Congress to Reduce Free Speech? -- In Response to shooting

Good point!

Wake up, our Freedoms are nearly gone.

technically you are from state to state but the difficulty is getting the police to take seriously everyone who gets threaten whereas a state official the potential for that to happen is higher as they are higher profile

So what. They are no better than the rest of us.

It's not a matter of them being better than us but a matter of them more likely to the target of a violence more so than us.

use a little common sense - anyone who has a public profile whether they are a celebrity or elected public official will have the potential for more stalkers and death threats than the average citizen. Most people don't get random death threats with any real intent so police are less likely to take every average citizen's complaint as serious especially if it's just some drunk neighbor hollering they are going to shoot someone.

Let me see, they are surrounded by security, I won't for a minute believe that there were no police at that rally. One Congresswoman shot out of 536 like public figures (100 in the Senate+the number in Congress + the president) is a .002 frequency. When was the last time a legislator of that stature shot? They do not deserve any more security than we do. There are calls now for increased limitations on gun ownership and some magazines, as though these items pulled the trigger. I carry a firearm and can defend myself but removing that ability and leaving us to be victims while providing security for the elite is madness. They probably are targeted more than we are but the success rate, even if it were exponentially higher, does not warrant us living in tyranny.

actually, I think I'd suggest some additional factors for your equation.

you forgot to include the total number of public events over selected period of time, say 50 years. There are now something like 435 congressmen, 100 senators, President, VP. (you could expand to include cabinet members, czars, etc that also appear periodically at public appearances).

What if you expanded it to the TOTAL number of public servants across the country, at the STATE, COUNTY, and CITY levels. Probably tens of thousands of people.

and the actual attacks are almost non existant. Your result of 0.002 is very exaggerated, I think it would be MUCH smaller.

Here's a question for you dave.

BOTH the congresswoman AND the judge had received multiple death threats previously. Yet NEITHER had personal security with them, nor were they armed.

The killer was taken down by citizen witnesses, not security, not police.

Why is that? Why weren't they more prepared?

Irresponsible.

gimmeabreak with your obstinate obtuseness! The fact is there is no reason why a rational person should need to resort to using words or images which imply harm or death to an elected official or anyone for that matter. That's neither civil nor sane. This law is already in effect for the president and even for us to some degree from state to state. Death threats and threats of violence are not covered by Free Speech.

"I carry a firearm and can defend myself but removing that ability and leaving us to be victims while providing security for the elite is madness."

A victim of what? Your own paranoid delusions? The fact that someone like you is carrying a gun scares me. I wouldn't trust you with a gun or even so much as a paper clip.

Especially frightening is when you dribble such choice gems of paranoid rhetoric as:

"...does not warrant us living in tyranny."

How does providing more protection for elected officials make the country a tyranny? You are just throwing out words without actually thinking about them. It's easy to get all huffed about Free Speech until you look at the details and what they are proposing is already in effect with the President, it already is in effect to some degree with ordinary citizens, and sane rational people don't need to be calling for the deaths even in metaphor of elected officials any more than they should be shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Now go clean your guns, I think I hear the Apocalypse knocking.

here's a question for you, curtis - WTF are you babbling about? This bill is being proposed after the incident to take into account that death threats to elected officials should be taken more seriously. Apparently they must have been following paratus' brilliant logic that the mathematically likelihood of an attack on an elected official was negligible despite them receiving more death threats than average citizens.

"Yet NEITHER had personal security with them, nor were they armed."

The whole thing happened with a matter of seconds and the judge and congresswomen being shot within seconds of it beginning. People don't live in a movie reality so even if they had been armed they would never would have had chance to return fire like some quick draw cowboy and think for about 2 seconds - how would it have looked for a congresswoman doing a public meet&greet to be packing? Or to be surrounded by dozens of security personnel? Hindsight is an amazing 20/20

"Why is that? Why weren't they more prepared?

Irresponsible."

