Are Virginia Politicians Seriously Proposing A Bill That Makes It Illegal to Criticize Them?

submitted by Drewski from (activistpost.com)

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I live in Canada. I'm probably next.

[–]Drewski[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Unfortunately, full freedom of speech does not exist in Canada due to restricted categories such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation which can be interpreted broadly and arbitrarily. Additionally, after Bill C-16 passed (the one Jordan Peterson received his fame opposing) compelled speech was implemented, requiring people to address others by their desired pronouns.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Plus the elected Canadian govt has no sovereign power, and the queen can dismantle it with a phone call.

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah but only in Virginia.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lese-majeste. A law making it a crime to criticize or ridicule the royalty.

Fucking left can't wait to do this nationwide. Throw people in jail for words. They don't believe in freedom of speech; why not?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is suspiciously similar to Trump passing executive orders banning any criticism of Isreal.

Except for that's much worse, because that's technically treason against the American people.

[–]uiop 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, they're not. The only change this bill makes (aside from some formatting updates) is that certain crimes, if they're committed against certain government officials, can now be prosecuted in Richmond instead of in the jurisdiction in which they're committed. Those crimes being:

communicat[ing], in a writing, including an electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, a threat to kill or do bodily injury to a person, regarding that person or any member of his family, and the threat places such person in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury to himself or his family member

and

with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, [using] a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act

It is worrying how vaguely defined that second one is, but that's been in the books since 2000, it's not new.

Always, always, always check your sources. Especially when they're as outraged and alarmist as this article.