NWO WARNING! HR 1966: Bill to restrict right of free speech on the internet - You MUST oppose this!!

From: Thenewyorkcritic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cATXyCD1Hs

Toward the Obama/Bush New World Order! A new cyberbullying bill aims to punish those who intend to cause "emotional distress" online with fines, jail time, or both. The problem—as usual—is the vague language used in the bill, which leaves many critics concerned that it could be used to censor speech on the Internet.

A recently introduced cyberbullying bill could land us all in jail—that is, if you have ever used an electronic medium to troll someone. HR 1966, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, is named after the high-profile "MySpace suicide" victim Megan Meier. It's meant to prevent people from using the Internet to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." However, as with many bills of this nature, the murky language and vague standards leave much open to interpretation, which has caused critics to call it the Censorship Act instead.

HR 1966 was introduced in April by US Representative Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and it's supported by 14 other members of Congress. According to the text, individuals who bully others via any electronic means could face fines, two years in prison, or both. This, of course, could include those nasty text messages you sent to your ex on Saturday night, the questionable e-mail you sent to your brother, or those forum posts you made in which you called for someone who liked the new Star Trek movie to jump off a building.

The bill largely flew under the radar until fairly recently (thanks to NetworkWorld for the heads-up) but criticism has been building. The language in the bill is so vague, it could be interpreted to apply to practically any situation, including blog posts critical of public officials.

UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh went into detail on his blog, suggesting that numerous everyday situations could render regular citizens felons if their behavior is considered "severe" enough. "I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite/campaign promise breaker/fool/etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) 'to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior'— unless, of course, my statements aren't seen as 'severe,' a term that is entirely undefined and unclear," Volokh wrote.

Although Sanchez seems to think there's no possibility for abuse with this bill, we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Despite her reassurance that it won't be used to censor Internet communications, there's no way to predict how judges would interpret such a law. One thing we do know is that cyberbullying cases have picked up since Missouri passed its own law following Megan Meier's death—if HR 1966 makes it past the House Committee on the Judiciary and into the books, we could see a serious uptick in those types of cases.

How in the heck is this constitutional? Has our congress ever heard of the Bill of Rights? (the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution) Surely someone in the congress has studied constitutional law?

Regardless, the first amendment explicitly states that the congress cannot do what it is trying to do. Read it. It's right there in black and white. I have provided a copy of your Bill of Rights at the end of this article. This Act will essentially end free speech by making it a felony to "offend" someone over the Internet.

Follow the evolution of this bill at GovTrack.us:
Text of H.R. 1966: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1966

Below is an excerpt from Sec. 881. Cyberbullying:
(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Could this be any more vague? What ever happened to our rights under the first Amendment? We are talking about the most basic of basic rights provided to us by our Constitution. Congress is blatantly ignoring it.

Please refer to our Bill of Rights (below) to see why this bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

I urge you to contact your representative and tell them that this bill is unconstitutional. If this bill becomes law, you will not be allowed to voice your opinion against it, you might offend someone and be put away!

Bill of Rights ~ Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• internet
• terror
• free
• earthlasthope
• speech
• ban
• endtime
• armageddon
• bible
• JHWH
• Lucifer
• Islamic
• illuminati
• Nostradamus
• police
• federal
• tower
• city
• babel
• babylon
• terrorist
• insurgent
• homeland
• security
• peace
• tyranny
• 2012
• 2009
• military
• socialism
• tazer
• gun
• american
• 9/11
• united
• nations
• antichrist
• bluebeam
• project
• nasa
• mayans
• hurt
• feelings
• discrimination
• hate
• crime
• insult
• prison
• jail
• alex
• jones
• russia
• occult
• bankers
• wall
• street
• zionists
• press
• charges
• rap
• hiphop
• regulation
• individual
• freedom
• mabus
• web

[Bizziboy]

Make no mistake. If the internet becomes a government controlled entity....

Make no mistake... the hundreds hackers who know and understand how the internet works.... will not let it stay up if it's not for everyone. The only reason it's still up is, it serves a purpose.

Government is getting a bit to big for it's breaches......

Their arrogance is just astounding...

[jmjfanss]

Fuck the NWO, Time for throw both parties out of office.

this bill is unconstitutional and treason.

[frigasmiga]

The trolls are finally gonna destroy the Internet :(

[philos4r]

people who shit people up about the world being hit by comets should get life too.

[jelicabean]

Your breath smell like DooDoo lol

[vechorik]

This is quite frightening. To learn what "the new world order" and "globalization" means, study "United Nations Agenda 21." Everyone should know what this agenda means to their everyday life. It's happening NOW!

[turbofritz2]

@Bizziboy But hey. One thing is that they are stopping you to share information that is "dangerous" or upsets the status que. But another thing is that they already can see what you are doing every day and track you.

Facebook asks for who you're married to who your girlfreind is and where you work and you'd put up lots of pictures. There is homebanking. The goverments here in europe require you to log into goverments sites of tax and stuff using your personal number.

[juggaknot171]

WELL BETTER GET IT OUT OF MY SYSTEM NOW F*CK, SH*T D*MN, F*CKIN G*D D*MMIT! P*SS, B*TCH, SL*T H*E "@SS DANCE @SS DANCE" (shin chan!) lol!

[juggaknot171]

please let that bill pass and watch all the daughters and sons of these congress rich folks get locked up for goin wild on the net and quick fast you will see a rapid reversal of it! guaranteed! when it affects them indirectly or directly that's when they will learn the error of it!

[narukofan2]

"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people."

-Proverbs 14:34

[OOFMATIC]

If this happens, I'm quitting the internet. Seriously. I've lived without the internet in the 90's, I'm sure I can go back to living like that now.

[ozbillybong]

they would ent have the resorces to do this fuck the kunts lol