Oh, brother.

  12. The GOP should sue Bill Maher immediately after passage of the bill.

    1. “The GOP should sue Bill Maher immediately after passage of the bill.”

      Truer words were never spoken.
      And if Card-Check passes, businesses should form their own “pro-business” unions and immediately put to secret ballot votes to keep out the “regular” unions. Whenever stupid politicians pass crap like this, it should be wielded immediately against them — preferably with a lot of media coverage.

  13. I don’t need to read the specifics to conclude I hate this bill. Hate crime legislation is all, in its entirety, a pile of shit.

    That’s it for my deep philosophical argumentation this day.

    1. Ain’t that the truth !!

    2. The best argument I have heard that could be used against hate speech codes came from the show Homocide: Life on the Street from Andre Bauer’s Pimbleton character who explained to his partner that he approached every case with equal vehemence no matter the circumstances, or the people involved. To do anything else would be a breach of the public trust.

      It was more involved than that but I’m going only by memory here, and don’t want to put anything in his mouth that may not have been there.

      Even the episode I am not entirely sure about, but I believe it was the one where he and his partner were investagating a lady doctor on the death of a gang member whom she had sewed up many times before, and she decided to kill him instead to get his useless ass off the street. His partner wanted to go easy on here given the circumstances. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure that was the occasion.

      1. he and his partner were investagating a lady doctor

        Investagating? Mum should have never got me that monkey phonics kit.

  14. If Heterosexuals would learn to behave themselves and adopt for themselves some of the ‘morality’ that so many of you are screaming your foolish heads off about, we might not need hate crime laws.

    But until such a time, it is quite clear that we do. Because y’all just can’t behave yourselves. Isn’t that embarrassing at all? Having to have laws passed against you to prevent you from abusing, torturing and raping and murdering the very gay children YOU YOURSELVES CREATED? Morality????? Really, folks??? Really???

    Religious people are protected by law from hate crimes. Why shouldn’t the people that Religious folks abuse, degrade, torture and murder be offered those same protections?

    Boy, Christians sure do fight loudly for their rights to abuse others and treat them badly, don’t they.

    Proving, yet again, that there is simply no love like Christian hate.

    Morality indeed, folks. Morality indeed.

  15. If Heterosexuals would learn to behave themselves and adopt for themselves some of the ‘morality’ that so many of you are screaming your foolish heads off about, we might not need hate crime laws.

    But until such a time, it is quite clear that we do. Because y’all just can’t behave yourselves. Isn’t that embarrassing at all? Having to have laws passed against you to prevent you from abusing, torturing and raping and murdering the very gay children YOU YOURSELVES CREATED? Morality????? Really, folks??? Really???

    Religious people are protected by law from hate crimes. Why shouldn’t the people that Religious folks abuse, degrade, torture and murder be offered those same protections?

    Boy, Christians sure do fight loudly for their rights to abuse others and treat them badly, don’t they.

    Proving, yet again, that there is simply no love like Christian hate.

    Morality indeed, folks. Morality indeed.

    1. It is called free speech jackass. You either believe in it or you don’t. If you won’t defend the rights of someone you disagree with, then you don’t believe in freedom or free speech.

      Further, “hate speech” constitutes a lot more than saying that perhaps sodomy and water sports isn’t a great lifestyle. Sorry to burst your bubble, but despite your queer histrionics it is not all about you dear.

      Lastly, you might want to take a look at what Muslims have to say about homosexuality before you start whining about Christians. If you lived in Saudi Arabia or Iran, you would be hung for being a homosexual. Imams all over the world routinely condem homosexuals as animals.

      “Religious people are protected by law from hate crimes. Why shouldn’t the people that Religious folks abuse, degrade, torture and murder be offered those same protections?”

      If you abuse and torture or murder someone, you are going to jail for you know abusing raping and torturing someone. The hate crime really isn’t necessary. The only reason to have a “hate crime” is to go after people’s speech. And speech is not action.

      1. “queer histrionics”

        That ought to calm her down.

