Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Markey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Markey. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

If Markey/Jeffries Bill Passes, Only Politically Correct Speech Will Be Allowed! Dangerous Bill

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
If two Democratic lawmakers have their way, Barack Obama’s Justice Department will submit a report for action against any Internet sites, broadcast, cable television or radio shows determined to be advocating or encouraging “violent acts.”
This according to the text of a new bill from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes,” stated a news release from Markey’s office.
The one-page bill, reviewed by WND, calls for the Justice Department and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to “analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”
The bill does not define which actions by broadcasters would be considered to have encouraged violence, seemingly leaving that open to interpretation.
Once the report is compiled, the bill calls for “any recommendations” for action “consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States” that is determined to be an “appropriate and necessary” way to address the purported encouragement of violent acts.
The Boston Herald took issue with the bill, calling it “frankly chilling” that Markey is seeking to “empower an obscure federal agency to begin scouring the Internet, TV and radio for speech it finds threatening.”
“Perhaps he could crack a briefing book on the crisis in Ukraine rather than looking for his own extra-constitutional methods of punishing speech he finds unacceptable,” added the Herald editorial.
With additional research by Joshua Klein.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

When Hate Speech Is Banned, All Speech Is Imperiled. What Is Hate To You, May Be My Opinion!

Sharia in America: Democrats and Muslim Legislators seek to criminalize free speech

Pam Geller - Atlas Shrugs

There is very dangerous legislation making its way through both the House of Representatives and Senate that will finish the United States. The sharia bill calls for Islamic blasphemy laws — the criminalization of speech that offends or insults — who, exactly? Well, that is up to the enforcer, is it not?
On Wednesday, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced “The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014″ (S.2219), which seeks “to examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes.” Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) introduced a companion bill in the House – H.R. 3878.
Yes, we see, Hakeem. The first amendment protects all speech, not just speech that we like. Or else who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? Hakeem? When I was a young girl, the Nazis were given permission to march in a predominately Jewish neighborhood. In those days, Nazi meant something. Morality was still very much in the American DNA. Good and evil was understood — unlike today, where the left has banished such terms. Despite the horror of a Nazi march, they were given permission, and those of us who were repelled by such a monstrous action understood why permission was granted  because of the underlying premise — free speech. I didn’t worry that their Nazi ideas would take hold, as long as I could speak and others could speak in the free exchange of ideas. I knew I would win because my ideas were better. Individual rights was the greatest achievement of the enlightened.
Now we are here. Our free speech is threatened by islamic supremacists and their Democrat lapdogs under the guise of “hate speech.” The old “hate speech” canard. They will package this revolution against freedom in a pretty package — and will use the Max Blumenthal-inspired racist murderer,  Glenn Miller. But do not be fooled.
It’s bad enough they have all but blacklisted the voices of freedom from media, political and national discourse. Shouting into the wilderness is not freedom of speech.
What next? Burning books? Perhaps just as long as it’s not the quran. And yet there is more hate speech in the quran than in Mein Kampf.
The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) is sharia. Start calling your congressmen (click here). Now. Put down everything. Do this. This is the line in the sand. If we lose this, it’s over.
Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Introduce Legislation To Examine and Prevent the Promotion of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech in Media, April 16, 2014
Sen. Markey is author of the original provision calling for examination of telecommunications influence on hate crimes.
Boston (April 16, 2014) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, introduced legislation to examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes. The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes.
In 1992, then-Rep. Markey, through the Telecommunications Authorization Act, directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to examine the role of telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes. Senator Markey’s legislation will provide a comprehensive updated report on the current prevalence of hate crimes and hate speech in telecommunications, as the last report was conducted and submitted to Congress over two decades ago, in December 1993. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3878.
“We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel in the United States, which is why it is critical to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment,” said Senator Markey. “Over 20 years have passed since I first directed the NTIA to review the role that telecommunications play in encouraging hate crimes. My legislation would require the agency to update this critical report for the 21st century.”
“The Internet has proven to be a tremendous platform for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. However, at times it has also been used as a place where vulnerable persons or groups can be targeted,” said Rep. Jeffries. “I commend Senator Markey for his longstanding leadership with respect to combating Hate Crimes in America. He understands that in the digital era it is important to comprehensively evaluate the scope of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of First Amendment protection. With the introduction of Senator Markey’s bill, we have taken a substantial step toward addressing this issue.”
“I thank Senator Markey for his career-long commitment to ensuring that we have the data necessary to confront and combat hate speech in the media that targets our most vulnerable communities,” said President & CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition Alex Nogales. “NHMC has long-recognized that an update to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s 1993 report, ‘The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes’, is long overdue and desperately needed given the incredible evolution of our communications systems over the past 21 years as well as the ever-increasing numbers of hate crimes targeting Latinos and others. As the author of the original piece of legislation directing the 1993 report, there is nobody better than Senator Markey to join Congressman Hakeem Jeffries and others in calling on the NTIA to study this pressing issue once again.”

