|
|
Massachusetts
Schools Anti Bullying Bill, Reaches Outside of The Schools
Into The Whole of
Society
03/11/10
- In an early morning email from Brian Camenker of www.MassResistance.org, I learned of yet another
first by the state of Massachusetts. It wasn't enough to be the
first state that, though be-it illegally, legalized homosexual
marriage. Now the state wants to illegally silence people from
speaking out against homosexuals. And the state is attempting to do
so, via a public school anti bullying bill. (See below.)
The
bill threatens a thousand dollar fine and up to one year
imprisonment, for anyone who the state finds to have with
malicious intent promoted hatred of any group of persons,
by way of any type of published material. --This includes the
internet. Whatever happened to detention! And whatever happened to
keeping public school rules, within the
schools!
The
way that this bill is written, not only gives the state the
unconstitutional "okay" to put a public school student in jail
for a year and to fine the student a thousand dollars, it gives
that same unconstitutional "okay" to the state to reach out into the
general public and do such to any citizen in the state. Last I
knew, Massachusetts was one of the fifty states of the United States
of America and bound to the laws of the U.S.
Constitution.
The first amendment gives all U.S. citizens the
freedom of speech. And the 14th amendment says "no state shall
make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States." The same amendment
guarantees that all states must give "equal protection of the laws."
Hence, not only is it illegal for Massachusetts to make a law that
would infringe on a person's free speech; it would be illegal to
protect one group of people, over another group. --You see,
some of us are just born this way, in that we have this innate need
to speak the truth, in the way that we see it. And it is not up to a
state to deem our words that we believe are truth, to be purposely
told lies or illegal to be said.
The bill speaks of
"libel." Libel is a knowingly false statement, being
made that is made with intent to harm another
person's name. Not only is such very hard to prove, it has to be
directed to a specific person or persons, by name or
names. Libel is not something said about a type of
person or persons. Yet the wording of the bill, leaves an opening
for it to pertain to a type of persons. The U.S.
Constitution gives us a right to speak out against any type
of person or
persons.
The reason
"libel" is so hard to prove, is because a prosecutor has to prove
that the defendant, knew that he was passing on a false statement
and that he had intent to cause harm to another person's name.
The burden of proof would be on the plaintiff, which in
Massachusetts would now be the state, if this bill were to pass into
law. The plaintiff would have to prove that the defendant had
"intent to maliciously" promote, yada yada yada. And it is
impossible to prove such, unless there is irrefutable evidence that
the defendant actually admitted to such. Otherwise, it is nothing
more than claims that could actually be seen as libel against the
defendant.
But this
bill is not even speaking of true libel cases, in that the bill is
speaking of "groups of persons," not any person or persons by
name(s). It is speaking a type of persons, and a true libel case
cannot be brought against a person on the accusation of the
promotion of hatred of the whole of a type of persons in
society. There has to be a plaintiff or plaintiffs who "by
name" were spoken of and truly harmed by true libel
speech. Anything else is just ludicrous and absolutely
unconstitutional, as it infringes on our freedom of speech to speak
out agaisnt any type of people who we so choose to
speak against.
America
would not be the land of the free, if people lost their freedom to
speak out against any type of people. Had homosexuals not had the
right to speak out against, those of us who they call "homophobics,"
many of them would be in jail today. And by all accounts, they would
have to stop that, under this bill. That or Massachusetts would not
be giving equal protection under a law (an unconstitutional
law.)
This bill is not only attempting to rewrite the meaning
of libel cases, it is attempting to make criminal cases
out of them. Even true libel cases have always been civil cases
that plaintiffs had to hire and pay for their own legal
assistance in order to bring about such cases. This
bill would basically free people up from having to use
their own money for legal assistance, by using the tax-payers' money
in what would be criminal cases. I had no idea that
Massachusetts had all that extra money floating around its state
budget to spend on what would amount to countless and
endless new criminal court
cases.
Do Massachusetts tax
payers know about this
yet?
