https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/03 … olice-bill
This has got to be a harbinger toward a trend that will probably sell like hot cakes in red states.
1. The definition for "insult" is very subjective and could be interpreted as a protester just sticking his or her tongue at an police officer.
2. Are the police to be punished for provoking protesters with the same verbal/gesture abuse behavior? Who is to say they are not the instigators and where is the proof? Everybody better have their body cams on.
3. This is an assault on free speech and freedom to peaceably assemble, right in line with basically muzzling dissent,
4. Couldn't help but notice a provision in the law that would suspend government services for 3 months for anyone convicted of this misdemeanor. It is not Richie Rich they are worried about, but those that are poor and the most vulnerable who protest. So, maybe now, we can get them all to just shut up or lose any and all social services.
Under such restraint who would dare protest in the first place?
A travesty in my opinion. Your thoughts
Hopefully, this bill does not pass. It impinges on free speech. Words can do no physical. harm to an officer.
Pleasant surprise from a conservative person, Sharlee, thanks....
Your Welcome, I truly believe in free speech, the right to even scream and yell to share one's passion. This is one reason the cancel culture makes me crazy. It poses a danger to free speech.
I don't like this trending "cancel culture" movement either. I think it is harmful and dangerous, but . . . aren't supporters of it also exercising their Right of Free Speech?
If their right of free speech is to deny others their right of free speech does it still count?
It does count—until their exercise results in legislation. Without the legal force of legislation, we still have choices. And as long as we do have choices, then the exercise of their Right isn't infringing on my Rights.
(damn, look at you, backing me into a position of defending these cancel-culture thugs. Geesh.) ;-)
Yes, ultimately you are correct. But, cancel culture poses real problems to others free speech. One that gets canceled out ultimately is having their right to free speech or a belief silenced, and ultimately punished for speaking out Cancel culture works to cancel out free speech.
My comment lacked an explanation of my full thoughts on the subject. Go figure, and I am always complaining about context Bad on me...
I don't think you are wrong in your thoughts Sharee, I agree with you. I think this cancel-culture trend is a very dangerous `slippery-slope'. We can see the life-impacting results in our daily news.
The newest 'related' issue might be the corporate blow-back to Georgia's recently passed election law changes. Even with the truth being the opposite of what is being declared, major corporations are hinting at economic blow-back. A good example of where this cancel-culture could lead.
Yes, I have been following Biden's latest blunder... Biden claims he would "strongly support" moving this year's Major League Baseball All-Star Game out of Georgia following the passage of Georgia's elections bill. A bill that clearly is being reported out of context. One only needs to read the bill. First, he lies about the actual new voting laws Georgia just pasts, stating that the hours were changed to make it hard for some to vote. This is not true, in the new voting laws voting hours have actually been expanded, as well as weekend voting in some counties. Georgia has added 9 days of early voting which is 9 days longer than New York's current law. It is very true one will need a voter ID to obtain an absentee ballot.
Biden's made a very derogatory statement yesterday which in my opinion is inflammatory, and he once again added a mistruth. So much for his sentiment in regard to unifying the Nation.
Biden stated -- "Look at what's happened across the board. The very people who are victimized the most are the people who are the leaders in these various sports, and it's just not right," Biden said. "This is Jim Crow on steroids, what they're doing in Georgia and 40 other states."
The glaring lie -- "what they're doing in Georgia and 40 other states."
What other states? He lied once again, and once again this lie very much appears to be race-baiting by bringing up "Jim Crow".
Biden took a shot at canceling out the state of Georgia for acting on its right to change voting laws. And he tossed in 40 unnamed states. Go figure!
What Does Georgia's New Voting Law SB 202 Do? PBS
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/27/wha … -sb-202-do
Bill 202 ---- https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … -as-passed
Unfortunately, while the term "return to Jim Crow" is provocative, that is how I see the efforts of many states to make it more difficult to vote based on some rightwing pseudo outrage about security.
