I don't believe I am alone when I say every day I can feel the noose of tyrany drawing tighter and tighter around the personal freedoms that I have enjoyed these 40+ years. I am not sure I even believe that a socialist state is the end game for the current thugocracy in power. I'm starting to believe it is totalitarianism--I sure hope not, since socialism is faster to type.
Back in the winter I posted a few blogs voicing my concern about the doctrine that isn't the Fairness Doctrine and was promtly blasted for contributing to the uneducated redneck stereotype because I didn't fully "comprehend" my blogging subject for the day. Well, I disagree.
In the past months I have watched a local columnist link local "right wing" bloggers to Tim McVeigh, Missouri issue an alert for people who oppose the current administration,support pro-life,Israel,the Constitution, Ron Paul, the One wants to raise an army of Obamites, the FBI inflitrate and photograph the TEA parties, the Dept of Homeland Security classify returning veterans, religious, pro-lifers,Constitutionalist, etc...as potential terrorists, then the article posted by Butch Cassidy yesterday about the protections for sexual deviants over the rights of ordinary citizens, and then this gem today, HR 1966. This act is designed to protect people from cyberbullying (how that makes any sense I have no clue since no one forces another person to log onto a website) with this type of language in the bill
[Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
`(a) 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.]
What?? Does that mean if I am engaged in an internet debate with a fellow living in England and I hurt his feelings --that he can then file charges against me under this new bill? Who decides my "intent"? Or more locally, what if I'm engaged in defending myself from being called raaaacist for the umpteenth time and I hurt someone's feelings--am I then guilty of intent to cause substantial emotional distress by using electronic means in a repeated and hostile manner?
Now, I know the first intent of this bill was to protect youngsters on the internet in the wake of the tragic death of Megan Meir---but, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Los Angeles isn't happy with just protecting young people. In the terminally stupid mode of those liberals among us who just do not understand that we will fight to the death any attempts to try to remove our right of free speech,she has extended that protection one giant step further---to everyone.
So, riddle me this--if the doctrine that isn't the fairness doctrine says we all have to play nice and get along or go to jail--will it be applied equally and fairly to both sides? Doubtful. Fairness only seems to be something the current administration applies when it benefits one side--their side. The preferred method of operation for a thugocracy it seems.