Mediaboss Marketing

By DJ Rippert

Sticks and stones? Del. Jeffrey M. Bourne, D-Richmond, has introduced HB1627. The bill is entitled, Threats and harassment of certain officials and property; venue. The proposed legislation strengthens a series of very questionable laws already on the books.

The first few sections of the existing law make it illegal to make threats in written communications to kill or do bodily injury to a person in a variety of occupations and situations. For example, threats to elementary school, middle school or high school employees are called out in the existing legislation. Similarly, threats made on school buses, on school property, or against health care providers are also explicitly illegal. Beyond wondering why certain classes of people or places deserve extra protection from death threats or threats of bodily harm the existing legislation seems pretty straightforward. Ill-conceived and overly limited but straightforward.

Then comes the section entitled, Harassment by computer, penalty. This section goes well beyond outlawing death threats and threats of bodily harm. It specifically references Virginia state politicians as needing legal protection from such things as threatening illegal or immoral acts.

Snowflake protection act. The existing language of laws to be modified by HB1627 gets very broad when the topic turns to state government officials receiving threats, insults or lascivious language. To wit:

18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, heshall beisguilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

RVA. Del Bournes major addition to Virginias existing anti-free speech legislation is apparently an attempt to move the venue for prosecution of the offenses contained in the existing law. HB1627 adds to the Harassment by Computer section of the law A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

A resident of Annandale saying lascivious things about Annandale based State Sen. Dick Saslaw on the fictional blog Annandale Today would now be tried in Richmond? Having quashed the second amendment and the first amendment our new majority apparently now wants to take aim at the sixth amendment (a jury of ones peers). How many amendments are left?

Thought crimes. Once again we see existing Virginia law trying to make private human thought a crime. Intent to coerce, intimidate or harass By what magic will Virginia law enforcement officials or courts know whether the person making the statement had an intent to coerce, intimidate or harass? Would Jim Bacons column attempting to solve the Ralph Northam blackface riddle constitute coercion, intimidation or harassment? How about communicating obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious or indecent language? Thats a cornucopia of vague, ill defined adjectives that could mean just about anything to anybody. Does the new Democratic majority hope to stifle criticism of the state government by threatening legal action adjudicated in the cozy confines of Richmond using an umbrella of nonsense words (e.g. lascivious)? Does Del. Bourne hope the mere threat of enforcing vague laws using Richmond as the venue will be sufficient to stifle criticism of the Democratic majority?

Rips Wrap. This proposed bill attempts to take anti-free speech, anti-liberty, anti-American legislation and make it worse. This whole area of existing and proposed law is emblematic of a power-drunk state legislature trying to preserve and extend special privileges for itself and a few chosen groups of special interests. Why is it specifically illegal to threaten school employees or health care providers but not firemen, policemen or accountants? Why should the venue for any charges derived from this law against state politicians or state government employees be the City of Richmond (comprising less than 3% of Virginias population)? The laws that deal with threats of death or bodily harm should be repealed or expanded to cover all Virginians. The sections against the use of lewd, lascivious, etc commentary should be repealed along with an official apology from the General Assembly for ever enacting such garbage in the first place. Oh sorry was that lascivious of me?

Related

Read more:
Finished with the Second Amendment Virginia Dems Now Attack the First (and Sixth) - Bacon's Rebellion