Legal Reform
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents from all across the country understand that our society has become litigious to an extreme degree. Texas has been active for years at improving this problem behind Texans for Lawuit Reform. Since 1994, TLR has worked to pass lawsuit reforms that have made the Lone Star State a model for the nation. TLR describes the problem best on their website "We are small business owners, homemakers, and community volunteers. We are lawyers who want our profession back, and plant managers who want our companies to expand facilities to create jobs for Texans. We are consumers who want to eliminate the wasteful "tort tax" from the products and services produced in Texas. We are ranchers and teachers who have anguished over needless lawsuits. We are doctors and nurses who have seen our colleagues abandon their chosen professions because of the emotional and financial toll imposed by legal assaults. We are the citizens of Texas who want a better future for ourselves and our children." The ability to bring suit for a grievance is an important right in America that must not be abused either from limitation to use or excessive use. Today it is excessive use. The Overcriminalization guide prepared by The Heritage Foundation is an eye opener.

Where do we draw the line?

from The Gray Area:
Massachusetts Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz announced the decision that Michelle Carter (20) was guilty of involuntary manslaughterin the suicide death of Conrad Roy, her boyfriend, for encouraging him to commit suicide through text messages. While the details of the case will certainly paint a picture of Ms Carter as a despicable human being, does this really amount to criminal behavior? Some say yes, obviously the judge, and some say no. Are criminalizing Ms Carter's actions a challenge to free speech? Where do we draw the line in such cases? Are any one of the examples below clearly criminal and must come with serious consequences including jail time?
  • Someone who yells 'fire' in a crowded theater?
  • Someone who yells 'bomb' in an airport?
  • Someone carrying a sign during a protest march that says 'kill cops'?
  • Someone telling another to 'kill themself'?
  • Or, political language that directly tells anyone watching or listening to kill Republicans' or 'kill the President'?
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but, here is my common sense view of where and how we should draw that line in our society. If someone yells 'fire' in a crowded theater it creates alarm, confusion and panic, people stampede to exits, and many are hurt, seriously injured and possibly die. Would this have happened if that person did not yell 'fire'? No, that person caused the result(s) to happen. They are clearly libel for their irresponsible actions. Someone who yells 'bomb' in an airport? Ditto. Clearly libel for their irresponsible actions. Someone carrying a sign during a protest march that says 'kill cops'? Not necessarily. There is no clear connection to anything from simply carrying a sign. Now if someone does kill cops, does this sign carrying attract more attention, yes it should. Does carrying these kind of signs even after such violence on a cop indicate an even more callous attitude toward killing cops - yes. Would police investigation of said sign holder be appropriate? Not necessarily. Only if some connection could be established between the sign carrier and the person who actually harmed a cop. The connection would have to be greater than we share the same political beliefs. It would need to be "I told him to do it'. Or, 'we are part of an organization that promotes violence against cops'. Etc. That brings me to this case and one other. In this case, Ms Carter has clearly standing on that line of connection with the suicide victim, her boyfriend. Equally as clearly, the suicide victim killed himself. Ms Carter did not 'pull the trigger' so to speak. But, did her irresponsible words and actions create the necessary impetuous for a vulnerable young man to kill himself. The judge says yes. Is this a free speech case? Can not Ms. Carter say harmful, hurtful things like 'you are a coward if you don't'? Seems like a simple dare, right? Happens everyday among kids and some adults. There is even a popular game called "Truth or Dare". The words alone a simply a dare. Action or lack thereof is the responsibility of the perpetrator. Given that the dared actions took place, Ms Carter does deserve some consequence for her actions, but is involuntary manslaughter and up to 20 years the right consequence? There must be greater evidence in this case to lead the judge to his decision and that sentence. There was. Her tone, her complete indifference, her involvement during the suicide, and her actions after Mr. Roy died. It may be the judge's sentencing will be far less than the max, which would make a difference in people's reactions to this case. Now, another current example. James Hodgkinson's ambush last week of Republican Congressmen & staff practicing for a charity baseball game.

We have learned that he was a active and staunch supporter of Bernie Sanders and parroted much of Bernie Sanders rhetoric and socialist philosophy with passion. Does Bernie Sanders, or the Democrat Party, or other left wing groups involved in the same narrative propaganda have any responsibility for Hodgkinson's crazed, violent act? No, not necessarily. But like the 'kill cops' scenario above, inciting violence, directly or indirectly should and will get attention drawn directly to you if what you are promoting actually occurs. In this case, statements and slogans like, "Terminate the Republican Party” and "It’s time to destroy Trump & co.", don't seem so innocent. How about after the shooting, a NJ Democrat strategist established twitter hashtags '#HuntRepublicanCongressman' and '#HuntRepublicans'? What about that? The consequences for Mr. Devine should be many. Such colossal insensitivity should leave him shunned by his friends and community. He should get a lot more attention from law enforcement to see if he is intentionally inciting violence against Republicans. And, the Democrat Party should immediate severe all ties with Mr. Devine. We will have to wait and see on that last point.

What about using crosshairs on a map targeting other party districts for increased competition in an upcoming election? This wild narrative was pushed by the leftist media to incriminate Republicans (specifically Sarah Palin) in the attack on Gabby Giffords. Both parties and most businesses use this technique in illustrating sales strategy. No connection there. If Ms. Carter sentence is simply 2 years and 5 years probation, then the consequences of this case would fit the crime. She carries a criminal conviction the rest of her life and some short term pain to let her think about the impact of her free speech words.

We need to be very careful when criminalizing speech. The left wants to criminalize speech against climate change, and eliminate counter arguments on college campuses. This is very dangerous stuff. Ms. Carter's conviction will be used as a step in the direction of criminalizing speech. This cannot happen!

With regard to Hodgkinson, the Democrats, their supporters and their compliant media should take this opportunity to change their ways and think about the impact of their demonizing language, lest a connection be established if this ambush lunacy continues. More From FoxNews:

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )