Schumer & Cardin – Some Lies Will Be A Federal Crime

0
Share
DOES THIS MEAN WE GET TO LOCK UP EVERYONE IN CONGRESS?
“The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed–would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper–the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.”
– George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 1

We now have another bill that has a name meaning the opposite of what it is, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2011, introduced by Democratic Senators, Chuck Schumer of New York and Ben Cardin of Maryland. It’s nothing more or less than thought police, but it’s okay, only some lying will be a federal crime.

This bill was introduced in 2007 by Senators Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer. It came back in 2009 and it’s baaaack for 2011. The original basis for it was an alleged lie on a Republican flier. If that is true or not, I don’t know, but I have seen plenty of lies on Democratic fliers and I don’t want any of them to go to federal prison for it.

The bill criminalizes ‘misleading’ or ‘intentional false information’ published or broadcast concerning voting eligibility and the time and place for voting, within 90 days of an election.

In other words, it criminalizes lying and makes it a federal crime no less.  How do we define “intent?” Do we read peoples minds now? Who decides it’s a lie or not? Chuck Schumer? John Boehner? Who? How do we define lying and differentiate it from a mistake? If the government can make lying a crime, they can make any transgression a crime.

Schumer and Cardin are trying to portray it as narrowly tailored so it does not infringe on free speech, but that in of itself is a lie. They should throw themselves in prison. This Act would make politicians, ad makers, everyone involved with a campaign afraid to say much of anything for fear of making a mistake and ending up in jail.

This is straight out of 1984.

Cardin says the 1st Amendment does not protect against fraudulent speech.

Holder’s dirty hands are in this. It purports to  protect voters rights, but it will actually silence free speech.

The Cardin-Schumer Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2011 attempts to prohibit deceptive practices in federal elections, create a civil right of action and criminal penalties for violations, allows for corrective action by the Attorney General, and requires the Department of Justice to report to Congress on such activity. This legislation recognizes the power of Congress to prohibit racially discriminatory tactics in elections under the Fifteenth Amendment, Voting Rights Act, and the general power of Congress under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution to regulate the “times, places, and manner” of federal elections.

So it becomes a “civil right protection” while shutting down free speech. Lawyers are behind it – no surprises there. It will drum up plenty of business for them.

From the Examiner:Who, for example, is to determine whether or not a news report in a newspaper or on a television station is ‘misleading’ to voters? What, precisely, is the definition of ‘fraudulent’ speech?

A case could be made, for example, that when Democrats claim that laws requiring voter I.D. is an attempt to ‘dienfranchize’ voters, such speech is fraudulent and would thus fall under the provisions of the new law. This is clearly not what Schumer and Cardin have in mind, however.

Rather, one can imagine a scenario in which a claim could be made that reminding voters within 90 days of an election that they will be required to present a valid I.D. at the polls would be considered a ‘crime’ given that Democrats claim that such laws are aimed at ‘disenfranchizing’ voters.

In short, the bill is ripe for politicization. And there is no doubt that in today’s volatile political climate one side would use the law to constantly silence the opposition using the nebulous claim of ‘misleading’ speech.

Another problem in the bill is the phrase ‘intentionally misleading.’ Any claim that the new law has been violated would have to prove that the violation is intentional…Read here: The Examiner

Read here: The let’s get rid of free speech bill

Share