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Smart Guns Are A Dumb Idea. Another Backdoor Attempt To Ban All Guns.

Sen. Cornyn Slams Eric Holder's Push for 'Smart Guns'

Image: Sen. Cornyn Slams Eric Holder's Push for 'Smart Guns'
Monday, 21 Apr 2014 02:27 PM
By Drew MacKenzie
Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas has fired off a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding answers about his plan for a $2 million congressional study on "smart guns."

In Holder's testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee last week, he said the smart gun research is part of a $382 million government package to pay for a "gun safety" program, according to The Daily Caller.

The futuristic firearms would work only through fingerprint identification or by technology that allows only the owner to pull the trigger when connected to an accompanying electronic bracelet, or by wristwatch, as is the case with the 22-caliber, 10-round Armatix iP1, which is available now.

Cornyn, the Senate Minority Whip, wrote in his letter that Holder's plan for potentially forcing people to carry smart guns conflicted with the constitutional rights of Americans.

The letter said, "Your testimony has raised serious concerns for my constituents given President Obama's track-record of acting beyond the scope of his legal authority and your hostility to the individual right to self-defense under the Second Amendment."

Cornyn wanted assurances that the Justice Department would not issue regulations that would mean Americans would have to equip their firearms with costly fingerprint-reading technology or have to link them to biometric bracelets.

The National Rifle Association said it was opposed to any government mandate requiring the use of smart guns, warning that they open the door to a ban on all firearms that do not possess the technology, The Daily Caller reported.

In February, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey said he planned to introduce a controversial bill requiring all handguns sold in the United States to be fitted with smart-gun technology while older guns would have to be retrofitted within three years.

Related Stories:

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Want A Drone--Now You Must Have It Registered. Is This A Violation Of Our Rights Or Should We Be Concerned With Privacy Issues? We Are Troubled By The Law Enforcement Provisions.

Senate Legislation Introduced To Deal With Expected Onslaught Of Domestic Drones

November 5, 2013 by  
Legislation introduced in the Senate this week would add mandatory privacy controls and transparency provisions to existing legislation meant to guide the United States into an era of widespread government and commercial domestic drone use.
Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has offered the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act in a bid to— among other things— require warrants for law enforcement use of drones and limit commercial data collection.
Markey’s legislation would also prohibit the FAA from issuing drone permits to applicants unless the license application “includes a data collection statement that explains who will operate the drone, where the drone will be flown, what kind of data will be collected, how that data will be used, whether the information will be sold to third parties, and the period for which the information will be retained.”
With regard to law enforcement, Markey also seeks to require government agencies and their contractors to “include an additional data minimization statement that explains how they will minimize the collection and retention of data unrelated to the investigation of a crime.”
In an effort to expand transparency, Markey’s bill would also create a public website listing drone license approvals and details about planned data collection efforts using unmanned aerial vehicles.
The bill includes an exception for the provisions requiring warrants for law enforcement use of drones in events where there is imminent risk of death or serious injury or if the Nation is under attack by terrorists.
The FAA is currently developing domestic drone use laws by order of a 2012 mandate. While over 400 drone licenses have already been issued by the agency, the agency is working to have the guidelines fully in place by 2015.
Conservative estimates say that within the next five years, there could be upwards of 7,500 commercial drones in U.S. airspace.
“Bills like the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013 assure that Americans’ privacy won’t go extinct in the 21st century,” Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union said of Markey’s bill. “It is vital that we have comprehensive rules in place so that new technologies like drones are used in a responsible manner by both companies and the government before they blanket the skies.”