Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
Now, there will those who read this thread and figure that since what I discuss applies in Missouri, they do not need to be concerned. However, everyone should be concerned because what is going on here reflects the growing issues of those in government not being held accountable for what they do.
On December 1, 2015, Missouri State Representative Bonnaye Mims (D-MO) filed House Bill 1437. If passed into law, it will be called the "Political Intimidation Prevention Act".
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills161/billpdf/intro/HB1437I.PDF
Although Mims is a Democrat, do not let the title of the law fool you because this has nothing to do with protecting people from being intimidated when the people engage in political speech.
http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=027&year=2016
Rather, HB 1437 is to prohibit political speech FROM THE PEOPLE by making it a criminal offense to engage in speech that can be SUBJECTIVELY deemed by the public figure (anyone who is elected into office) to harass or coerce them. The terms "harass and coerce" are not defined in her Bill, and thus, applies to any and all speech for, which the public figure decides to be harassing or coercing them.
If such conduct / speech is said to exist, the public figure can have the citizen arrested, jailed, prosecuted, and convicted for a class A misdemeanor. However, if the public figure asserts he or she was "physically harmed" then it is a class D felony until January 1, 2017, when it becomes a class E felony instead. The term "physical harm" is also not defined and, thus, can mean that the pubic figure suffered a headache, emotional duress, mental anguish, or even an upset stomach on the basis of suffering stress because of the speech.
While the Bill exempts a citizen from violating the law if the citizen is reporting the public figure for violating criminal laws, there is NO exception if the citizen is reporting the public figure for violating any civil law, any ethical obligation, or any civil rights of any citizen.
This is a full frontal assault on lawful speech that is a guaranteed civil right to criticize public figures and engage in political speech. It is a means by which public figures can further elevate themselves to the status of being God with the inherent right to dictate the people and go unchallenged by the people for their conduct.
So, think about it --- here you are reading a Bill that says all sex offenders are to be burned at the stake and you send an email or publish a comment on Craigslist criticizing the person who filed the Bill. In turn, you have the cops knocking at your door with handcuffs displayed to haul you off to jail because the person who filed the Bill claims your speech criticizing them was harassment that resulted in their sustaining a headache
What is becoming of our country?????
On December 1, 2015, Missouri State Representative Bonnaye Mims (D-MO) filed House Bill 1437. If passed into law, it will be called the "Political Intimidation Prevention Act".
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills161/billpdf/intro/HB1437I.PDF
Although Mims is a Democrat, do not let the title of the law fool you because this has nothing to do with protecting people from being intimidated when the people engage in political speech.
http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=027&year=2016
Rather, HB 1437 is to prohibit political speech FROM THE PEOPLE by making it a criminal offense to engage in speech that can be SUBJECTIVELY deemed by the public figure (anyone who is elected into office) to harass or coerce them. The terms "harass and coerce" are not defined in her Bill, and thus, applies to any and all speech for, which the public figure decides to be harassing or coercing them.
If such conduct / speech is said to exist, the public figure can have the citizen arrested, jailed, prosecuted, and convicted for a class A misdemeanor. However, if the public figure asserts he or she was "physically harmed" then it is a class D felony until January 1, 2017, when it becomes a class E felony instead. The term "physical harm" is also not defined and, thus, can mean that the pubic figure suffered a headache, emotional duress, mental anguish, or even an upset stomach on the basis of suffering stress because of the speech.
While the Bill exempts a citizen from violating the law if the citizen is reporting the public figure for violating criminal laws, there is NO exception if the citizen is reporting the public figure for violating any civil law, any ethical obligation, or any civil rights of any citizen.
This is a full frontal assault on lawful speech that is a guaranteed civil right to criticize public figures and engage in political speech. It is a means by which public figures can further elevate themselves to the status of being God with the inherent right to dictate the people and go unchallenged by the people for their conduct.
So, think about it --- here you are reading a Bill that says all sex offenders are to be burned at the stake and you send an email or publish a comment on Craigslist criticizing the person who filed the Bill. In turn, you have the cops knocking at your door with handcuffs displayed to haul you off to jail because the person who filed the Bill claims your speech criticizing them was harassment that resulted in their sustaining a headache
What is becoming of our country?????
"Call Sen. Stumpwaddle now and tell him to support such-and-such."
First amendment anyone?
There is a difference between sustaining "physical injuries" and that of 'physical harm.' Physical injuries is used by the courts to define an actual injury to the body, whereas physical harm is the broader term used to incorporate mental pain, anguish, suffering, and the fear of sustaining such unless the law specifically exempts such things -- then and only then does physical harm translate into physical injury in its' legal interpretation and applications.
Dear Mr. Mellor,
I am writing to you about (2016) HB 1437, which Missouri State Representative Bonnaye Mims (D-MO) of the 27th District, pre-filed on December 1, 2015, for the upcoming 2016 legislative session. I believe it prudent for the Institute for Justice to made aware of this Bill because it is a full frontal assault on First Amendment rights.
Representative Mims has drafted a Bill that seeks to criminalize political, mandated, and other speech against any and all public figures in Missouri by using overly broad and ambiguous statutory language and applications of the law to chill lawful, and in some cases, state mandated speech, and protected activities. The concerns are:
First, the language incorporates all “public figures,” and thus applies to any and all
people holding a publicly elected office and those running for a publicly elected
office on the city, county, and state level.
Second, the language chills all speech based entirely upon the subjective interpretations
of the elected official and candidate for a public office, of what constitutes “harassment”
and coercion” because no measurable test exists to narrowly tailor the law to only the
most severe speech that is unacceptable by societal standards.
Third, the language increases the penalty to a felony crime if such speech causes “physical
harm,” which is not defined, and, thus, includes mental pain, duress, distress, anguish, and
the fear of sustaining these things, by not requiring only the existence of an actual physical
injury.
Fourth, while the statutory language exempts speech that reports criminal acts of the elected
official and the candidate for a public office, it does not exempt speech that reports violations
of civil laws, ethical obligations, rules, regulations, civil rights, and that, which falls under
state mandated reporting laws.
Such speech and activities prohibited under her Bill would include, but not be limited to, publicly protesting the conduct of the elected official or candidate running for office, writing a commentary on social media, reporting conduct to the State Ethics Commission, suing an elected official or candidate for public office, issuing formal cease and desist demands, protesting legislation with the colleagues of the elected official who drafted/filed a Bill, protesting the conduct of an elected official for not holding government employees accountable when, for example, a cop shoots a African American kid, or where a state employee discriminates against a person.
The Bill is clearly designed and intended to threaten, intimidate, or coerce the people into silence on the basis of having to fear the cops knocking on their door with handcuffs displayed to haul them off to jail because the person exercised his or her First Amendment rights, or complied with state allowed or mandated reporting laws
Respectfully