Don't Offend Anyone

[xodar]

H.R. 1966: Offend Someone Online - Go To Prison
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 Posted by Shattered Paradigm

At a time when freedom of speech is already under attack like never before, a shocking new bill in the U.S. House of Representatives would make it a felony to offend someone online.

A felony.

Under this new law you would not just be slapped on the wrist and have to pay a fine.

You would go to big boy prison.

While most free speech activists have been watching the recent "hate crimes" bill, this much more insidious piece of legislation has received almost no notice whatsoever.

Just take a look at what H.R. 1966 actually says.....

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Whoa.

So if you offend someone on Facebook you could go to federal prison for two years?

Yup.

If your blog insults someone and causes them to feel bad you could go to prison for two years?

Yeppers.

If you are in a bad mood one day and you send fire off an angry tweet on Twitter that you maybe should not have you could go to prison for two years over it?

Yes indeed.

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

Talk about an attempt to chill free speech.

So if someone reads something that you have written and it makes them feel bad they can take it to the feds and have them come get you?

That is a very, very frightening thought.

The reality is that the government is increasingly trying to control even the very small details of our lives. They are even increasingly trying to control what we say and what we think.

Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of a free society. If we are not free to express ourselves without the fear that someone will be offended, then what freedom will we really have left?

The reality is that if we do not stand up to this, the United States of America will quickly become overrun with politically-correct "commissars" who are eager to throw anyone who disagrees with them in jail for "hate crimes" and "thought crimes".

Things are already out of control in the United Kingdom. Did you know that there are actually undercover officers in some areas of the U.K. that sit in bars and restaurants listening for anyone who might say something offensive or racist?

You may laugh, but the United States is quickly heading down that road.

The full text of H.R. 1966 is below.....[on site]


http://futurestorm.blogspot.com/2009/05 ... go-to.html

[AK]

[POST REMOVED]

[dubhdanaidh]

[Teknophile]

Now, that is a scary thought. For those in the U.S., write your Congressman and tell them to chuck HR1966 out on its aft!

Technically, this law would be practically impossible to enforce, simply because we live in a (heretofore) pluralistic society. If I say A, there is bound to be someone will say that A is wrong, and that I should say B instead.

Heck, this whole site and everyone on it would get screwed. Surely, there are plenty of people who take offense at folks like us who read and write stories, including erotica, that feature fembots.

[dubhdanaidh]

[dale coba]

Fellas and Fembots,

The proposal by Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Los Angeles, would never pass First Amendment muster, unless the U.S. Constitution was altered without us knowing. So Sanchez, and the 14 other lawmakers who signed on to the proposal, are grandstanding to show the public they care about children and are opposed to cyberbullying.

Crazy, unconstitutional sh!t is offered all the time in Congress. My suggestion: don't get hysterical until after you've confirmed with legal experts that this is one which actually could pass. Otherwise, you'll be no better than my alarmist uncle sending out bogus virus scares to everyone unfortunate enough to get added to his e-mail list.

- Dale Coba

[Baron]

I'm quite familiar with this proposal - it's an offshoot of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" {aka the 'Hush Rush Law'} that's been kicking around the liberal faction of the Democratic party for at least 20 years now.

Don't be misled by all the "hate speech" trappings - that's really just code for ANY speech that doesn't meet specific guidelines, as determined by the proposers. In short, they wish to eliminate all but one viewpoint {theirs} from the arena of discussion - which really eliminates the essence of discussion itself, if you apply simple logic. And they are ready, willing, and eager to criminalize all who might have opposing viewpoints. Joseph Goebbels would be proud...............

Now if you'll excuse me, there's some books I must be burning.

[dale coba]

Baron,

Please read an unbiased account of the situation. You are propagating a right-wing talk radio myth. The only legislation proposed has been by the Republians to prevent an imaginary, new "fairness doctrine" from being re-instated.

Further, the airwaves are a public asset, and what is wrong, exactly, with the principle as stated below?

Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

- Dale Coba

[Zekewhipper]

The quoted segment of the bill doesn't say anything about the unintentional offending of people. Read it again.

You're getting excited over nothing. As for freedom of speech being more and more restricted, that's nonsense. It's not limited enough.

[~?]

As for freedom of speech being more and more restricted, that's nonsense. It's not limited enough.

I really hope that this is a pathetic attempt at irony. If not, you need to lay off the Kool-Aid.

[Baron]

Baron,

Please read an unbiased account of the situation. You are propagating a right-wing talk radio myth. The only legislation proposed has been by the Republians to prevent an imaginary, new "fairness doctrine" from being re-instated.

Further, the airwaves are a public asset, and what is wrong, exactly, with the principle as stated below?

Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

- Dale Coba

I don't dispute certain potions of that Wikipedia article, Dale - as a journalism major before I dropped out of college, I was well acquainted with the "equal time for opposing viepoints" policy, and was in agreement with it. The "Fairness Doctrine" I referred to was an attempt by Congress to put the policy into law as I described, with the commercial media being forced to make room for equal time for opposing viewpoints - whether they were supported by sponsorship or not. This effort to revise the FCC-originated policy into law began around 1988, and over the course of the last 21 years it evolved into an effort to check the rise of conservative media {not just radio shows}.

Although nothing has come of the repeated efforts to realize this piece of legislation, an attempt at "equal time" did come to pass, with the disastrous "Air America" fiasco a few years back. As it has for nearly the entire history of commercial broadcast media, the free market - not the legislators - is quite capable of determining what is fair and proper, and what isn't. Air America flopped because it had nothing of interest to offer - as determined by it's immediate lack of any audience, and reinforced by a paucity of willing sponsors. As for the most recent attempt to pass the legislation, elements of House Resolution 3302 appeared as addemdums on Obama's "Stimulus Bill" this year, but were trimmed before Obama signed it in February.

[dale coba]

Okay, I'm trying to follow you here. You underlined commercial media - but I've never before heard the claim that the original doctrine only applied only to publicly funded radio. All radio frequencies, from the start of the medium, are public assets which we allow companies to use, though not without restrictions and responsibilities.

Air America was a commercial enterprise, and had nothing whatsoever to do with any mandate to equalize viewpoints. Turns out, there wasn't a niche big enough, and they failed. It had absolutely nothing to do with any version of a fairness doctrine.

I did search, but couldn't learn which elements of 3302 you were talking about. Maybe you could point me to a clarification?

Also, I noted your appeal to the wisdom of the "Free Market".

As it has for nearly the entire history of commercial broadcast media, the free market - not the legislators - is quite capable of determining what is fair and proper, and what isn't.

Um... that Economic Fundamentalism is an article of your faith, not any established fact or legal principle which non-believers need respect.

Finally, you said that you "don't dispute certain potions of that Wikipedia article". I'm not about to claim that everything in Wikipedia is true, but to my way of thinking, that means you DO dispute certain portions (which I can not guess). If so, the disputation would require some evidence and citations capable of outweighing the Wikipedia article. Or why should anyone take your word over that of the collective?

- Dale Coba

[Zekewhipper]

No it was not. The Constitution does not grant people the right to say anything or everyting they want. The founding fathers when they wrote it, were addressing the issue of political and religious freedom of speech in the form of the written and spoken word.

[dale coba]

Z,

I couldn't tell exactly which point you were addressing. Was there another posting that was pulled after your response?

I certainly do understand that "free speech" is about the State not suppressing dissent. That doesn't include slander, libel, stock manipulation, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.

My personal peeve was exemplified today by the pretty-on-the-outside, ugly-on-the-inside beauty queen whining about her "freedom of speech", revealing her common ignorance about the principle.

- Dale Coba

[Baron]

Okay, I'm trying to follow you here. You underlined commercial media - but I've never before heard the claim that the original doctrine only applied only to publicly funded radio. All radio frequencies, from the start of the medium, are public assets which we allow companies to use, though not without restrictions and responsibilities.