The Right needs to be warned that just like the massive minority turnout that defeated Trump last year, we see these efforts from so many state governments as an assault on our right to participate requiring a response equivalent to that of waking a sleeping giant in anger and filling him with a terrible resolve.
The new voter laws are pretty good, I think if you skimmed the new laws you might see it is being misrepresented. And I have heard of no other states that have as of yet amended their voting laws as Biden indicated. That's just not true. I do know the four swing states are considering tweaking their voting laws.
I still am not sure or have I been able to find proof that any states are clearly working to suppress votes. Now, this is just my opinion, but it appears the Dems in Washington are working to push a narrative that is not healthy for America. Constantly white people pointing out racism should make you a bit leary.
As I said, I have not been able to prove anyone tried to stop anyone from voting. I do realize lots of allegations flew during the last election. But nothing one could track down. And now it is evident the Dems are pointing at Georgia claiming the state has made it hard for some to vote.
Read the bill or what PBS offered in regard to the bill. I added the links. The bill is actually will provide a better environment all the way around.
Biden out and out lied... So please do your own homework on this bill. You are being led down a path that is paved with mistruths in regards to Georgia's new voting laws.
You may just be joining into a mob that is being fed mistruths, angering you for little to no reason.
Read the bill, and be aware of facts.
I read enough of the gist of policies that restrict access to the ballot over the states of Arizona, Texas and Georgia.
Why not tell me something? Georgia wants to criminalize giving food and drink to those waiting to vote. Republicans governors and legislators have been accused and rightly so of reducing the number of polling places in urban areas, just the places where people tend not to vote Republican. So, now you have reduced polling places and the resulting long lines at the few that remain. What is gained by having those that stand in line not legally able to receive food and drink?
Of course, those with sinister intent are not going to readily reveal what is behind their actions. Did not the fellow running the elections in Georgia say that there was no fraud? Then why this draconian process to correct what is not broken? The reason is not really about fraud, is it? It is the message that Republicans have been sending, oftentimes openly saying that if every legal and eligible person were able to vote, they could not win.
They had better find a better method to entice people to their ideals and policies, because this is not going to work.
Under those circumstances, I have plenty of reasons to be vexed at this point.
What is wrong with the SB 1 in Washington?
It's not true that Georgia is criminalizing food and beverages at the polls. The bill has provided a provision that food and water can be handed out in a certain distance of voters or polling sites. (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place. The new law allows poll workers to set up self-serve water stations for all voters to use. Read the bill this is a fact. The media has been promoting a lie.
There have been provisions to help people to vote without standing in long lines. - Another change that was proposed last year and is now law would require large polling places with long lines to take action if wait times surpass an hour at certain times during the day. Those massive polls with more than 2,000 voters and wait times longer than an hour would have to hire more staff, add more workers, or split up the precinct after that election. More than 1,500 of Georgia's precincts have over 2,000 voters.
I don't feel obligated to go through all the new laws. Georgia seems to have corrected much of what so many complained about before the Presidential election to help anyone that wants to vote, vote with fewer obstacles.
The Dema crats are at war over voter ID... Which in my view has been and always should be part of voting. If we have a segment of citizens that are ill equipt to handle getting an ID perhaps both parties should concentrate on helping them get an ID.
And I also realize Georgia will no longer send out mail-in ballots unless one applies for one, and shows ID. I also agree that is important.
I am not trying to persuade, I am just trying to perhaps have you look a bit deeper into the rhetoric that is being pushed by the Democrats.
The other day Biden out and out lied to further discord by stating 40 other states have done the same as Georgia. Like I said no other state has done anything to change its voting laws. He lied... Simply trying to rave-up a base, and he succeeded. However, if one has the initiative to read some of that bill, they will see that they have lied too.
Let's face it we have enough going on, we don't need propaganda to stir up citizens with mistruths. Just think about Biden using the Jim Crow blurb, this was a cheap comment to get the attention of black citizens... You know this is not the first time I have point out how Biden uses distructive race-baiting. In my view, Democrats work very hard to keep discord brewing between the racists. Even if it means lying to keep that great divide and tension.
