PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on February 08, 2018, 06:34:12 AM
-
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/bill-takes-aim-at-trump-makes-intimidating-journalists-a-federal-crime/
Anti-Trump Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif. – who has vigorously promoted his own “fake news” by accusing Fox News’ Tucker Carlson of working for Vladimir Putin and claiming Trump has “instated more pro-Russia policies that America has seen in decades” – says he’s been inspired by President Trump to propose a law making it a federal crime to “intimidate” or attack journalists.
Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, introduced the Journalist Protection Act in the House on Monday. He claimed the legislation must be passed to protect reporters from the “toxic environment” created by President Trump, who has accused some media outlets of reporting “fake news.”
Swalwell’s bill makes it a federal crime “to intentionally cause bodily injury to a journalist affecting interstate or foreign commerce in the course of reporting or in a manner designed to intimidate him or her from newsgathering for a media organization” and “represents a clear statement that assaults against people engaged in reporting is unacceptable, and helps ensure law enforcement is able to punish those who interfere with newsgathering.”
-
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/bill-takes-aim-at-trump-makes-intimidating-journalists-a-federal-crime/
So they believe we should protect free speech by restricting the ability to criticize?
Do they not even spend 10 seconds thinking these thing through?
-
So they believe we should protect free speech by restricting the ability to criticize?
Do they not even spend 10 seconds thinking these thing through?
Nothing says that a congressman has to understand the constitution. They prove that on a continuing basis.
-
Aren't there already laws that
makes it a federal crime “to intentionally cause bodily injury to a journalist
-
I think they should name it the:
Progressives Are Pussies” act.
-
Partially fake news. The story misrepresents what the bill (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4366839-Journalism-Protection-Act.html) would do. It doesn't make threatening a journalist a federal crime.
That being said, I don't like the proposal.
-
We have men's lives ruined on the the mere accusation of "inappropriate touching" from 40 years ago. There is virtually no defense or recourse and the taint to their reputation will outlive them.
Now we have "journalists" who will be able to have someone sent to federal prison for decades because they "feel" threatened.
The end of civilization is near.
-
We have men's lives ruined on the the mere accusation of "inappropriate touching" from 40 years ago. There is virtually no defense or recourse and the taint to their reputation will outlive them.
Now we have "journalists" who will be able to have someone sent to federal prison for decades because they "feel" threatened.
The end of civilization is near.
The proposed bill doesn't make threats a federal crime.
-
Partially fake news. The story misrepresents what the bill (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4366839-Journalism-Protection-Act.html) would do. It doesn't make threatening a journalist a federal crime.
That being said, I don't like the proposal.
I see it codifies "Journalist"; there may be federal code elsewhere that already does that, but why the heck they get special treatment is beyond me.
Of course the only thing Trump has done so far is exercise his own first amendment rights. Like every president before him.
-
Am I reading line 20 of page 2 wrong? : 20 ‘‘(B) with the intention of intimidating or impeding newsgathering by such journalist."
Looks like a federal crime to intimidate a journalist to me is the operative word here.
Judges?
-
Of course the only thing Trump has done so far is exercise his own first amendment rights. Like every president before him.
Well, maybe he exercised his own 1A rights better and more honestly than every President before him.
-
Am I reading line 20 of page 2 wrong? : 20 ‘‘(B) with the intention of intimidating or impeding newsgathering by such journalist."
Looks like a federal crime to intimidate a journalist to me is the operative word here.
Judges?
You are not reading it wrong, just out of context. The bill requires bodily injury, the excerpt you have pulled out regarding intimidation is a qualifier to that bodily injury.
-
I see it codifies "Journalist"; there may be federal code elsewhere that already does that, but why the heck they get special treatment is beyond me.
Of course the only thing Trump has done so far is exercise his own first amendment rights. Like every president before him.
You are right, and I think that is a big problem with this bill. Existing and long-standing constitutional protections are not exclusive to an official journalist, whatever that is. It ain't just for CNN and similar.
-
Progressives are pussies.
Let's be real.
Break out some crayons and play-doh and let them sing "The Wheels on the Truck Go Round and Round," until they feel less triggered.
-
I see it codifies "Journalist"; there may be federal code elsewhere that already does that, but why the heck they get special treatment is beyond me.
Of course the only thing Trump has done so far is exercise his own first amendment rights. Like every president before him.
But Trump isn't supposed to be there. Russians stole the election from Her Majesty and put a pretender on the throne.
-
You are not reading it wrong, just out of context. The bill requires bodily injury, the excerpt you have pulled out regarding intimidation is a qualifier to that bodily injury.
So why are they raised above the rest of us, like other "protected" groups?
-
I admit not being able to read 'crat speech well. However, it appears to me just the opposite. That the definition of 'bodily injury' is defined as intimidation. In that, if you intimidate a journalist you have committed the offense of bodily injury. i.e - the intimidation is the specific act of the bodily injury umbrella.
In the UCMJ, it would be called the 'charge' and 'specification'. The charge would be 'insubordination directed at a superior'. The 'specification' would be 'verbal abuse'. After that there would be the statement of facts: 'Private Smith was directed to swab the deck by Lt JG Jones. Private Smith refused and told Lt JG Jones to "go fuck yourself butterbar".
-
I admit not being able to read 'crat speech well. However, it appears to me just the opposite. That the definition of 'bodily injury' is defined as intimidation. In that, if you intimidate a journalist you have committed the offense of bodily injury. i.e - the intimidation is the specific act of the bodily injury umbrella.
In the UCMJ, it would be called the 'charge' and 'specification'. The charge would be 'insubordination directed at a superior'. The 'specification' would be 'verbal abuse'. After that there would be the statement of facts: 'Private Smith was directed to swab the deck by Lt JG Jones. Private Smith refused and told Lt JG Jones to "go fuck yourself butterbar".
No, I don't think so, for two reasons:
1) An act described in this subsection is an act that causes bodily injury to an individual...committed with the intention of intimidating... - The second part is a limiting statement to the first.
2) The proposed bill retains the definition of the term "Bodily Injury" elsewhere defined in the US Code. I'll put that definition below.
(4)the term “bodily injury” means— (A)a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement; (B)physical pain; (C)illness; (D)impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or (E)any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary.
-
They need to clear up any confusion in the intention fo this bill.
The end game of the democrats is to end free speech as we know it, because free speech is where the truth is spoken and the truth us anything but what the democrats want to have said.
The 'Progressives Are Pussies' bill should be put out and described as exactly what it is.
-
They need to clear up any confusion in the intention fo this bill.
The end game of the democrats is to end free speech as we know it, because free speech is where the truth is spoken and the truth us anything but what the democrats want to have said.
The 'Progressives Are Pussies' bill should be put out and described as exactly what it is.
Sounds like the "Fairness Doctrine", which is anything but.
-
So why are they raised above the rest of us, like other "protected" groups?
There is no good reason. They are human like you and I. One day they will die, just like you and I. Meanwhile their opinion carries no more important weight than yours does.
-
But they still believe they are the Fourth Estate and a part of the political elite class.
-
There is no good reason. They are human like you and I. One day they will die, just like you and I. Meanwhile their opinion carries no more important weight than yours does.
There are too many stupid, ignorant people out there that believe their opinions to be facts.
-
But they still believe they are the Fourth Estate and a part of the political elite class.
You mean the Fifth Column. Props to Savage.