Democratic representatives propose bills to limit freedom of speech.

Inspired and taken from the other topic in a similar vein specifically the contents of the post seen here.

And now several Democrats in Congress are talking about pushing for restricting free speech due to the shootings.

Representative Jim Clyburn (unfortunately from my state, but in another congressional district) is making noises about re-instating the Fairness Doctrine. I may be misremembering, but didn't Nixon use the threat of FD to intimidate his critics into silence?

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jan/09/clyburn-az-shooting-should-redefine-free-speech-pa/

Representative Bob Brady (PA-D) is proposing a law to ban the use of "crosshair" imagery in connection with politicians, in spite of ZERO evidence that the oft-cited "bulls eye map" from Palin was even remotely connected to the shooting. The whole targeting imagery thing has been used for a long time in political discussions (at least decades, I believe), and there's not been any massive shooting spree of politicians.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/democratic-congressman-says-he-will-introduce-bill-to-ban-crosshairs-maps/

I hope you're happy Democrats, you just now shattered any hope of maintaining an image of being in favor of people's rights by wanting to politicize that tragedy to curb our oldest and most cherished rights.

My best guess is even if it passes via reactionary politics it won't survive the SCOTUS.

edited 11th Jan '11 2:22:10 PM by MajorTom

i guess trying to limit the military analogies that permeate american culture is......ano....

also that seems like a cool discussion, militarism and violence in american culture as that seems to be the objective....

Blantant pandering. For one thing, the "Fairness Doctrine" didn't have anything to do with violent speech, it had to do with requiring the media to present both sides of an election issue: "The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced."

Second, banning cross-hair imagery is simply stupid. Like banning fingernail clippers after 9/11 (oh, wait...)

I have no reason to believe that anyone but them care.

Glenn Magus Harvey said, in the Rep Giffords thread:

Yeah, those laws don't seem like they'll get anywhere, and might not even survive First Amendment court challenges.

While true, that they keep coming up annoys the dogsnot out of me. While the US Supreme Court has ruled that there are legitimate limitations on speech (the oft-mentioned "falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" being a more obvious example), those legitimate limitations are very few, and in no way invalidate "Congress shall pass no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" the way the politicians proposing these things act like they do.

Misguided but harmless. I doubt this legislation will go anywhere or have any dramatic effect on anyone, including reputations.

Indeed.

Also,

I hope you're happy Democrats,

it's funny how this came out of a thread that ended up being about not stereotyping conservatives.

I got the distinct visual in of a little girl in a party dress stamping her white-patent shoe.

Yeah, this is just kneejerk overreactive hogwash that's just there to say "LOOK, WE CARE. ALSO, DON'T WANT SHOT."

. . . Okay, I admit it. This is dumber and more obviously unconstitutional than those anti-anchor baby laws.

Can't pass, just a motion, not happening.

This is one of those stupid things that everyone will have forgotten about by tomorrow.

Oh yes, a proposal to mandate media presentations of both political arguments and a ban on what amounts to death threats.

This is suuuuuch an assault on free speech *eyeroll*

Typical.

Commando: If you want to get to the nitty gritty yes it is. It is dictating what you can present it violates freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

"Never Let a Good Crisis Go To Waste"

Rahm Emanuel

Won't go anywhere. Whether or not that's a good thing regarding the Fairness Doctrine is up for debate. I've heard both sides of that one, and I'm not really convinced by either.

Either way, though, it's pointless, cause nothing'll come of either of these.

"It is dictating what you can present"

No, it's dictating what you have to present. There's a very big difference.

Whether or not it's a good idea is another discussion, but 'violation of free speech' it is not.

That kind of policy makes for great television. The BBC has its own such policy and it is not uncommon for people to say things like "But we all know the tory party are a bunch of shits, although in the interests of the BBC's fairness policy I should also acknowledge that the labour party are also quite shit themselves."