        1. That was bad. I shouldn’t have said that. But that post was so obnoxious it brought out the worst in me.

      2. sodomy has nothing to do with being gay. straight folks also engage in sodomy. oral sex is sodomy. so I guess no more BJ’s from your wives. Not that they are probably performing it anyway, if the complaints I hear from my straight male friends are true.

        look up the definition before you make yourself look dumber than clearly are.

        you’d have an ounce of respectability if you would just admit that you are not concerned with your free speech rights at ALL.

        This is nothing but the usual animus from the very Heterosexuals who CREATED all the gay people.

        And it just really stick in your craw that gay people have achieved protections and rights that you would deny them.

        You folks are so transparent you should change your names to Scotch Tape.

        1. Yes, anyone who defends free speech and thinks thought crimes are a really bad idea is just a gay basher.

          This is performance art and bad art at that. You really had me hooked until you got to the part about straights creating gays. Nice try though. They tell me Urkobold has a school for trolling. You should think about it.

        2. Aw jeez.

          I spent time last year in an attempt to convince people to vote against Amendment 2 in Florida last year (the anti-gay marriage amendment, which unfortunately passed). I have spoken and worked in the past to point out how ridiculous some people are when they spout anti-gay rhetoric.

          But I will defend anyone’s right to spew whatever idiocy they want about homosexuals. Because it’s their first amendment right. There is no “unless it makes other people feel bad” clause in the first amendment.

          And I very much resent being called a bigot because I think that.

      3. Do you live in a cave?

      4. “If you lived in Saudi Arabia or Iran, you would be hung…”

        Why would that be a problem? Actually, as long as he is not in danger of being hanged, a guy (or two) consider that to be a big positive.

    2. I can’t tell if this is satire or not.

      1. You both clearly have no idea what it is like to be hunted in the streets of your very own neighborhood.

        Gay folks do.

        On nearly every street, and in nearly every town, and certainly in every state of this ‘great nation.’

        Learn to behave yourselves, morons. Adopt for yourselves some of those morals you are always screaming about.

        Until then, STFU.

        And kiss my gay ass, you tools.

        1. Yes because Reason commenters are notorious gay bashers. There is usually a random gay bashing or two at every Reason happy hour.

          No one is saying it should be legal to assault someone. What we are saying is that people ought to be free to think whatever they want even if we don’t like it.

          And stop giving gay people such a bad name. I know a lot of gay people and not one of them is an ignorant tool like you.

          1. you are not being intellectually honest.

            how can one engage a liar?

            thought police?????? really???????????? thought police???????????

            um, ok.

            call us when the shuttle lands.

            1. Why are we not being intellectually honest? No one on this board is anti-gay. No one on this board agrees with people who condem homosexuality. We just understand that their freedom to say what they think, no matter how wrong, is more important than our right not to be offended.

        2. “And kiss my gay ass, you tools.”

          Sorry no one around here gives it up that easy.

        3. Assault and murder are already illegal, asshole.

        4. I’m so interested in which state it is that you live in where hunting gays is legal.

          So, how does this gay hunting work? Is it, like, open season all year round, or is it only certain times of the year? Do you have to buy a license?

          Is there a special black powder and archery season, or what?

          Or maybe it’s just dogs and clubs like I’ve heard some good old boys do with wild hogs down in Florida.

          Seriously. Bill, the penalties for assault are severe. The penalty for murder in over half the states is death.

          If years in prison or death aren’t deterrents what more are you going to impose?

        5. Many people in Chicago know what it is like to be hunted down in their own neighborhoods.

          And their mayor is doing his best to keep them from fighting back.

        6. I’m sorry, did I miss something? Aren’t there laws against hunting people in the streets? I could have sworn there was. If not, then hell, it’s time to polish up the Glock.

        7. Just gonna throw this out here:

          http://www.southparkstudios.co…..g=Fag+Drag

    3. Bill,

      Maybe you and Bill Donohue of the Catholic League should have a nice little tea party with one another. With your grievance idled rhetoric and chip bearing shoulders, the two of you have a lot in common.

    4. Do you even know what board you are posting on?

  16. If you’re interested in experiencing the future before it happens, you can check out the Oakes Test that applies in Canada. It’s what permits government infringements on our equivalent of the First Amendment (among other things). You’ll be excited to find that the language there is similar to that in the Bill above. Enjoy! You’re about to be as fucked as we are.

  17. Why are people focusing on sexual orientation when most of the changes proposed by the federal hate crimes bill don’t even involve sexual orientation?

    The bill radically expands the jurisdictional reach of the bill in ways that have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

    As I noted in my commentary, the inclusion of sexual orientation is not the focus of my objections to the bill, or my commentary.

    I would object to the bill’s goals — such as prosecuting people in federal court who have already been acquitted of hate crimes in state court — regardless of whether the bill even covered sexual orientation.

    (The bill also adds other categories like gender and disability, and radically expands the jurisdictional reach of the bill).

    As Mr. Sullum notes, while the bill may not succeed in restricting speech, that is certainly the intent of this most recent change to the bill.

    An unsuccessful censor is still morally objectionable attempting to do so.

    And it is conceivable that the attempt to censor will succeed, although the odds of that happening are less than 50 percent.

    1. I don’t think people are focusing on just sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is just an easy example to point to. It doesn’t matter if they go after someone over sexual orientation or national origin or whatever. It is still censorship.

      Another good example is what happened to Mark Steyn in Canada. Someone writes in a blog or a magazine about the dangers of radical Islam and voila they are a criminal defendent the first time one of their readers does anything to a Muslim.

    2. I would object to the bill’s goals — such as prosecuting people in federal court who have already been acquitted of hate crimes in state court — regardless of whether the bill even covered sexual orientation.

      Prohibiting hate crimes is not among the Congress’s enumerated powers.

      1. Yeah. There’s no Constitutional mandate for this.

        But, see, here’s the thing: any crime against a person or property has already pretty well been covered. So what’s the purpose of a “hate crime” bill, really?

        Threefold: first, it serves to set antagonism between groups – be they racial, religious, or based on sexual orientation – that would not otherwise exist, by giving the perception of special privileges not shared by the population as a whole – the entire intent of the concept of equal treatment under the law.

        Second, it undermines the existing law, by giving the perception to the general public that the existing law was somehow deficient, or not sufficient to cover the crimes falling under its jurisdiction. (Murder, rape, arson, assault, burglary, and vandalism, for example – most of the things the hate crime bills are supposed to prevent or punish – are already illegal and carry stiff penalties.)

        Third, it weakens and undermines the intended “protected” group, by giving the implication that the equal rule of law is not enough for them, and they need special protections not afforded to anyone else, because without that, well…

        …As per a previous poster, gays might be hunted in the streets.

        Hate crime laws are inherently divisive, unnecessary for the protection of actual, real-life citizens, and inherently biased against the very groups they purport to protect.

        I would say “vote against these retarded asshats who dreamed this up” but they’re on both sides of the aisle.

  18. When I said above,

    “The bill radically expands the jurisdictional reach of the bill in ways that have nothing to do with sexual orientation.”

    I meant that the bill radically expands the jurisdictional reach of the existing federal LAW, not that the bill expands the reach of the bill, which is nonsensical.

    I misspoke.

  19. Hey Bill, Google “Pink Pistols”. Those guys know how to stop hate crimes.

    Or maybe it’s just dogs and clubs like I’ve heard some good old boys do with wild hogs down in Florida.

    Wow. I live in Florida, and I’ve never heard of that. What I’ve heard is hunting boar with anything less than a .30-06 is begging for a trip to the hospital. Wild hogs are some f*ucking mean animals. Perhaps we need legislation against them.

    1. Ihave never heard of using clubs. But, I do have a friend in Texas that hunts them with dogs and knives. He has a whole collection of rescue pit bulls. He takes the pack out and runs down the hog. Then when the dogs have a hold of the pig, he runs up and stabs it with a big knife and kills it. He wanted me to go with him and I said thanks but no thanks.

      Reasons why you shouldn’t fuck with rednecks.

    2. Wild hogs are some f*ucking mean animals. Perhaps we need legislation against them.

      What, no official Pulled Barbecue & Hush Puppies Day in Florida?

    3. Damn it, that was the first time I’ve forgotten to change back from a fake handle.

      John, I guess if you have 5 pit bulls, the hog is going to be a bit distracted. Still, that would require more balls than I have. I remember (as a teen) a couple friends talking about going hunting. One who’d never been said he was going to bring his .22. The other one laughed and said “Why? You want to piss him off before I shoot him?”

      alan, it’s usually served with french fries down here, so I guess not.

      1. Pigs are evil. They are nearly as smart as a chimp. No kidding. They are the most intelligent non simeon. They are incredibly agressive and enormous. I want no part of them unless it is with .308 at at least 100 yards.

        1. I’d agree with that, except I think dolphins may be smarter. They are far more intelligent than generally given credit for. There’s a reason Orwell made them the “masters” in Animal Farm

          1. Actually they have found that dolphins are not as smart as we thought. They have huge brains. But their brains don’t function as well as once beleived. They basically have a large brain because they often live in cold water and a large brain is necessary in the cold.

        2. i don’t think there is anything scarier than a thousand pounds of angry wild pig charging you. they truly are an evil combination of intelligence, size, and brute strength.
          i’ve had a small domestic pig chomp down on the steel toe of my boot, my grandfather had to cut the shoe off my foot.

          1. “i don’t think there is anything scarier than a thousand pounds of angry wild pig charging you.”

            Maybe a thousand pounds of ex-wife scorned?

        3. “Nearly as smart”, but twice as delicious!

  20. Maybe Bill can skip the histrionics and cite exactly what existing law protects “religious people” from “hate crimes?”

  21. Nancy Pelosi’s existence is a hate crime.

  22. Baked and John, I don’t know about clubs, but I remember reading a website a few years ago about some real hardass guys who hunt wild hogs with nothing but dogs and a bowie knife.

    And I also have a vague recollection about some guys in Australia (I think) that hunt them with spears.

    I thought it then and I think it now, them mofos is fucking crazy. But even crazier are the guys that pay to go hunting with them.

    But almost every year it seems like someone takes a hog with a 22. I think it’s because on some state wildlife management areas you can take hogs during small game season but you can’t use centerfire rifles.

    Wild hogs are considered nuisances rather than game so a lot of land managers would just as soon try to eradicate them (good luck with that).

    1. I think that guy’s name is Brock Sampson.

  23. I guess I should build little shrines in the basement to all the politicians I hate, and have their written and recorded words handy.

    That way, whether my crime is drugs or violence, I can claim that the politicians words drove me to it.

  24. But almost every year it seems like someone takes a hog with a 22.

    Well, if you get enough body shots, it’ll surely bleed to death, but I’ve heard stories about .22’s basically bouncing off their skulls, leaving only small flesh wounds.

  25. Amateurs. Fred and I took down a t rex with just clubs, BamBam and Dino (and the little tyke was just 8 years old).

  26. I’m in my 30’s. I’ll probably be elderly by the time we slide fully into oppression. However, I my sympathies go to the next generation.

    1. I admire your optimism.

      I’m giving it another 10 years, tops.

  27. “…as long as the burden “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

    We suspend free speech in furthering governmental interests? Yes, the Democrats are just wonderful on civil rights.

  28. So, when Pelosi or Reid compares ObamaCare protestors to Nazis or gay bashers, we’ll be able to bring them up on charges?

    Cool.

    1. Silly JW, that would not be a governmental interest.

      You, on the other hand, for writing that post may be getting an expenses paid tour of Leavenworth.

  29. Can someone just shoot her and put her out of her misery? We would not lose anything.

  30. The passage of hate crime legislation is the neo-fascists pushing us inexorably toward no freedom of speech. Speech cannot be a crime unless a specific threat of violence is actually being made against someone.

    What neofascists are trying to do is blur the distinction between explicit and implied threat so they can claim anyone criticising anyone can have an implied threat…this is extremely dangerous for freedom of speech.

    Its time to legally challenge this legislation at the Supreme Court.

  31. Maybe the asshat scumocrats are attempting to limit free speech via the crappy legislation that they originally introduced. I wouldn’t put it past the cowards.

  32. Sometimes FREEDOM smells like an obnoxious cigarette. When you no longer smell cigarettes realize America has lost some of her freedom and a lot of blood was shed for that FREEDOM to be wasted. It indeed was not given to America freely because the world is a nice place.

