HB1159, the bill (“relative to cyberbullying, cyberstalking, and doxxing of a public servant”) that puts Legislators above the general public’s Right to Free Speech is back in play again after being tabled back (re: interim study) in March of the year.
I just got the news that the NH House’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee is going to be having a full Work session on it:
Date: 9/15/2020
Time: 10:00 am
Who: Full Committee Work Session
General Public: may attend using this Zoom link: https://www.zoom.us/j/94238069790
And they will be voting on the bill right afterward (“Executive Session”). The text of the bill is here and reproduced below.
To remind you, here are the Sponsors: Francesca Diggs (Prime Sponsor, D-Rumney), Janice Schmidt (D-Nashua), Debra Altschiller (D-Stratham), Sherry Frost (D-Dover), Nancy Murphy (D-Merrimack), and Wendy Thomas (D-Merrimack), Gaby Grossman (D-Exeter). Five of these folks we have written about in the past (Schmidt, Thomas, Frost, Murphy, Altschiller – just follow the links).
The government before the people
This is nothing more than using their positions of Power Inequality (if I may use the language of the Left for a moment) to achieve a political aim: shutting down dissent of their actions. And that would be us. Democrat Rep. Jan Schmidt made it clear in her testimony by, pretty much, referring only to GraniteGrok. No, not by name but certainly what we have written about what she said.
And THAT was my testimony when I followed her: we write about what these folks actually SAY, what these folks actually DO, which gets either our attention or some of our readers’ attention who then tip us off. I actually said “IF someone says stupid stuff, or does stupid stuff, we write about it. If they keep on doing it, we write even more.” I also elaborated and expanded on what Schmidt had said and filled in the chasms gaps that she so cute-fully left blank during her testimony.
And this is not, by the way, just about the ‘Grok. Every citizen in New Hampshire who would engage with any public official (that’s any public official) in any online capacity, would be or could be subject to the force in HB1159.
So, once again, we have to go to bat against those that seemingly believe that Rights are for little people (and that they are rather little Rights to boot).
Will the Committee kill it or put into Law the phrase “Government over People”?
Text of the bill:
STATE 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.
