Ahhh....Those sneaky liberals. In the Slimeball Move of The Year, the Socialist Democratic party attached their Thought Control--I mean hate crime bill to a defense bill attempting to force the Republicans and those masquerading as Republicans to vote for it. "It's a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol," cackled Princess Nancy, ruler of the People's Republic of Pelosi. "Please stop shredding me," begged the Constitution in response.
Now, I decry bigotry just like any other sane person. I don't think anyone should be assaulted on the basis of religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or any other trait. That sort of garbage is just un-American. It is just as un-American to attempt to control the thoughts of others.
Under this bill, it would be illegal for clergy to preach against homosexuality, for example. The bill's supporters claim that wouldn't be the case, but the clergyman would be held accountable if some loon in the congregation went on a killing spree. Is that reasonable ? Will it now be a crime to criticize religions such as, I don't know, Islam ? (Just a random shot in the dark.) Will it be a crime to mention that terrorists from the Middle East are fueled by a fanatical view of their religion ? How much longer until this applies to political speech ?
Will only certain groups be protected by this bill ? Who will decide what is inflammatory and what is not ? And, there's always my favorite libertarian arguement: Who's watching the watchmen ? It seems to me that the First Amendment is getting ready to tap out.
I, like the government, can read your mind. What a bunch of Glenn Beckian nonsense. Take off the tinfoil hat for a change. Get a hobby for God's sake!
Ok, maybe I do need a hobby other than political talking head. But what do make of this ?
Recently, McClatchey ran a teenie tiny piece called "Sotomayor taking active role" by Michael Doyle. The article discusses how the Supreme Court's schedule is shaping up. (On a side note, Comrade Doyle dutifully bows his head to his leftist masters and goes on to explain how Sonia Sotomayor asked more questions than Clarence Thomas has in several years. Hey, Doyle! It's the Supreme Court's job to listen! Wake up, McFly!)
One case that draws interest the case of Robert J. Stevens, who was sentenced to 37 months in the pokey for selling dogfighting videos which violates a 1999 federal law that forbids depictions of animal cruelty. Some on the fringe (I.E. The Soddom and Gamorrah gang in Hollywood) have called this a "Free Speech issue." Believe it or not, that's not the story.
The real story is the Obama administration's comments. (Another side note, why is the Executive Branch sticking its fat snout in Judicial Branch affairs, anyway ?) "The Obama administration," Comrade Doyle writes, "defends the law as reasonable, saying that the 'value of the speech' is outweighed by its 'social costs' " Say it with me, kids. Uh-oh.
No, I'm not hanging with Michael Vick on the weekends or anything, so all you PETA losers need to get off of my lawn. Obviously, as sane human being, I don't condone dogfighting or selling videos of it, but do we really need the Obama gang with people like Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar, commenting on Free Speech ? (If you doubt me, check out Cass' book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. It'll warm your inner fascist.) The whole idea of someone like that having anything to do with Free Speech scares the hell out of me. There's just something about the Executive Branch discussing limits of Free Speech that's just so...unsettling.
Watch what you say and think, comrades.