And it is working, working well in fact. This is some evil sh--- ... We need solutions, not more problems.
Oh well... Can't stop a stampede.
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-do … bc60c88653
According to this article:
ARE PEOPLE BANNED FROM HANDING OUT SNACKS OR WATER TO VOTERS IN LINE?
The new law makes it a misdemeanor to hand out “any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink” to anyone standing in line to vote. The prohibition extends 150 feet from a polling place and 25 feet from any person standing in line.
Advocates of the law say they are attempting to crack down on political organizations or advocacy groups trying to influence voters just before they cast a ballot. Critics say it’s cruel and would penalize even nonpartisan groups or individuals for something as simple as giving water to someone waiting in a long line. Democratic state Senate Minority Leader Gloria Butler slammed the proposal Thursday before the bill was signed into law, saying: “They want to make it a crime to bring Grandma some water while she’s waiting in line.”
This is just a little bit more involved than what you say, Sharlee, and what this aspect of the law is there to prevent is specious at best. The reason for such a thing still seems silly to me.
It must be mandated that resourc s be spent to avoid any excuse for long lines and waiting times.
Voter ID is fine if made available to all citizens at NO COST.
These voter "adjustments" and their purpose has had my attention from the beginning. I don't need to be "worked up", it is just that with the growing minority residents of these states, the GOP had better step lightly.
I have heard that 40 states are changing their perspective voting laws and a hundreds of pieces of proposed legislation is out there on this matter. Why now? They may not be draconian as Georgia, Arizona or Texas, but all the same....
I am glad that the GOP have not adversely affected the days that people may vote, knowing them, that is a pleasant surprise.
In time, it will be revealed the level of fraud that was committed to elect Joe Biden. That is the reason for these changes. It was organized, detailed and blatant. So, there is a very good chance the Republicans will take back the Congress as well as the Senate in the next election cycle. The goal is to have a "veto proof" majority in Congress. If this happens, Biden and Harris will be kept in check.
So, with the Republican in charge of the Congress, a formal federal investigation, concerning the voting irregularities of the 2020 election will be conducted. What it show will have many citizens screaming for voting reform similar to what is happening in Georgia and others.
I believe some states realize this and are preparing for it.
Indeed, a nation founded on the ideas of individual liberty and personal freedom, free markets, free minds, is now in the process of washing away those very things.
Its intriguing to watch these things occur, Facebook makes anything with Trump's voiceprint unpublishable on their site, Twitter follows suit.
The ability to communicate beliefs and ideas, silenced.
The BLM movement co-opted by all major corporations, including institutions like the NBA, becoming a construct not just of civil rights, but the marketplace.
In truth the corporations are in control... Facebook, Google and Twitter can effectively silence anyone they want, whenever they want. No politician... not even the President has the authority or power to overcome them.
Exxon/Mobil, Amazon, etc. have the laws written to favor them while operating tax free, or better yet, with government subsidies.
With just a basic understanding of how international banking, investing and corporations (corporatism) works today and the ability to project out where technologies like crypto-currency, cash-aps, artificial intelligence and data gathering are leading us, one should be able to recognize the world is on the verge of a major transformation and no nation will be impacted more than America.
No doubt about much of what you say, Ken, for it all sucks....
"In truth the corporations are in control... Facebook, Google and Twitter can effectively silence anyone they want, whenever they want. No politician... not even the President has the authority or power to overcome them."
Agreeing with that thought is the only, and best, response to your comment Ken. And I completely agree.
Corporations and Big Money have been striving for such control since Getty and Morgan. Now they have achieved it. Not just through control of the legislative action, (although they do have the power there too), but also through control of the populace thought.
Just imagine the anguish of today's populace if they didn't have Facebook and Twitter. As a dinosaur, I laugh at their anguish. They deserve it. To our detriment, we are becoming a nation of `screens'. Kill the screens and the populace is helpless.
