BUMPED and UPDATED: The hearing is still set for tomorrow at the time below. The Executive Session (when the Committee will be voting on the bill). Remember, this is retribution for the coverage we’ve been doing the last couple of years, especially on some of the sponsors of the bill.
BUMPED: Again, I’m hoping that as many of the Groksters and our friends will come out to the hearing. It’s a lot to ask – y’all have jobs!
The actual title of the bill is this: “relative to cyberbullying, cyberstalking, and doxxing of a public servant.”
Date: Wednesday, 1/29
Time: 10:45 am
Place: LOB Room 204 (that’s Legislative Office Building right behind the State House)
A Bleg: we need those of you who support GraniteGrok to show up at this hearing if you possibly can! IMHO, this is retribution for the coverage we’ve been doing the last couple of years. If you are just a casual reader, a loyal reader; a House Rep or a Senator that believes in what we do (even if we have zeroed in on you from time to time ;^) ), please come out and support us.
What is it that we do on a regular basis? Yeah, we figuratively go after elected politicians (and bureaucrats) who just can’t seem to not say stupid things or not do stupid things. Either we see it or people tell us what has transpired and whodunnit. And you all know that we don’t care what initial, R or D or I or S or C, comes after your name; you violate the precepts of the NH / US Constitution or the Conservative Planks of the NH GOP Platform, we’ll be talking about you. And if you keep doing it, we’ll keep doing it a lot.
Which has severely torqued a number of people. In fact, I’m betting you tell which ones if you read the sponsors of the bill. I’ll even make it easy for you:
Rep. Diggs, Graf. 16; NH State Rep. Jan Schmidt, Hills. 28; NH Rep. Wendy Thomas, Hills. 21; NH State Rep. Sherry Frost, Straf. 16; NH State Rep. Debra Altschiller, Rock. 19; Rep. Grossman, Rock. 18
I’m surprised – missing in action is NH State Rep Deb Stevens (perhaps the purported spanking by NH House Speaker Steve “Deputy Dawg” Shurtleff gave made her decide not to sign on). Anyways, all of the bolded ones have appeared in GraniteGrok in the past and doubtlessly again in the future. But this bill was crafted, it seems, to shut us up or shut us down. No regard to Free Speech or Freedom of the Press. Or just plain criticism (even with a dollop or few of snark). All of it based on “feelings”.
When all is said and done, look at the wording – it’s all based on the feelings of someone that seems to be put upon – or looking for payback:
HB 1159-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2020 SESSION
20-2194
04/08HOUSE BILL 1159-FN
AN ACT relative to cyberbullying, cyberstalking, and doxxing of a public servant.
SPONSORS: Rep. Diggs, Graf. 16; Rep. J. Schmidt, Hills. 28; Rep. W. Thomas, Hills. 21; Rep. Frost, Straf. 16; Rep. Altschiller, Rock. 19; Rep. Grossman, Rock. 18
COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety
—————————————————————————
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes a criminal penalty for cyberbullying, cyberstalking, or doxxing of a public servant.
Are we really cyberbullies, or cyberstalk, or go out of our way to find information to dox “public servants”? Not by any normal definitions of those words. But as you know, the Left has been redefining our language to fit their ideology so anything is at risk. Notice the protections they are giving themselves. What about the reverse, when public servants or elected officials take advantage of their positions in doing the same to private / private sector individuals (like when Jan Schmidt lied about GraniteGrok)?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
20-2194
04/08STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty
AN ACT relative to cyberbullying, cyberstalking, and doxxing of a public servant.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Obstructing Government Administration. Amend RSA 642:1 to read as follows:
642:1 Obstructing Government Administration.
I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if that person uses intimidation, actual or threatened force or violence, simulated legal process, cyberstalking or cyberbullying, doxxing, or engages in any other unlawful conduct with a purpose to hinder or interfere with a public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, performing or purporting to perform an official function or to retaliate for the performance or purported performance of such a function.
II. Flight by a person charged with an offense, refusal by anyone to submit to arrest, or any such interference in connection with a labor dispute with the government shall be prosecuted under the statutes governing such matters and not under this section.
III. In this section[,]:
(a) “Cyberbullying” means the repeated and intentional use of a cell phone, computer, or other electronic communication device for the purpose of harassing or threatening a public servant.
(b) “Cyberstalking” means:
(1) Purposely, knowingly, or recklessly engaging in a course of conduct using a cell phone, computer, or other electronic communication device targeted at a public servant which would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that person’s immediate family, and the public servant is actually placed in such fear;
(2) Purposely or knowingly engages in a course of conduct using a cell phone, computer, or other electronic communication device targeted at a public servant, which the actor knows will place that individual in fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that individual’s immediate family.
(c) “Doxxing” means recklessly or purposely revealing and publicizing any private or personally identifiable information of a public servant for the purpose of threatening, intimidating, or harassing such person in the course of his or her official duties.
(d) “Simulated legal process” means a document or order which purports to have been issued by a court or filed or recorded for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction or representing a claim against a person or property, or for the purpose of directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal, or to perform or refrain from performing a specified act, but which the actor knows was not lawfully issued or rendered in accordance with the applicable statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances of the federal, state, or local government, or a political subdivision thereof. “Simulated legal process” includes any document that purports to be a summons, lien, indictment, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order.IV. For any offense committed under paragraph I that involved the use of simulated legal process, the court may impose the following remedies, in addition to any criminal penalties authorized under RSA 651:
(a) Such appropriate injunctive relief as the court may deem necessary to prevent continued violations of this section.
(b) Restitution to the public [official] servant for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the simulated legal process, including legal fees.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2021.
LBAO
20-2194
10/24/19
Look at all of the BOLDED items and then remember what Jan Schmidt lied about – that our writing about the four Democrat female state reps so upset them they felt harassed enough they sought police protection from the Merrimack Police. Who, after being served with an RSA 91:a demand for the truth, the police say “Nope”. And then she started the process of CYA.
But if you see “Purposely, knowingly,…threatening, intimidating, or harassing…in fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that individual’s immediate family” above, that fits Schmidt’s allegation (lying though it may be). The problem is that even with that, getting hauled into court to defend ourselves still means a win for them – I’m retired and I don’t have the funds to mount a defense especially if they decided to stretch it out (like what Michael Mann is doing to both Mark Steyn and National Review). A win for them. Simple for being elected officials and a sense of payback that they’re writing for themselves.
And the immediate family part certainly fits what Jan Schmidt did to us – even as she refused to follow our stand procedure for removing things from GraniteGrok, she made the play to our hosting company to shut us down because we didn’t take down a picture of her grown up adult daughter (who herself wrote words that were taken to threaten someone from Nashua).
And (C) is rather interesting – the Legislature’s own website lists the personal information of each and every Representative and Senator. Are you to mean that if GraniteGrok re-posted it in an advocacy post (as in “Contact these Reps and let them know how you feel about this issue”), we’d be a target? This has the possibility of going sideways, not only for us but others as well, rather quickly.
This needs to get ITL’d (Inexpedient to Legislate).
