1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Those crazy "PATRIOTIC" Democrats: Free Speech Edition

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Oct 22, 2019.

  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,466
    Likes Received:
    110,419
    says you.

    https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2019/10/22/massachusetts-b****-ban/

    Massachusetts Considers Banning B-Word, Ruining Lizzo Concerts
    Turns out, I'm 100%...going to avoid using that word.

    by ALYSSA VAUGHN· 10/22/2019, 1:46 p.m.

    If you’re a boss b****, bad b****, or 100 percent that b**** according to your DNA test, if you love screaming out the lyrics to “b**** I’m Madonna,” “b**** Better Have my Money,” or “Work b****,” or if you can’t stop b****ing about Boston traffic, transportation, weather, or rent—a local legislator would like you to please learn some new adjectives.

    Tuesday afternoon, a rather unusual bill will appear before Massachusetts’ Joint Committee on the Judiciary—a measure that would assign penalties to anyone who uses the aforementioned obscenity to “accost, annoy, degrade or demean” another person.


    The bill proposes that a person who uses the word be deemed “disorderly,” and face a $150 fine on a first offense, and a $200 fine or six months or less in prison for additional offenses. These are the same consequences “common night walkers, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure” face thanks to an earlier law, and the new bill is intended as an amendment to that one.

    Accusations of use of the word could either be reported by the person at whom the term was directed or by witnesses, the measure reads.

    The bill, filed by state Rep. Daniel Hunt in May, reportedly came at the request of an unidentified constituent.

    “Any time a constituent approaches me with something that is of concern to them, I follow through with it,” Hunt told the Boston Herald. “In this instance, someone asked me to file a bill that they deemed was important and I thought it was a good exercise to let that bill go through the process.”

    Hunt did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The bill is meeting some skepticism, to say the least. It first received some public attention thanks to a tweet by the @MassGOP Twitter account, which has fixated on the measure for the past 24 hours. The tweet from the account implores conservatives to come to the State House for Tuesday’s hearing to defend their freedom of speech. The account has also retweeted a number of posts mocking the bill.

    “Welcome is Massachusetts where, thanks to Nanny State liberals, life is a… word you can’t say publicly without breaking the law,” reads a tweet by conservative pundit Michael Graham, shared by the @MassGOP account.

    According to legal experts, a “b****” ban is pretty obviously unenforceable.

    “This would last about 10 seconds in a court of law,” says Northeastern Law professor Michael Meltsner. “It’s preposterous that any elected official would think they could do this.”

    According to Meltsner, the bill is doomed because of our constitutional right to freedom of speech. “The First Amendment doesn’t permit the restriction of language,” he says.

    There are, of course, legitimate reasons to limit harassment, which is what Hunt’s bill seems to be aiming to do. But, Meltsner says, the means is all wrong—harassment should be limited by conduct, rather than by the words used.

    While it cannot be anticipated what will happen at Tuesday’s hearing—only that the meeting minutes might look a little more like Jay-Z lyrics than usual—a similar measure in New York City can perhaps give us a clue. In 2007, the New York City Council attempted a ban on “b****” (and “ho,” for good measure), inspired by the frequent use of the terms in popular music. The proposal was met with pushback from the community—“Hell, if I can’t say b****, I wouldn’t be able to call half my friends,” 31-year-old Darris James told the New York Times—and the councilperson who introduced the legislation eventually admitted that the ban was probably unenforceable.

    “b****” contains multitudes. It’s been historically wielded to disempower women, but has been reclaimed as a compliment, albeit a controversial one. Is it offensive? Is it sexist? Is it empowering? The jury is still out on that front, but as far as this measure goes, your constitutional right to compare both friends and foes to female dogs seems pretty safe for now. You may like it or not—but you have to admit that “Move, please, get out the way” and “It’s Britney, everyone” would lack a certain je ne sais quoi.
     
  2. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,909
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    If there are people in Massachusetts who want this, let the bill be introduced, debated, and (if so decided) rejected. From the article, the guy who introduced the bill did so purely in response to a request from his constituent. Did he do something wrong?
     
  3. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,466
    Likes Received:
    110,419
    other than propose something that's blatantly un-constitutional, no, and other than wasting peoples' time, no, and other than making Democrats look stupid, no, and other than giving the other side fuel for ridicule, no, and other than . . . well, you get the idea ;)
     
  4. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,909
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    Are hate speech laws unconstitutional? What’s the line? If nothing else, hopefully this process makes that line more clear.
     
  5. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,466
    Likes Received:
    110,419
    um, hate speech is protected . sorry.
     
  6. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,909
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    Good, and I agree with that. I also don’t have a problem with this being debated in a state legislature, if some people in that state raise this as an issue that is important to them. I think I’ve said this in defense of a conservative congressman as well on here. The main job of these people is to advocate for their constituents. Sometimes that means bad ideas come to the forefront for discussion. It’s a good test for our political system.
     
    Os Trigonum likes this.
  7. heypartner

    heypartner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    62,497
    Likes Received:
    56,088
    Mods, please move this thread to the Hangout, so we can enjoy it. :)
     
    Os Trigonum likes this.
  8. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,466
    Likes Received:
    110,419
    I hate you
     
  9. heypartner

    heypartner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    62,497
    Likes Received:
    56,088
    just don't call me b****.

    This reminds me, does Massachusets still have the law that bans tomatoes in Clam Chowder -- a safe-zone for Clam Chowder...haha.
     
  10. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,466
    Likes Received:
    110,419
    those crazy clam-loving Democrats
     
    heypartner likes this.
  11. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,466
    Likes Received:
    110,419
    I think the mod moved the wrong thread HP, you're shitte out of lucke :D
     
  12. Reeko

    Reeko Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    45,462
    Likes Received:
    127,163
    6 months in prison for calling someone a b*tch? Really? Somebody actually spent time coming up with this garbage...

    If I were on this judiciary committee, I’d slap the sh*t out of this fool after he was done presenting this nonsense and then go on my lunch break. Gtfoh
     
    Os Trigonum likes this.
  13. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,466
    Likes Received:
    110,419
    here you go, @Ottomaton ought to like this. Another free speech item. Plus it's from The Federalist, so that's a bonus. ;)

    just trying to keep the D&D wild.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/2...ows-the-government-to-define-legitimate-news/

    Democrats’ Election Bill Allows The Government To Define ‘Legitimate News’

    October 23, 2019
    By David Marcus

    The House will vote today on the SHIELD Act, a Democrat-led and misguided effort to deter foreign interference in American elections. While both parties agree that foreign interference, especially online, was a serious issue in the 2016 election, in fact, the GOP has its own bill, this Democratic effort fails in two major ways. First, it threatens First Amendment protections on free political speech, and second, it fails to address the major issue in 2016 interference.

    Free Speech Limitations
    One of the major problems with the SHEILD Act regarding free speech is a provision that allows the federal government to determine what is and is not “legitimate journalistic activities” for the purposes of protecting them from the provisions of the act. The obvious problem with this is that should the federal government decide a journalistic activity is not legitimate, it will have broad powers to silence it.

    In addition to this concern, the bill creates a wide array of hoops for United States citizens wishing to engage in political speech to jump through. By making it more difficult to purchase online ads, the bill threatens to chill speech. Regular Americans should not fear federal prosecution for engaging in the political process.

    It is not only the GOP that opposes these illiberal elements of the bill, and the bill itself, but also the ACLU, which in a statement said, “The SHIELD Act, as it currently stands, strikes the wrong balance, sweeping too broadly and encompassing more speech than necessary to achieve its legitimate goals.”

    Addressing The Wrong Problem
    Much of the bill reads like a fantasy recap of what Democrats want to believe happened in 2016. It focuses on communications and interactions between foreign individuals and American political campaigns. Not only are many of these provisions redundant and needless, they also fail to strike at the root of Russian (and other nations’) interference in our elections, the bulk of which come via free social media platforms.

    Russia spent very little money actually buying ads on social media platforms, the vast majority of its effort, which may have reached more than 100 million Americans was directed toward a social media presence that was free. They created vast troll farms of users who studied and mimicked American social media users to create discord on platforms.

    The effort was alarmingly successful, sometimes even leading to “in real life” events organized by followers of the fake accounts. According to the Mueller report, it also led several media outlets to report on these fake, often offensive accounts, as if they came from regular Americans. Unfortunately, unlike the GOP bill that lays out punishments for foreign governments that engage in these activities, the SHIELD Act does nothing to deter them.

    The Democratic bill frankly looks like a rehashing of the collapsed allegation of collusion against the Trump campaign. In short, it is a solution to something that we now know was not the problem. The House should go back to the drawing board and pass a bill that contains measures that can actually make a difference, or simply pass the Republican bill.

    As it stands, the badly flawed SHIELD Act looks to be playing politics while stripping Americans of speech rights, more than it looks to actually protect American elections.

    David Marcus is the Federalist's New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.
     
  14. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,148
    Likes Received:
    35,980
    Do you have a more neutral source on this subject? Already reading the first paragraph, I can I already tell the opinion expressed is already stained by a partisan bias rather than a principled one.
     
    Deckard and FranchiseBlade like this.
  15. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,466
    Likes Received:
    110,419
    fchowd0311 likes this.
  16. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,148
    Likes Received:
    35,980
    FranchiseBlade and Os Trigonum like this.
  17. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,466
    Likes Received:
    110,419
    well that wouldn't have been nearly as much fun :D
     
  18. Rashmon

    Rashmon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    19,153
    Likes Received:
    14,304
    Gee, I wonder if the Republicans have ever offered any crazy legislation...
     
  19. DaDakota

    DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    123,881
    Likes Received:
    32,773
    Thread title should probably be those "PATRIOTIC" democrats as they are working hard for the benefit of our constitution and country.

    Where the GOP party is licking the shoes of a traitorous con man.

    DD
     
  20. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,466
    Likes Received:
    110,419
    thinly-disguised "what about" comment. @B-Bob we need a ruling: is this only valid when you're a progressive, left-leaning, Democratic, anti-free speech and dogmatic D&D denizen? asking for a friend
     
    B-Bob likes this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now