I am opposed to any such restraint on free speech, much of it appearing as part of this cancel-culture. But, I will always those that speak responsible for what they say.
♫ clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right . . . ♫
There is so much wrong with the thoughts behind that bill.
I remember the song, quite appropo.
Who are the thinkers behind the thoughts, who do you think that they affiliate with?
You are asking for a guess. I am feeling charitable, so I will offer one; I think fundamental Baptist-type conservatives are behind it.
I don't think insulting cops is a good thing, or a thing that should be ignored, or a good use of the Right to free speech, but that's just life. We take the good with the bad.
This type of legislation is as harmful as the sponsors think it is justifiable.
Generally in democracies criticizing and castigating the police is a fashion. Nothing much should be read into this law and if it passes, I see nothing wrong with it.
From the link given, this proposal seems imminently reasonable.
“All of those actions combined would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response,” he says, adding that videos of people seen insulting officers have no other purpose than to invoke a violent response, for example."
This seems akin to shouting "FIRE" in a movie theater - the purpose of the speech is to incite violence and hurt people, and the insulting of police is doing exactly the same thing.
On the other hand is another quote from the link: "An argument against the bill is that the purpose of that speech is that those individuals without real power are crying out for justice. And the American Civil Liberties Union in Kentucky has opposed the bill, saying that it criminalizes speech." This, too, seems a reasonable stance - that people (setting aside the "without real power", for that has zero to do with it) have the right of free speech.
The call, then comes down as to the purpose and desired outcome of that free speech. Speech intended to incite a riot is illegal (think the claims that Trump did just that), speech intended to harm a person is illegal (think libel or slander), speech designed to cause harm in nearly every way is illegal.
Is it really any different when insulting a cop is intended to incite violence on the part of that cop? When it is intended to start a riot rather than a peaceful protest?
Tough call, but it seems to me that it is a reasonable law...given that it is not abused. As nearly every law is abused, either by criminals or by law enforcement, perhaps it really should come down to a jury of peers in a courtroom.
So, if I get in a cop's face and call him a piece of shit he is justified in losing control and punching me in the face for doing so? Is that the gist of your thought?
Maybe I am looking at it wrongly. My view is through the lens of that old `sticks and stones' adage.
What is your intention in saying that? The cops reaction may not be reasonable, but what is your intention? Why did you say it?
The obvious answer is to cause the reaction you got; the spark to set off a riot. And that was my point; the intention in calling "FIRE!" in a theatre is the same as your was - to cause people to be hurt. Or at least I see to difference.
And if there is no difference should your action be legal because we expect the cop to control himself? I would disagree. If the action was illegal in one case then it is illegal in all cases. Keep in mind that I am not excusing the action of the cop in punching you, but neither will I excuse your efforts to start a riot.
Yes, Wilderness, I expect the cop to restrain himself to a greater degree, as the recipient of my tax dollars and and as public servant.
We all know that if it is just the law enforcement officer's interpretation of "assault", all of the protesters will find themselves in the paddy wagon straight away.
The "Fire" analogy is quite lame and completely irrelevant, sorry.
Police are just as capable of initiating conflict in such a circumstance as the protestors. I am certainly not going to let them decide "what is over the top" without an objective standard.
I say that the law is bad and that the conservatives will be challenged over it.
Expecting the cop to restrain himself does not address the question of the reason for the insult.
I'll repeat: we exclude speech designed and intended to cause harm to others from the concept of "free speech". Why should the verbiage intended and designed to start a riot be any different? This is not a "lame" excuse; it is exactly the same - a person intending to cause harm, using their words to do so.
If I call a cop a jerk, he could take that as an insult or verbal assault inciting to riot, would the officer have authority to arrest me on that?
"Provocation" as define in the law is basically reduced to whatever the police say it is.
Police and protesters interacting are not engaged in whispering sweet nothings in each other's ears. This is an attempt to discourage any protest
Period and it will not stand with the forces on the left. We are going to litigate this one to death.
