United States Virginia Dems Introduce Anti Free Speech Legislation to Make Criticizing Them Illegal.

[DarthOne]

... are the Virginia Democrat’s TRYING to start an armed revolt against them?!?

 

[Greengrass]

This is already the law.

The text of the bill is the part in italics, the plain text is existing law.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use 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, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Changing "shall be" to "is" because that's what the style guide said should be done when updating laws, and makes no actual difference. All the italics does is make it so that threads against state-level officials can be prosecuted in Richmond, rather than having to a jurisdictional dance based on having to figure out where exactly it was sent from or where the official first read it.

Next time, learn to read a bill.

 

[Erwin_Pommel]

"If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use 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, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

Imagine prosecuting someone for sending a picture of tits.

 

[S'task]

This is already the law.

The text of the bill is the part in italics, the plain text is existing law.


Changing "shall be" to "is" because that's what the style guide said should be done when updating laws, and makes no actual difference. All the italics does is make it so that threads against state-level officials can be prosecuted in Richmond, rather than having to a jurisdictional dance based on having to figure out where exactly it was sent from or where the official first read it.

Next time, learn to read a bill.

While I agree this is much less of a deal than people are making it out to be, I'm not sure granting the courts in Richmond jurisdiction is entirely justifiable. The Richmond court and district is much more likely to be sympathetic to the politicians, and one could make an argument that granting them jurisdiction is actually invalid under the US Constitution's guarantee of trial in the jurisdiction the crime happened it.

That said, this entire change is way low down on the bullshit the Democrats in Richmond are passing, from gun control measures that are on par with California and New York, to repealing all sorts of abortion restrictions (including repealing PARENTAL CONSENT laws), this is small peanuts.

 

[Abhorsen]

The reasoning for giving Richmond jurisdiction is probably so that they can get around deliberate non-prosecutions by county sheriffs not arresting and county prosecutors not prosecuting. That's not a first amendment attack.

 

[prinCZess]

Seems to be an odd addition nonetheless that walks a bit hard on the whole 'trial by jury of peers' principle seemingly based only on 'you harassed the wrong person!' and 'we don't trust local courts to punish you properly'. Because trying someone in the locality where they committed the crime is A-OK--but not in this particular instance where a special cutout needs to be made for politicians.
But then, with that drunk-driving legislator they had there in the news who got off with a warning, I suppose 'special cutout for politicians' is the order of the day. Your government is a joke, Virginians--and an outright racist one, in the case of the good ol' boy on top of things.

Imagine prosecuting someone for sending a picture of tits.

The two kinds of threats:
"Vote no on House Bill 2781 Representative Johnson, or I will smother you! "

"Vote yes on Senate Resolution 23 Senator Dale, or I'll...waterboard...you. "

 

[Cherico]

Yet another law that wouldn't pass constitutional muster at all.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Yet another law that wouldn't pass constitutional muster at all.

Hate Speech=/=Free Speech

Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences

Honestly, I think you Westerners have really taken up Orwell’s Doublespeak stuff to the extreme simply by using different terms

It doesn’t help they can conflate criticising them as saying the “N-Word”

 

[Abhorsen]

Yet another law that wouldn't pass constitutional muster at all.

This law is totally constitutional. It just alters jurisdiction for another law (which is also constitutional) that makes true threats illegal.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

This law is totally constitutional. It just alters jurisdiction for another law (which is also constitutional) that makes true threats illegal.

There is actually a potential claim that it is unconstitutional in how it alters jurisdiction. Or potentially violates federal law.

The person committing the crime lives outside Richmond for example (much less out of state), the server hosting the claim is not located in Richmond, and the politician is not a resident of Richmond. So what is the jurisdictional hook for Richmonds judicial system to apply?

I mean say you make a tweet threatening to kill the VA governor. Where does Richmond gain jurisdiction over you? You are engaging in interstate commerce, have no contacts with VA, and your tweet isn't hosted on servers located in VA. So does merely threatening to kill a VA governor give the state of Virginia cause to haul you into VA courts?

 

[Abhorsen]

There is actually a potential claim that it is unconstitutional in how it alters jurisdiction. Or potentially violates federal law.

The person committing the crime lives outside Richmond for example (much less out of state), the server hosting the claim is not located in Richmond, and the politician is not a resident of Richmond. So what is the jurisdictional hook for Richmonds judicial system to apply?

