State Democrats Push Terrifying Anti-Speech Law Making Free Speech A Felony — GOP Leaders Raise The Alarm

New reports from Michigan have revealed that the state legislature is considering an alarming new bill. The proposed law under House Bill 4474 would, rather than protecting the marginalized, prove little more than a hammer to enforce progressive ideology.

As reported by The Detroit News' David Kallman, under the new law, a person is "guilty of a hate crime," if they should engage in intimidation or harassment, cause severe mental anguish, or use force against anyone based upon the expanded, protected categories of "including race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression." And and that's regardless of any other motivating factors.

The crux is in the phrase "regardless of the existence of any other motivating factors," which means that should a person peacefully speaking or protesting, cause "severe mental anguish," an incredibly subjective term, or intimidate or harass anyone, which again are both standards widely open to interpretation, they would be charged with a felony hate crime.

As Kallman correctly asserts, this presents a prima facie conflict with the U.S. Constitution and blatantly violates the First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion.  Not only is the Constitution clear in black and white here, but Supreme Court case law has already answered this question with the precedent of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943.

The ruling penned by Justice Robert Jackson, a Democrat appointee of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, states clearly,
 

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

The new Michigan bill, by enforcing utterly subjective standards on speech, action, and discourse with the vague pretenses of "intimidation," "harassment," and/or "causing severe mental anguish," forces the courts to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion" in accordance with the beliefs of the supposed "victim," in direct contradiction of the Supreme Court's ruling and the Constitution. 

There's a phrase for what this bill would invite that is woefully overused today: a witch-hunt, a test of ideological purity with the force of law behind it.

Kallman asks in his Op-Ed, " Where are the ACLU and other free speech advocates? Why are they not denouncing this bill?" and most importantly, "What does it mean to 'intimidate, harass or cause severe mental anguish' to another individual?"

He correctly asserts, 

"The statute focuses on the victim and his or her response, not on an actual criminal act. If the victim feels threatened, frightened, intimidated, etc., it makes no difference if the perpetrator did not intend to cause those feelings. You are still guilty of the crime because the victim felt “harassed." This is a ridiculously subjective standard."

The Michigan Republican Party, in a statement provided to the DC Enquirer by Communications Director Jonathon Dunne, laid out the hazard of House Bill 4474 clearly and concisely.  

"There are three compelling reasons why ALL Americans should stand against this legislation:

1. Language can be twisted by those seeking to silence their political opponents. Determining the true intent and meaning of speech is a daunting task. In our current political climate, where charges of racism, sexism, and xenophobia abound and where concepts such as white privilege are prevalent, we must consider carefully whether we wish to grant the government and courts the authority to judge our genuine motives.
2. This bill will make it imperative to exercise caution in EVERY conversation because you can be considered guilty of a crime for using words based on the sensitivity and the daily feelings of the person hearing them. Offenders may face a felony charge, leading to a fine of $2500, or a jail sentence of up to 2 years. Repeating the offense may result in a more substantial fine of up to $10000, or a jail sentence of up to 5 years.
3. On the bill's fourth page, harsher penalties and vicious attacks can exacerbate the situation. The judge is compelled to consider the impact of "offensive speech" not only on the victim but also on the wider community. This imposes a weighty responsibility on every utterance made in a world where anyone can become a potential target and is determined to resist the system."

According to the statement, Kristina Karamo, the leader of MIGOP, "wants to make it crystal clear to the American people that this is not a mere matter of political opposition. It's not about left versus right or Democrats versus Republicans. This is about morality - it's about what's right and what's wrong. The proposed bill poses a grave threat to the fundamental values of true liberalism and free speech and to independents, moderates, and conservative Americans who respect and cherish the Constitution."

The adoption of House Bill 4474 would create a horrifying regime of enforced, EVERYDAY censorship with the devastating force of law behind it and would effectively render the expression of any thought another might find offensive in Michigan illegal.

You can follow Matt Holloway on Facebook, Twitter, TruthSocial, Gettr, Gab & Parler.