UPDATE II – the bill has been sent to Interim Study by a vote of 14-6. I’m betting that we had, at least, some influence on that vote. I’m REALLY willing to bet that NH State Rep Jan Schmidt and Deb Steven’s collective utterances about others had much more to do with it. Instead of ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) vote, this was a “kinder” vote to sponsors. While NH State Rep Dave Testerman says that this vote effectively kills it, “further study” could make make a zombie of it and return for next session.
I’m told by another source that Rep Meuse said that “treating legislators as a protected class is “highly problematic”. My source said “Ya think?”. My immediate reaction upon reading that was “My God – not a complete rejection right from the get go???”. Add this:
Majority per Meuse wants to “take a look at the harassment statute” (?rsa 644) and “make sure it’s completely up to date,” as well as consult with experts on #1A law like – wait for it – ACLU.
My response to that was:
With what you’ve said, I’m betting Meuse will try to bring the dead back to life next year. What the heck does “up to date” even mean? And given what the ACLU has finally admitted to becoming (Democrat mouthpiece with 4 letters), who can think of what horrors that would be?
But it is dead for now – thank Heaven for small wonders (and for Big Flashlights). Thanks to all our readers, friends in the legislature, and the correct thinking Reps on the committee that killed this Free Speech infringing bill.
UPDATED and Bumped: So, I just heard from one of the Reps on the Committee: I am a Criminal Justice Committee member and I didn’t receive your email on Schmidt.
I read your article [this one -Skip] and will be at a committee hearing today. BTW…. Rep Cushing I understand is vice chair of the Bernie campaign which I understand is Schmidt is a Bro.
Learned a lesson – next time, I’ll email them all separately instead of just using the Committee address. I have also been “tipped” this:
<redacted> says it looks like Schmidt yanked the doxxing post and thread after yesterday. Your letter to the committee probably earned her a phone call and a “helpful hint.” But hey, it can live forever on the ‘Grok.
Are the two connected? I don’t know for sure but it certainly seems that NH State Rep Jan Schmidt may well have become another instance of NH State Rep Deb Stevens (she of “all the Trump Supporters will start another Civil War if he loses). All I can say is “Aren’t screen captures glorious?“. Neither one of these Socialists have figured out that the Internet NEVER forgets – and we’re happy to be part of the Streisand Effect here in NH.
What I do know is that this bill will be in Executive Session around noon today. Unfortunately, due to TMEW’s upcoming surgery and need for tests to be done, I can’t make it. If you are there, email me the results, please?<
I always read GraniteGrok first thing in the morning as some of the Groksters start writing before I get going in the morning and this morning was no different. So, I read Steve’s post on NH State Rep Jan Schmidt.
Unlike others, I’m not surprised at all at the hypocrisy in her actions of being a sponsor of HB1159, her testimony on it, how she left out important details of her past actions, and now her current actions. All leading to the conclusion that she believes there are rules and laws for us and another set for others. And given that I screen-capped the relevant parts of her NH House page about her doxxing a private citizen. It’s how she rolls.
So, I have just emailed all of the members of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee because I am QUITE sure that Jan Schmidt would never tell them what she has done. Never – it despoils her Narrative of being as white as the driven snow in all things swirling around Jan Schmidt (a constant victim and never the perp). Here it is:
I was the gentleman that testified after NH State Rep Jan Schmidt concerning HB1159 and pointed out that she was not open and transparent in her testimony. In support of my emphasis, I wish to add the following to my testimony which just happened:
Prime Democrat Sponsor of Anti-Doxxing Bill is Doxxing
Representative Janice Schmidt (D -Nashua) is the prime sponsor of a bill that would make it a crime if you engaged with public officials electronically and they decided you are a cyberbully. Sharing an email or phone number would be doxxing. But not when they do it. And they do it.
And they are proud to do it.
Rep. Schmidt says she received an unflattering message from someone. We only have her word on that at this point, which is not worth much but for this exercise let us assume she is correct. Some dope was “a rude and quite sucky individual.”
Perhaps he said it was time to end her, or threatened to doxx Ms. Schmidt the way Ms. Schmidt’s family and political allies have done to others. We do not know. What we do know is that the response from the sponsor of the anti-doxxing legislation to protect the ruling class was to publicly post that phone number on her state rep Facebook page.
I have also taken screenshots of that part of her page; please see the attached images to this email. In them is the evidence that she did exactly what she considers verboten (e.g., doxxing), and then when confronted with that action, attempts to spin a narrative that it wasn’t her fault and that she should not be held accountable for doxxing.
Once again, due to the motives of the sponsors, I ask that this bill be voted as Inexpedient to Legislate on the premise that this will be used to stifle free speech and freedom of the press.
Here are the screen-caps:
That last part – a big part of her modus operandi over the years – do something stupid or bad, and then try to make a victim of herself in order to cover her actions up. It’s NEVER her fault, don’t you see?
And let me remind you of her testimony:
(Video H/T: Beth)