Yeah like they expected a crazy gunman to show up in downtown Tuscon and something you probably didn't know - the judge wasn't part of the event to begin with! He had just decided to drop by. There is no evidence that Loughner even knew who he was as he wasn't scheduled to be there so your idea that Roll should have been prepared or armed is ridiculous due to your ignorance of the situation. Please do some reading before making such ridiculous statements!

Simply ignorant, man!

Agreed.

There are many tyrant actions against US citizens every day. Who will protect these citizens? Where are corrective actions for these problems?

"There are many tyrant actions against US citizens every day."

Ok go ahead and list some but think about what you are saying - this article is about extending the president's protection from potential threat to congress and you say who will protect citizens from tyrant actions (I think you mean tyrannical). That doesn't make any sense in the context of the situation as tyrannical comes from the authorities and this bill is about protecting elected officials from the kind of things that happened in Tuscon coming from some lone gunman.

Many did not believe Patriot Act will pass either. But it did.

I don't remember there ever being any doubt that would pass.

We lost much of our freedoms and who ever believed it was possible in America?

In all the confusion I forgot about this idiot!

Kiss my ass!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is your suggestion to ending the violence? Let me guess arm everyone...yes, yes that would help.

Any tragedy becomes another convenient law against freedom.

You are absolutely right! Soon it will be illegal to open the mouth.

Why?

In fantasy gingerbread candyland maybe, but in the cold, hard, gritty, REAL world there always has been and always will.

Think about that next time you wonder why you can't watch live executions on daytime tv, or hardcore porn during the nightly news.
And so on...

The layers of legal, moral, religious and other sociatal, cultural restrictions (not to mention the vested interests of media owners, supporters and advertisers) on what you can do are legion. Some people act as if they were born yesterday.

Just you TRY and start producing entertainment or other media and see how far you get with it before you have to start making changes and trimming stuff off if you want to get it into the mass media.

responsibility is a moral decision, and any attempt to legislate morality is fail, as far as i can see. and i repeat a point i made elsewhere, that when you start limiting free speech due to the potential reactions of the lowest common denominator, you have killed free speech entirely.

Legislating morality does work to a degree. Otherwise our country would be like Mexico, except worse, with serial killers in the millions running around gettin' their sick fill. Also sexually we might be like Holland, where sex in the streets in view of everyone is common place and legal

There are complexities. :)
And there are already and has always been legislation. This is why you haven't got child porn on TV.

Soooo... you're argument is built on an unrealistic fantasy.

well actually no child porn on tv is a different issue it is a standard of broadcasting that is required to be upheld in order to receive and keep a license to broadcast. and one can argue that kiddy porn isnt a morality issue at all but a social/protection one, like seat belts and dui and murder

i lived in holland and there isnt legal sex in the streets, just legal red light districts and lighter drug laws and more social care

I'm a frequent visitor to Holland, I've never seen anyone have sex in the streets, so it is hardly commonplace. I seem to remember that the law about sex in public places covers only sex in parks - who would want to have sex in the streets, anyhow?

Actually since it is illegal to call for the assassination of the President through word or print. Just take that law and cover any political or public figure. Calling for the death of anyone is uncivilized and should not be a practice in this country. Even serial killers are entitled to due process.

This will not stop crazy people from killing but it will serve to not justify their insane plans. It may keep an insane person from getting the idea that killing someone would be acceptable because a public figure has endorsed it.

Just wondering have you been to mexico? or is it something you see on the TV.?

