Democrats Want to Make It a Federal Crime to Threaten Journalists

[NightHawkeye]

From the "Threaten me and Big Brother will give you a Beat down", files: Democrats Want to Make It a Federal Crime to Threaten Journalists: Sen. Richard Blumenthal would give journalists special federal protections that they don't need.

The House version of the bill doesn't actually attempt to criminalize mere threats. Instead, it establishes "journalist" as a protected class ...

At best, creating an additional law at the federal level is pointless. In reality, such a law could have the effect of infringing upon the civil liberties of people accused of violence. When something is criminalized at both the state and federal level, or criminalized on several different grounds, prosecutors have additional opportunities to bring charges. In practice, additional charges often give defendants little option but to plead guilty in exchange for a deal: The authorities simply have too many chances to convict them.
...
Keep in mind that the First Amendment, the most important legal protection of the kind of work that journalists do, does not specifically give these rights to a class of people known as journalists: It prevents the government from violating anyone's rights.​

Maybe "journalists" might stop propagandizing and get back to basics, like investigative journalism?

 

[Ophiolite]

Maybe "journalists" might stop propagandizing and get back to basics, like investigative journalism?

Trouble is, when they do that the President accuses them of touting false news and makes remarks that seem to sanction violence.

 

[JohnAshton]

No one should be able to infer that violence should be used against journalists, whether it is the President, Bernie Sanders, or any of us.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

From the "Threaten me and Big Brother will give you a Beat down", files: Democrats Want to Make It a Federal Crime to Threaten Journalists: Sen. Richard Blumenthal would give journalists special federal protections that they don't need.

The House version of the bill doesn't actually attempt to criminalize mere threats. Instead, it establishes "journalist" as a protected class ...

It is already a crime in my city to threaten to do bodily harm to another person. The daughter of a friend of mind got charged with making terroristic threats just because she threatened to beat the snot out of another person. She actually got arrested and had to go to court.

 

[JohnAshton]

It is already a crime in my city to threaten to do bodily harm to another person. The daughter of a friend of mind got charged with making terroristic threats just because she threatened to beat the snot out of another person. She actually got arrested and had to go to court.

Good. One does not get a free pass to bully.

 

[BeholdenGlory]

They must be feeling the heat having declared themselves the enemy of the people. Nothing but duplicitous propagandists.

 

[Ophiolite]

No one should be able to infer that violence should be used against journalists, whether it is the President, Bernie Sanders, or any of us.

I think you meant "imply", not "infer", otherwise your sentence makes little sense. (Although I did infer that violence was the implication. )

Anyhow, @NightHawkeye do you favour or oppose the proposal; and why?

 

[JohnAshton]

Trump, not the media, declared them enemies of the people, when in fact, they are defenders against Trump, the avowed enemy of the people.

 

[JohnAshton]

I think you meant "imply", not "infer", otherwise your sentence makes little sense. (Although I did infer that violence was the implication. )

Anyhow, @NightHawkeye do you favour or oppose the proposal; and why?

My sentence is clear in meaning, yes.

in·fer reason or determine from suggestion and cognition

But go ahead and imply all you desire

 

[Ophiolite]

My sentence is clear in meaning, yes.

The writer does not get to decide if a sentence is clear. That is the right of the reader. (See my signature for clarification and - based on your response - an implicit insult.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe "journalists" might stop propagandizing and get back to basics, like investigative journalism?

Would that make the Right stop threatening them?

 

[TLK Valentine]

They must be feeling the heat having declared themselves the enemy of the people. Nothing but duplicitous propagandists.

They declared themselves that?

 

[BeholdenGlory]

Their actions let slip their mask revealing their motives for doing what they do are not pure at heart.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

From the "Threaten me and Big Brother will give you a Beat down", files: Democrats Want to Make It a Federal Crime to Threaten Journalists: Sen. Richard Blumenthal would give journalists special federal protections that they don't need.

The House version of the bill doesn't actually attempt to criminalize mere threats. Instead, it establishes "journalist" as a protected class ...

At best, creating an additional law at the federal level is pointless. In reality, such a law could have the effect of infringing upon the civil liberties of people accused of violence. When something is criminalized at both the state and federal level, or criminalized on several different grounds, prosecutors have additional opportunities to bring charges. In practice, additional charges often give defendants little option but to plead guilty in exchange for a deal: The authorities simply have too many chances to convict them.
...
Keep in mind that the First Amendment, the most important legal protection of the kind of work that journalists do, does not specifically give these rights to a class of people known as journalists: It prevents the government from violating anyone's rights.​

Maybe "journalists" might stop propagandizing and get back to basics, like investigative journalism?

I thought threatening people was against the law . Sadly, we have a president trying to encourage violence against any journalists, liberal or conservative, that says something negative about him. So things have to be done to protect these victims, the president or any one does after.

 

[BeholdenGlory]

Really? You don't think you're being a tad over dramatic?

 

[GACfan]

I thought threatening people was against the law . Sadly, we have a president trying to encourage violence against any journalists, liberal or conservative, that says something negative about him. So things have to be done to protect these victims, the president or any one does after.

Trump has incited violence. He suggested that the "Second Amendment People" could act against Hillary if she got elected. He said, "Knock the crap out of them and I'll pay your legal fees!" and he said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters."

 

[BeholdenGlory]

And democrats have championed Antifa and suggested punching nazis after classifying half the country as nazis.

 

[Arcangl86]

Meh, while I don't think this is needed, it's no different then the federal Blue Lives Matter bill that has been introduced in the House for the last couple of sessions.

 

[JohnAshton]

The writer does not get to decide if a sentence is clear. That is the right of the reader. (See my signature for clarification and - based on your response - an implicit insult.)

You sliced my post, which is repeated below.

My sentence is clear in meaning, yes.

in·fer reason or determine from suggestion and cognition

But go ahead and imply all you desire

Your last sentence does not make sense. I did not insult you, and I don't think you insulted me.

 

[JohnAshton]

And democrats have championed Antifa and suggested punching nazis after classifying half the country as nazis.

If all that were true, then there would be concern, but it is not.