I have written this more than once. Under no circumstance do I want Democrat House Member Janice Schmidt to be silenced. I’ve never said it, nor have I attempted to facilitate it. But in her written testimony on HB1159, and elsewhere, she says this and a few other things we should address.
For the record (again), Democrats speaking freely is by far the single best argument for liberty. Period. No one who writes here or reads here should ever do anything to discourage Democrats from saying what they think about anything, anywhere.
Second (again), if you are engaging in harassing or threatening behavior toward anyone, we write about that’s on you. We do not encourage that or condone it. We’ve said it before but I’m making that clear again. We do not write about violence or suppressing anyone’s speech or natural rights. We defend them equally, even when they use that right to say silly things of which they have no actual knowledge.
We have also asked anyone who thinks that actual threats against them are a result of our work to share names, screenshots or emails. I have personally offered to expose these people on our pages for them. No one to date has taken us up on the offer. It still stands.
Which brings me to my third point. Ms. Schmidt has said that she does not read GraniteGrok (see also, “that hate site”). Several of the Women legislators whom she claims we have “attacked” do not either. Had they bothered to read it, they would be familiar with all of my points above.
They would also be able to share the so-called hate from the so-called hate site using pull quotes, screengrabs, something called actual evidence. Even out of context pull quotes. We love those. But no, they just say it is hate or an attack, and expect you to believe it. Then they propose legislation to violate our first amendment rights.
Jan, you cast votes on legislation that will affect everyone in the state. HB1159 for example, would not just apply to content you decide is cyberbullying from your district.
Point four, on your Facebook page, you alert persons who want to comment from outside your district that if you don’t like what they have to say (meaning if you decide they are disrespectful) you will block them. HB1159 would affect everyone in the state. (GraniteGrok is not in your district, nor is its hardware or any of its authors.) But you would exercise legislative power over people outside your district while promising to selectively block them because they don’t like how you use that power.
I, therefore, advise you to be careful about blocking people on your political Facebook page because you think they are being uncivil or are not from your district. There is Circuit Court legal precedent here (that has a very different view of what it means to be disrespectful) and that policy might get you into trouble with the law.
One more point. I’ve recently received a Facebook thread that makes it sound like we attacked Jan’s daughter online and that she is a minor. The implication being that we attack minors online by sharing their pictures. For those who are new to the game, Jan’s adult daughter threatened one of our female contributors using “electronic communications.” That’s the only reason we even knew she had a daughter.
In other words, Jan is misleading constituents.
Jan has lied about us being a hate site, lied about us hating women, lied about Rep’s having police protection because of us, and has been misleading about the context of our use of her daughter’s image. Her digital communications about us have led to others using that information to threaten to doxx one of our female contributors.
Jan is free to lie all she wants online, about us, we really don’t care (we write about it), but sooner or later someone might care and she’ll need that lawyer she says she can’t afford.