“‘I don’t know what’s in that nut’s head. I would rather be safe than sorry’”

 

So says Pennsylvania’s Bob Brady who, in response to the Arizona shootings, plans to introduce a bill that would ban heated rhetoric and symbolism that, well, some interpretive community (presumably made up of those “reasonable people” who happen to be in power at any given time, having weighed all the pros and cons of determining how their ruling might payoff politically) determines is threatening.

Having myself been told that my offering to bring a tree to my own rhetorical hanging was concomitant with issuing a “death threat,” I can point first hand to the potential dangers of empowering some collection of motivated “interpreters” to decide what is or isn’t threatening — and then having law enforcement power to act on that policing of my speech.

“‘I don’t know what’s in that nut’s head. I would rather be safe than sorry’”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s