...that this can be abused. None whatsoever, from any part of the political spectrum.
How could a bill which says "you can't make threatening statements about congress creatures" later be misused? Because every politician, congressman, and senator has the morals of a newborn child, without malice, greed, or powermongering tendencies.
*gag* I think I just threw up a little...in the back of my throat...from the irony.
Now all that a politician from any segment has to do is look around, point to a statement/image that they find threatening, and it can be construed as so. The examples provided were clearly defined as being for political purposes. They were not hit lists. They were not burnt effigies. They were not manifestos telling how to bring about the death or injury to politicians. These were methods to explain the focus of an agenda.
What do you get when you look down a scope with crosshairs? You get a reduced field of view. All your attention is focused on what is within the reticle, all other information at that time is extraneous. The same goes for the target analogy. You focus totally upon that target and what it is attached to. What next? If the same maps shown in this clip had red dots instead of crosshairs/targets?
-Oh, red dots show violent intent. They could have used blue, green, or yellow. Happy colors!
-Oh, red dots like lasers. Like laser sights on guns! Don't guns have 'red dot' sights? Oh, the humanity!
Nope, nothing to see here folks. No infringements or shady motives to observe. Move along.
-Guy
BTW, did you notice the little side-step on the freedom of speech issue? I would like a full, detailed answer to that question...
No comments:
Post a Comment