I might say that because I just watched, (or suffered from), the cop do something shitty.
Your example presumes the intention to incite. My example's intent could have been to simply insult the cop, not draw a particular action.
Some cases of insulting may be intended exactly as you foresee, but I think the majority of incidences are simply jerks being jerks thinking they are superior because of their witty or venomous insults.
I think there are more things wrong with this concept than the single benefit of being able to hold riot agitators, (those that would yell FIRE!), accountable.
Somethings are required, the police have a thankless job, yet they are at the receiving end all the time.
I don't see a problem with this bill. We need to get back to a place where police officers are respected.
"if the individual “accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.”
The key here is "from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person." This is in so many laws. So, what is reasonable? If you are going to insult and taunt a police officer just to insult or taunt them, you need to held responsible. This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with respect for authority. Police should not have to tolerate such treatment. They put their lives on the line every day they go to work. I know many police officers.
This is from a guy who has had some bad experiences with police.
I would like to see similar bills passed in all 50 states.
Thanks for weighing, Mike. It is natural that I am going to disagree with your assessment.
Thanks. I know we would disagree. The key to the law is the "perspective of a reasonable and prudent person." What is reasonable and prudent is always going to be based on case law. This is a standard that used in determining everything from slip and fall cases to car accidents and more.
Cases brought on this law will ultimately be decided by a judge's decision on what is "reasonable and prudent" behavior for a person.
I'm sure there will be rulings from judges on these types of cases we will both disagree with.
So, Mike, we are to have more litigation over whether some one called some one else a name?
Meanwhile, until it is determined what is in fact reasonable and prudent, the suspect is taken from the streets and arrested? That is one quick way to disperse a gathering that is an otherwise First Amendment guarantee, don't you think?
You can gather and say whatever you want. Leave the police out of it. I don't think why being belligerent with police is necessary. So, leave the police alone and there is no reason to disperse a gathering that is peacefully protesting. With rights come responsibilities.
That is just the problem, police do interfere in peaceful protests and if they stayed out of it, we would have no need to ratchet things up.
If there are no laws being broken, they won't interfere. One of the first things is to do what is requested by the police. "need to ratchet things up" Again, with rights comes responsibilities. Ratcheting things up for any reason remove the word "peaceful" from protest.
I've been to many protests. Ones that have been peaceful and ones that got out of hand. The police have never been the problem. It is the protestors.
Fine, but we also watching the police and holding them accountable for any excesses on their part. You can count on that.
Peaceful protests are a powerful tool to communicate your message.
When you have protests without any violence and just speaking and talking...more people will pay attention to you. If there is belligerence or violence...the message gets lost. The violence or belligerence is what people remember and think about. When you have a calm and sincere protest...it is much easier for those you are trying to reach to hear you. They are able to focus on your message and nothing else.
That makes sense, Mike, it is just that when you look at the Floyd protests there were infinitely many more peaceful ones than otherwise.
There are a lot of conservatives, some on this very forum who are against any all such protests regardless if they are peaceful. They use the excuse of being emotionally assaulted with ideas in their face that they simply soon not see, like the kneeling during the national anthem thing. There is an example of non violent protest.
It doesn't matter if there were any peaceful protests done in the name of Floyd. All people will remember is that it caused over 1 billion dollars in damage and destroyed cities.
If it was a sincere and peaceful protest people like me might have been moved by the emotion. With all the destruction and violence, I just look at the protesters as out of control criminals out to destroy what others have built. It's hard to respect violence and destruction.
I think kneeling during the national anthem is disrespectful to me, the guys I served with, and our sacrifices for our country. I think of my father, who earned 3 purple hearts and my other relative and what they did fighting for this country. It only disgusts me. If there is a message in such an action, it is not worth acknowledging. If the only way you can make a statement is by disrespecting me and so many other people, it can't be much of a message.
Mike, your last paragraph is mere rightwing cannon fodder. I have served in the military and to think that all service members think the same way and are universally offended is classic right wing. Me and mine have no issues with the gesture and do not see such statements as an assault on the nation nor its veterans.
I had forebears that served in Korea and as far back as WWI.
We don't want to confuse patriotism with an otherwise baldface rightwing attitude.
Okay, I think we can agree there are millions of people who feel the same way as I do. I go to the VA regularly, and trust me, MANY combat vets are upset by it.
I think you have to accept, if there is a message there, millions of us can't get past the feeling of disrespect.
There is an old saying that goes "What you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying."
"Mike, your last paragraph is mere rightwing cannon fodder. I have served in the military and to think that all service members think the same way and are universally offended is classic right wing."
This seems to be a major problem in understand and accepting what others thing. "If you don't agree with my opinions it is but cannon fodder, for virtually ALL others agree with me".
I know several veterans (including both my sons) and they all agree with Mike, not you. I would never say that your opinion is but leftwing cannon fodder, not worthy of honest discussion, though, because I am absolutely positive that veterans come in both liberal and conservative flavors.
I did not say that Mikes comments were not worthy of discussion. The circle of veterans and people in your circle, of course, are going to have your mindset, would I expect anything less? Your experiences as rightwing oriented persons are hardly objective.
I am just mentioning that your Universal opinion on things are just your opinion and hardly universal...
I did some research on the subject. I found polls and articles that prove my point. I also found polls and articles that prove your point. So, what polls and articles were right? I suppose it depends on who wrote the articles and who did the polls. My conclusion? Nobody knows for sure.
So, I agree that there is no universally held opinion.
Aside from the feeling of disrespect, you know what really bothers me about taking of a knee for the national anthem?
LIBERALS have brought politics into sports. There was a time when going to a sports event was something you could enjoy without worrying about what was going on in the political world. It was the best type of entertainment to get your mind off problems. NOW, it's becoming politics. Is there nothing sacred to the left? Why bring politics into sports? Does the desire to insult and anger the political opposition know no boundaries? Why can't sports be left alone to be the place where people can be friends and not think about politics? The professional sports leagues are all suffering with their fan base. It's just a shame.
My mistake. I took your comment about Mike's comment to be nothing but right wing cannon fodder because it didn't agree with your opinion.
"When you have protests without any violence and just speaking and talking...more people will pay attention to you. If there is belligerence or violence...the message gets lost."
I disagree with this, Mike; the violence is what draws media and media is what passes the message. It's to the point that I really have little doubt that much of the violence is pre-planned and is a part of the goal of the protest organizers.
by TMMason 12 years ago
-"ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (The Blaze/AP) — A state district judge Thursday ordered an Alamogordo man to immediately take down a billboard that implies his ex-girlfriend had an abortion.As we reported earlier this month, the sign on Alamogordo’s main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding...
by James Smith 10 years ago
Police state definition: a police state is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population.A breakdown of incursions into civil liberties by the AFPhttp://www.cla.asn.au/0805/index.php/ar … lice-stateBut...
by Tessa Schlesinger 4 years ago
A few hundred years ago, the church and the state had a filthy habit of killing and imprisoning people because they didn't agree with the current king or the current pope. As a result of the Enlightenment, 'freedom of speech' came into being. It meant that the State and the Church couldn't imprison...
by LoliHey 6 years ago
Doesn't freedom of speech mean that there are no consequences?Lately we hear about people losing their jobs for stuff they tweet and post. People say, "Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences." I beg to differ, though. You're supposed to be able...
by ptosis 11 years ago
If corporations are people & money is free speech then doesn't that mean that there is no longer anydemocracy by humans for humans and that the USA is truly a corporatocracy?
by Susan Reid 12 years ago
Free speech is alive and well in America. The Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 (dissenter was Samuel Alito) that Westboro Baptist Church has a constitutional right to picket military funerals. The church contends military deaths are God's revenge for the country's tolerance of homosexuality. So expect...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|