Brady has introduced a new bill making it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.
When there already is a law in place~ U.S. Code already makes it a FEDERAL crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to send any form of threatening correspondence to an elected official.
QUESTION:So~Who defines "perceived"? and IS IT only after it has been proven that the language or symbol has IN FACT without a doubt been proven the cause of what incited the violence? What do you think of this proposal?
Anyone seen the actual verbiage of this bill?Answer Question
Answer by lovinangels at 3:34 PM on Jan. 24, 2011
Answer by tnmomofive at 3:38 PM on Jan. 24, 2011
Answer by UpSheRises at 3:39 PM on Jan. 24, 2011
Answer by Bird16_J at 3:42 PM on Jan. 24, 2011
Answer by tinamatt at 3:51 PM on Jan. 24, 2011
Answer by Carpy at 3:57 PM on Jan. 24, 2011
I don't agree with passing another bill. Redundancy costs our country in so many ways. The only benefit for lawmakers to pass something like this would be if the interpretation of a threat is so loose they can claim virtually anything as a threat. There are already laws against threats.
Answer by QuinnMae at 5:21 PM on Jan. 24, 2011
I don't think the bill is necessary if there's already a law in place that addresses threats toward elected officials.
Answer by jsbenkert at 5:28 PM on Jan. 24, 2011
Answer by DEpley at 5:54 PM on Jan. 24, 2011
Answer by mustbeGRACE at 6:00 PM on Jan. 24, 2011