Because asphalt hurts. Thats why :)

truth

i am not saying you are wrong but if the shoe were on the other foot the re
Publicans would be doing the same thing but with different words.

right.... because its only Democrats supporting this..........

legislation wouldnt stop a nut or anyone else for that matter from getting guns. or driving cars into a crowd. now if you want to ban the production and sale of guns outright, it may help somethings. but at what cost? but legislation is not even a bandaid on a bullet hole, its a bandaid on the unwounded arm

Honestly guns are a right, and I will brook no challenge to that right. Freedom comes at a cost, this is that price. I am willing to pay it as are most Americans are willing to pay it. Although passing a psych evaluation to own a gun is defiantly a law I would support.

but the issue then is who decides what level to allow? i mean do you ban the person with a quick temper, because he may reach for a gun? or the manic depressive? how about the homosexual, because in some circles that is still listed as a mental illness.

the genie with guns is out of the bottle. people will always get one if they want one. or they will use something else for evil. you can either stop all manufacture of weapons, which is insane at this juncture and dangerous as well, or let it go as is as the price we have to pay, and instead of attacking the tools, look into the root of the problem that causes people to abuse them so horribly and provide support and care for them. we will always weep over untimely deaths for absurd pointless reasons, but what we take from those occasions should be a better understanding on how to prevent them in the future.

well that is a line that would have to be carefully considered with the help of numerous professionals that are generally respected by their peers. And if just so we are clear calling homosexuality a mental disorder anywhere in this country will cost someone their license. But I agree it would be something that even if considered we would have to be very very careful about that line, however there are those out there who have legally purchased guns and they are just stark raving mad. You do have a good point even if we do make stronger gun control laws it will stop no one, guns cannot be stopped there will always be a constant flow but if we require a psych eval people will try to get the gun, fail, and then the authorities can be made aware of them and watch them.

I have to agree. However others are right when they ask if it would really stop anything. I think the answer is it can slow down these incidents. A rep from Utah (I forget the name) said all congressmen should be allowed to carry firearms now as protection. wow... wonderful. Few people actually know how to use a gun, and the ones that do usually dont know how to use it in the appropriate situation. Imagine if the people in that crowd had pulled out their sidearms in defense..... what a fuckn mess. They handled it right by tackling the man.

hate comes from all sides, all people on all levels, even here at current. its a price of free speech and allowing people to have opinions without demanding they be intelligent ones.

it would be grand if it were eliminated, but not at the expense of free speech

Nice. So true.

so true. thats what was intended for free speech, for your fellow peers to sort it out not the law.

you a silly troll anon too what a petty weakling you so ....FAIL!

Voted Up

Nice. Doesn't matter the side, own up to the rhetoric.

you're no democrat.

You forgot I'll bring a Bong and a bud and we will get stoned and get along.

Yes, like the Patriot Act, already written and waiting for 9/11 to 'accidentally' happen.

That was strange wasn't it?

Oh come on Now you know the Goverment would never lie to any of us . Why they are there to protect us from The red coats and all. Why they are just doing what they think is right for us and all. If you belive that then you might be a sheeple.

I look at it as the goverment is lieing. I see them as a whole.

Which ones arn't lieing?

Then which ones do we vote out of office.

works for me. just remember to keep them rotated to keep things fresh.

One must wonder what makes them lie tho. Afterall, a lot of these "liers" were and are normal civilians

Greed it will corupt the very best of men

If your referring to what the law will encompass, apparently there already is legislation for the President and "threatening" language, at least thats what the article says.

But smoking harms people. Im okay with them banning it on flights and in public places. I will never let them ban it in people's homes however because if someone wants to fill their body with harmful material then they can.

not the point. reasonable steps were being taken to protect those who didnt want to be in smoke. and that made it an easy matter to take all the rights to practice a legal activity, smoking, from smokers. 9/11 happened, and somehow at the time it made sense to allow armed soldiers to patrol the streets of new york, and random searches on subways, not to mention the tsa.

those trying to steal our rights are clever and sneaky and come to us bearing only 'whats for the best' and make it hard for reasonable people to dispute it in times of fear

I understand that point, just specifically disagreeing with smoking ban laws cuz I think thats a whole nother debate in general. Many of these Congressmen are regular people like us and are in fear, as are their spouses so they are trying to protect themselves. Its a response to fear. A wrong response to fear though because that is the goal of fear to change for the worse. We reacted wrongly to 9/11 in someways that only pleased bin Laden.

I'll smoke to that.