Yesterday, Nashua Democrat Sonia Prince shared a picture of a map that, if her buddy Democrat Jan Schmidt’s bill were law, looks a lot like it might be breaking that law.
Jan co-sponsored legislation with five other New Hampshire Democrats to create a carve-out on social media to protect public officials and their families from whatever they decide is harassment, threatening, or doxxing.
I think we know how Sonia Prince feels about this; after all, she shared it.
This is free speech. It is also mildly amusing because it is ironic on several levels.
First, I don’t recall any Democrats complaining about then-President Barry Obama playing lots of golf, which he did. Nor did they tell Iran where to send the thank you card for the pallet of cash and freeing up billions to spend on global terrorism (a form of threatening).
Second, if we did this to any Democrat, it would be considered threatening even if for the benefit of actors less well-known for violence and global terror, like Iran.
We’d be doxxing, creating a threatening (or unsafe) environment, inspiring others to violence or hate, in violation of the proposed law sponsored by New Hampshire Democrats, Francesca Diggs, Janice Schmidt, Debra Altschiller, Sherry Frost, Nancy Murphy, and Wendy Thomas. A bill that would prevent sharing any publicly available information of public officials or public persons.
My point here is not that what Sonia Prince and other Nashua Democrats did by sharing this was not free speech. It is free speech. It is that the Democrat bill is a deliberate abuse for the specific purpose of punishing speech by political opponents or anyone they decide they do not like.
They want the state to decide and then allow lawsuits to proceed to chill the speech of everyone else.
And the absence of Mr. Trump’s name on the map is irrelevant. We know who she means.
The same way Merrimack Democrats claim they knew they were “targeted” even though the thing that they claim made them feel threatened had nothing to do with them, nor did a word of the attached text mention them, infer, or refer to them.
They decided that because we shared their voting records and public statements (see also – attacked them) that this was a threat. Not against anyone else we have mentioned in roughly 35,000 posts and articles but them.
And look! They are the ones trying to use government force to silence speech with which they disagree.
It is Democrats and the Left who refuse to denounce Antifa thugs for using violence to suppress people’s first amendment rights. Liberal college students are the people creating a safety risk to prevent speakers they disagree with from talking to other students on campus.
The biggest threat to liberty and peace comes from the left. A party in the US that is more comfortable aligning itself with the interests of a brutally violent regime like Iran. A nation that suppresses speech it opposes with soldiers and guns (government force) and sends money and weapons to terrorists around the world so they can suppress the ideas and lives of anyone they decide needs killing.
A threat of state action to silence dissenters.
And no, I don’t think sharing this map rises to aiding and abetting international terrorists, but how would they feel about their effort to suppress free speech in New Hampshire if it did?