I mean say you make a tweet threatening to kill the VA governor. Where does Richmond gain jurisdiction over you? You are engaging in interstate commerce, have no contacts with VA, and your tweet isn't hosted on servers located in VA. So does merely threatening to kill a VA governor give the state of Virginia cause to haul you into VA courts?

There won't be any jurisdictional problems, at least by the US constitution. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, all non-DC local governments are part of their respective state governments. All of the power and establishment of the local governments comes from the state they reside in. Maybe there is something in the VA constitution, but there definitely isn't anything in the US constitution.

 

[Sailor.X]

I am not advocating at all these people being killed. But I can see how one of these politicians could end up dead. There are people out there who are spun up enough about what is going on in Virginia to do it. This is getting concerning.

 

[S'task]

There won't be any jurisdictional problems, at least by the US constitution. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, all non-DC local governments are part of their respective state governments. All of the power and establishment of the local governments comes from the state they reside in. Maybe there is something in the VA constitution, but there definitely isn't anything in the US constitution.

Err... actually, one can make a case that it's in violation of the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

That's what Tippy is getting at. A person who makes a threat who doesn't live in Virginia and sends it via Twitter or Facebook, those servers may well not even BE in Virginia. Thus the crime, as it were, never actually took place in Virginia AT ALL. Thus they cannot arbitrarily declare that the trial will be held in Richmond.

 

[Abhorsen]

Err... actually, one can make a case that it's in violation of the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution:

That's what Tippy is getting at. A person who makes a threat who doesn't live in Virginia and sends it via Twitter or Facebook, those servers may well not even BE in Virginia. Thus the crime, as it were, never actually took place in Virginia AT ALL. Thus they cannot arbitrarily declare that the trial will be held in Richmond.

Not precisely. If this law didn't exist, and they tried a person in Richmond for it, then the 6th amendment would hold (note that district here refers to judicial district, not necessarily county boundaries, so there is some wiggle room). This law simply declares that the law was violated in Richmond, so thus it can be prosecuted in Richmond. I'm pretty sure it would survive this.

 

[Scottty]

Not precisely. If this law didn't exist, and they tried a person in Richmond for it, then the 6th amendment would hold (note that district here refers to judicial district, not necessarily county boundaries, so there is some wiggle room). This law simply declares that the law was violated in Richmond, so thus it can be prosecuted in Richmond. I'm pretty sure it would survive this.

Passing a law declaring something as true when it isn't?

 

[Abhorsen]

Passing a law declaring something as true when it isn't?

Not exactly. It specifically declares that threatening a high member of the state government is a crime against the city of Richmond, where the government is. It has enough reasoning in it to survive a challenge fairly easily.

 

[Scottty]

Not exactly. It specifically declares that threatening a high member of the state government is a crime against the city of Richmond, where the government is. It has enough reasoning in it to survive a challenge fairly easily.

There's a big difference between criticizing someone and threatening that person.

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

Hate Speech=/=Free Speech

Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences

Honestly, I think you Westerners have really taken up Orwell’s Doublespeak stuff to the extreme simply by using different terms

It doesn’t help they can conflate criticising them as saying the “N-Word”

Except they is no such things as consequence for free speech. Your referring to other's people reactions to free speech which honestly isn't a consequence as it can be enacted by anyone, including the person you wish to censure. We all have the ability to enact measures against speech we don't like. Calling it "consequences" it acting like its a "natural" or justified reaction. Like placing a fork into an electrical socket or something. Instead of people retaliating for something they don't want to hear.

You have the right to use free speech to criticize what someone says, same as everyone else does. Your very act of criticizing someone's speech invalidates your own argument.

Edit: And I just realize I probably misread your statement. my bad.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Except they is no such things as consequence for free speech. Your referring to other's people reactions to free speech which honestly isn't a consequence as it can be enacted by anyone, including the person you wish to censure. We all have the ability to enact measures against speech we don't like. Calling it "consequences" it acting like its a "natural" or justified reaction. Like placing a fork into an electrical socket or something. Instead of people retaliating for something they don't want to hear.

You have the right to use free speech to criticize what someone says, same as everyone else does. Your very act of criticizing someone's speech invalidates your own argument.

Edit: And I just realize I probably misread your statement. my bad.

It’s okay, that said, I think this will only really pass so long as people are dumb enough en masse to let it occur

Also, people conflate criticism(specifically the ones they dislike)with hate speech and thus shut down the argument and gaslight the speaker and others into believing what they say was said