The effort to punish constituents online for saying things legislators decide they don’t like (HB1159) had its executive session yesterday.
Related: I am deeply honored to be the target of Democrat Sponsored speech suppressing legislation.
The bill, proposed by Democrats, Francesca Diggs, Janice Schmidt, Debra Altschiller, Sherry Frost, Nancy Murphy, and Wendy Thomas, creates a carve-out. A safe space. They retain the right to disagree while granting themselves the power to invoke the force of law whenever they decide they’ve had enough of you.
They are saying that is not the case. That there would have to be a patter. But there is no such language in the bill and even there were it would still be subjective. A matter easily distilled as I noted in my written testimony.
If you would not want this power in the hands of President Trump, then you had damn well not, under any circumstance, give it to yourselves.
Because while you feel like it may at this time serve some purpose that is, in reality, nothing more than personal interest (not for the good of the people), imagine that same power in the hands of your political opponents when you are the citizen and they are the public official.
The Executive session was yesterday, so what did the committee decide?
They assigned it to a subcommittee.
Someone seems to think that a bill that gives public officials rights constituents won’t have “needs some work.”
The only “work” HB1159 needs is for someone to light it on fire and toss it into a metal wastepaper basket.