Apparently some regressives think that if you offend someone you deserve to spend some time in the pokey. Now just writing this post would probably have me invited to the local lockup if I lived in Vernon County, Wisconsin.
Now while annoying, offensive people still have a First Amendment right to free speech, with in the bounds of as long as it is not incitement to immediate unlawful conduct, obscene, child pornography, a threat, or fighting words. That being said, Barack Obama’s latest weekly address was highly offensive, as most of what he stated was outright falsehoods, or lies as the “flyover people” call it. But these folks are implementing new “cyber-bullying” laws. Problem is that the have failed to make the laws about specific things and are thus vague in nature. So it leaves things to be handled like a judgement call from an NHL referee, whose motto is “Be consistently inconsistent.” Not something you want in a law that can cost you $50 to $500 fine — or, if the fine isn’t paid, up to 30 days in jail!
Putting First Amendment issues aside, the statute still fails to pass constitutional muster. For a criminal law to be constitutional, it must be written so that the average citizen can know what the law prohibits. If a law is too vague, it is void. This principle is appropriately called the “Void for Vagueness Doctrine.”
Does the Vernon County ordinance clearly state what conduct is prohibited? What does “annoy” mean? What does “offend” mean? What about “humiliate”? These things can mean different things to different people. As one commentator noted, the officials who implemented this law probably find criticism of the law offensive.
What if a person finds religious teachings offensive and an individual is constantly posting religious messages on his Facebook page?
When the ordinance was being debated, the lawyer in favor of the ordinance said specifically that this would apply to Facebook posts. When siblings or friends post unflattering pictures of each other on their Facebook walls, are they criminals? If it was done, as is often the case, with the intent to annoy or humiliate the other, under this law that person might be heading for the slammer.
This is the same old agenda from the “tolerant” regressive leftists. They are all for “free speech” as long as you agree with their myopic views on life, death and the hereafter. So the “Bill of Rights” seems to be under attack from the regressives. Be on guard… Freedom is not free. And just because Nancy Pelosi think we live in a Democracy shows how ignorant she truly is…. we live in a Republic! Let us always remember that.
Republican governments could be supported only by pure Religion or Austere Morals. Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. (John Adams, 1775.)