The original FCC policy applied to all broadcast media, commercial or private. It was finally repealed in the mid 1980's. A description of the "Fairness Doctrine" I object to can be found here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MW ... M0ZTYxYzI=

Air America was a commercial enterprise, and had nothing whatsoever to do with any mandate to equalize viewpoints. Turns out, there wasn't a niche big enough, and they failed. It had absolutely nothing to do with any version of a fairness doctrine.

That last statement flies in the face of AA-principal Al Franken, who had sound bites all over radio, TV, and the 'Net where he declared that AA's launch was "The first step in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and it's about time!" Since he was wearing an AA ball cap, sweatshirt, and jacket, I rather doubt that it was a "miquoted / misunderstood SNL sketch," although subsequent events could be construed otherwise.

I did search, but couldn't learn which elements of 3302 you were talking about. Maybe you could point me to a clarification?

Check the White House, Congressional Record, or Congressional Budget Office sites for January; you might find the original {$780 billion} stimulus proposal. The 3302 elements are addendums {earmarks} at the end, and chiefly concern licensing restrictions / regulations, and media ownership guideline proposals. Sponsored by the authors of 3302, plus Nancy Pelosi, Diuck Durbin, and John Kerry.

Also, I noted your appeal to the wisdom of the "Free Market".

As it has for nearly the entire history of commercial broadcast media, the free market - not the legislators - is quite capable of determining what is fair and proper, and what isn't.

Um... that Economic Fundamentalism is an article of your faith, not any established fact or legal principle which non-believers need respect.

History says otherwise. Radio and early TV were well-dominated by the sponsors - or, the free market personified. They made damn sure the programs they sponsored towed the line, or else. Sponsors made Lucy and Desi sleep in separate twin beds, to cite one famous examlple. More recently, GE had a stockholder's meeting disrupted by a Fox News Channel crew, who levelled allegations of left-wing bias against GE subsidiaries MSNBC and CNBC. LSS, GE stock tanked for a month, their boardroom was re-organized, and an ombudsman was appointed by GE to oversee all media holdings. Does all this sound like a personal "article of faith?" I WISH I were that good!

Finally, you said that you "don't dispute certain potions of that Wikipedia article". I'm not about to claim that everything in Wikipedia is true, but to my way of thinking, that means you DO dispute certain portions (which I can not guess). If so, the disputation would require some evidence and citations capable of outweighing the Wikipedia article. Or why should anyone take your word over that of the collective?

- Dale Coba

What I do and don't dispute has already been covered; refer to the above link to refresh the memory, if necessary. All I have done is offer up one OPINION on the issue, which is backed by solid facts. Yet said opinion has been ridiculed and belittled from the outset. I hardly care if anyone accepts it or not, but I resent being marginalized as going against some notional "collective." I for one am no lemming - my ground is firm before I editorialize. Besides that, I'd like to know who authored that Wikipedia article, as I have a mistrust of unsigned works.

[dale coba]

I know I can be extra snarky, but mostly I think I've been asking sincere questions.

Al F. was talking smack - a requisite to performing talk radio. Had he succeeded, it would have been a balance achieved by entirely non-legislative means.

If the stimulus addenda were about media concentration, then I'm 100% behind them. That's anti-monopolistic, not Equal Time manipulation.

Your examples of early TV and GE aren't Law - they are commercial pressures to appease sponsors and decency standards (part of the original premise that licensed radio spectrum). I remember when Imus's racism got him fired, and supporters were complaining about his freedom of speech, as if the government had anything to do with pushing him off the air.

The belief that the Market is Wise above all is known as Free-Market Fundamentalism, and I don't worship at that altar. And that article of (economic) faith is burning up like the satellite in re-entry at the end of Koyaanisqatsi. What will remain after a painful decade of world depression might be a return to moderated, functional Capitalism (if we are lucky).

Wikipedia IS a collective, non-notional. And if the footnotes check out, how can it matter who wrote the article? I just didn't see you disagreeing with the article, which seemed to me a description of the history and state of things.

- Dale Coba