Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
It never ceases to amaze me how more and more politicians are transforming into wolves wearing sheep's clothing to ramrod their own agenda's down the throats of American citizens that all the signs exist of Missouri and other states literally becoming a dictatorship right in front of our eyes. To-wit, on December 1, 2015, State Missouri House State Representative Bonnaye Mims (D-MO) pre-filed House Bill 1437 and very serious questions are being raised about the constitutional permisability of her Bill. When politicians want to make otherwise lawful speech a criminal act, we have crossed the line of a democratic process to become a dictatorship. Fortunately, the Institute of Justice took notice of my email and have informed Mims that they may elect to take judicial action if her "bizarre" (direct quote) Bill is enacted into law.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills161/billpdf/intro/HB1437I.PDF
Section A. Chapter 576, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 576.090, to read as follows:
This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Political Intimidation Prevention Act".
As used in this section, the following terms mean:
"Intimidating conduct", any verbal, physical, orwritten conduct that threatens, coerces, harasses, or attempts to threaten, coerce, or harass a public figure;
"Public figure", any elected official of this state or any political subdivision thereof, or any candidate for any elected office of this state or any political subdivision thereof.
A person commits the offense of intimidating a public figure if the person intentionally engages in or attempts to engage in intimidating conduct in such a manner that such intimidating conduct or attempt creates a hostile environment during the course of such public figure's performance of duties related to the public figure's elected office or during the course of such public figure's campaign for elected office, and the existence of the hostile environment adversely affects the public figure's performance of duties related to such public office or causes the public figure to resign from the office to which the public figure has been elected or to cease campaigning for such office.
The offense of intimidating a public figure is a class A misdemeanor, unless the offense causes physical harm to the public figure, in which case it is a class D felony until December 31, 2016, and a class E felony beginning January 1, 2017.
In addition to any penalty provided in subdivision (1) of this subsection, if any elected official of the state or any political subdivision thereof commits the offense of intimidating a public figure, such elected official shall immediately forfeit such office.
This section shall not apply to verbal, physical, or written conduct engaged in by any person in the course of reporting or investigating any misdemeanor or felony committed by a public figure.
Section B. Because immediate action is necessary to prevent intimidation of elected officials and candidates for public office, this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills161/billpdf/intro/HB1437I.PDF
Section A. Chapter 576, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 576.090, to read as follows:
This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Political Intimidation Prevention Act".
As used in this section, the following terms mean:
"Intimidating conduct", any verbal, physical, orwritten conduct that threatens, coerces, harasses, or attempts to threaten, coerce, or harass a public figure;
"Public figure", any elected official of this state or any political subdivision thereof, or any candidate for any elected office of this state or any political subdivision thereof.
A person commits the offense of intimidating a public figure if the person intentionally engages in or attempts to engage in intimidating conduct in such a manner that such intimidating conduct or attempt creates a hostile environment during the course of such public figure's performance of duties related to the public figure's elected office or during the course of such public figure's campaign for elected office, and the existence of the hostile environment adversely affects the public figure's performance of duties related to such public office or causes the public figure to resign from the office to which the public figure has been elected or to cease campaigning for such office.
The offense of intimidating a public figure is a class A misdemeanor, unless the offense causes physical harm to the public figure, in which case it is a class D felony until December 31, 2016, and a class E felony beginning January 1, 2017.
In addition to any penalty provided in subdivision (1) of this subsection, if any elected official of the state or any political subdivision thereof commits the offense of intimidating a public figure, such elected official shall immediately forfeit such office.
This section shall not apply to verbal, physical, or written conduct engaged in by any person in the course of reporting or investigating any misdemeanor or felony committed by a public figure.
Section B. Because immediate action is necessary to prevent intimidation of elected officials and candidates for public office, this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.
Moreover, such a law grossly tramples upon a persons guaranteed First Amendment right to engage in political speech and activities even if such is patently offensive, is intended to cause emotional distress, or is insulting to the public official or public figure. To criminalize such speech is to say that no citizen is to have any right to criticize a government official or candidate for a government office on the basis that it may cause the official or candidate to resign or withdraw their candidacy.
Moreover, it presupposes that only government officials and candidates have the inherent right of speech to ridicule others. And it ensures that the right of political speech and activities that seek to prevent a person from becoming elected or seek to have an elected official recalled out of office is criminal conduct that permits the citizen to be arrested, jailed, prosecuted, and convicted of being a terrorist by the term of "Political Intimidation."
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. [T]he freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty -- and thus a good unto itself -- but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole."
The majority court held that:
"In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here"