  33. I’m stunned by this. I’m one of those people who kept hearing about this but just shook it off, saying this could never happen here. Let’s get right down to it – it’s criminalizing thought. For those morons who equate the thought of planning a killing with the thought of hating a group of people, remember the planning of a killing is a crime in and of itself. Hating isn’t a crime in and of itself. Is it the case now that hating some group of people or another is now a crime? I mean, I would receive more punishment for it under this construction, right? For the record, I hate illegal immigrants – I think they should all go home and I’m pissed off that they are here in my country. I also hate investment bankers – they’re just the type of people who really get under my skin. I also really don’t like lawyers – not quite hatred but severe dislike. I’ll tell you who I really hate most; do gooder progressive/collectivist/liberals who want to tell me how and what to think.

  34. I HATE Fags, there is some hate for you!!

    1. Me too! I hate fags too!!! Not really, but it felt good to commit a thought/speech crime. I don’t actually care about anyone’s “sexual orientation”.

  35. Let’s not forget most in Washington D.C. now, look up to Communist China for guidance and inspiration.

  36. Who are these effin democrats who think that they have the right to shove and force their sense of morals upon others.

    1. They think they are morally superior to you, of course.

  37. This is no accident. This is their next assault on conservative talk radio. Any event that could be contributed to Rush, Hannity, Savage, or Beck, et al, would be grounds for aiming the Federal Gov’t storm troopers at them.

    Even if the Supreme Court would eventually strike it down, in the interim they would be able to whip up frenzy and get the Government’s media arm (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS?) to focus attention on the lies that they are sure to fabricate or enable. Their hope would be to get said broadcaster removed from the air or at least heavily damaged in the marketplace. If there is still a marketplace when they are finished with us.

    VOTE THE BUMS OUT! ALL INCUMBANTS MUST GO! Especially that embarrASSment Snowe!

  38. Pelosi and her fellow travelers should be labled the crypto-Marxist revolutionaries that they are. They know they are driving America into insolvency.

  39. The purpose is to intimidate – how many people can afford enough defense attorney’s or the expense. Given most lawyers appear to be liberal – it makes conservatism a crime in practice if not fact – even if the courts overturn the nonsense…

  40. Folks,
    Obama has 3 1/2 more years to get this country fashioned in his will and has many co-conspiritors to aid him.
    Sometime during his term in office you must be prepared to defend your freedoms that will be at terrible risk.

    Will you be ready?

  41. Pelosi,doesn’t believe in free speech, she believes in free liberal speech. Remember how she attacked the town hall attendees as Nazi’s. She I believe is also in favor of the fairness doctrine that would essentially mute conservative talk radio….http://cooperscopy.blogspot.com/

  42. DontTreadonme is absolutley right!!!
    These people are elected officials, so STOP sending them back to Washington. Get rid of the pro-communist, anti-Americans and replace them with someone who has America’s best interest in mind and not thier own!!!!

  43. John|10.15.09 @ 2:16PM|#
    Also Jacob, it gives the Feds a reason to investigate the living shit out of anyone they don’t like. Suppose there is some reverend who says a few bad things about the sodomites in his sermons and the local AUSA doesn’t like it. And suppose one of the reverend’s paritioners gets into a bar fight with a gay. At that point the AUSA can go investigate the living hell out of that reverend and harrass the shit out of him on the basis of that law. At that point, who cares if the law is unconstitutional and a case is never brought? The AUSA can make his point and suppress speech without ever bringing a case. It is called “chilling effect”.

    reply to this ;

    SO, SO, SO, correct. That is why the Lutherans(i.e.-“christian” religon just voted(August “09”) to allow the teacher’s(lol) give the Sunday sermon, and then leave out the front door holding hand’s with there significant other!!!!!!!!! Did I miss something,(I’m only 41 years old)Does the bible not plainly show how Gog views “men who lie with men”(i.e.-Sodom and Gamorah(fire and sulfur)(lol)) Remember History repeates itself. Who the frick cares what Nancy Pelosi say’s or Obama(I no God does’nt!!!!)
    The book of Revelations is coming(like a fricking freight train). Hold on it’s going to be a bumpy ride!!

  44. These people are elected officials, so STOP sending them back to Washington. Get rid of the pro-communist, anti-Americans and replace them with someone who has America’s best interest in mind and not thier own!!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.