Going after speech interpreted as violent
[From LauraIngraham.com: Dems plan to go after
speech they interpret to be violent] "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.
Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Robert Brady told The Washington Post
Sunday night that he plans to introduce the legislation as soon as
possible. The bill would give members of Congress and federal officials
the same protections from threatening language and imagery as afforded
to the president.
"It's not a wake-up call, it's a four-alarmer," Brady said of the Tucson
shootings, adding that he last spoke with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)
on Friday, the day before the attacks. Brady emphasized that he views
the problem of increasingly stepped-up political rhetoric as "not a
Democratic or Republican issue; it's a civility issue."
Story
Do you want political speech silenced?
Are the
Dems using the Tucson shootings to go after free speech? Is Michelle
Mulkin right that this is the "criminalization of conservatism"?
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste (Rahm Emanuel)."
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "It's crap. And I see it echoed around here, to my never ending amazement, by the same folks who'd otherwise agree banning Grand Theft Auto III to be ridiculous."
Political speech they disagree with is "violent". The shooters favorite books were Communism Manifesto and Mein Kampf. He was antiwar and said he found it difficult to fight against Muslims. The mainstream liberal media doesn't mention that. By all means--go after conservatives.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "So now we can't even complain about those bastards?"
Is it right for the Left to exploit this tragedy for :Commie: political ends?
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "And we need to stop giving negative reps. You never know who it might set off."
I'm not reporting Geraldbug.