Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

5 Bumps

Do you agree with Robert Brady’s (D-Pa.)?

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

Asked by grlygrlz2 at 3:31 PM on Jan. 24, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (106,530 Credits)
Answers (16)
  • Perceived?

    Oh boy. Have you seen how sensitive the perceptions get around here? That's pretty dangerous.

    Answer by lovinangels at 3:34 PM on Jan. 24, 2011

  • That's bs

    Answer by tnmomofive at 3:38 PM on Jan. 24, 2011

  • What a douche.

    Answer by UpSheRises at 3:39 PM on Jan. 24, 2011

  • wow that's ASKING for a ton of trouble. Everybody's view of perception is different so yeah that would be totally assinine if that passed

    Answer by Bird16_J at 3:42 PM on Jan. 24, 2011

  • Who decides the perception?

    Extreme example: When I see a swastika, I immediately think, "Nazi" and I'm either threatened or offended by it.

    However, about two places away from my dad's grave, there's a gravestone with two swastikas on it. Was the person Nazi? I doubt it, because the name on the gravestone is Vietnamese, which makes me think that the person buried there is Buddhist--I understand that Buddhists uses swastikas as a religious symbol.

    So should Buddhists be arrested because of their use of a particular symbol? (Note: if *anyone* is using the swastika as a political/anti-Semitic statement, I have a serious problem. My point is, who decides what is perceived as threatening?)

    Answer by tinamatt at 3:51 PM on Jan. 24, 2011

  • I would assume, the progressives get to make that determination. It will never fly.

    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

  • No.

    Answer by DEpley at 5:54 PM on Jan. 24, 2011

  • Leave it to a Democrat.

    How many perceptions could there possible be?

    How many misperceptions?


    Whose going to judge?


    Answer by mustbeGRACE at 6:00 PM on Jan. 24, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.