They're coming to get me, hee hee, ha ha...

No, really, they are.

I'm serious.

You think I'm joking?

Not.

You have to read this one to believe it...

Democrat Proposes Jail Time for 'Hostile' Bloggers
We know that the government is becoming more and more audacious in its attempts to control our lives and regulate our speech and whatever it thinks we're thinking (see the newest iteration of the federal Hate Crimes law), so a new story from Wired should come as no surprise. Looks like Democratic Rep. Linda Sanchez, Calif., is ready to throw mean-old bloggers in the hoosegow.
http://townhall.com/blog/g/b719c095-9ae8-4eb4-a9f7-9e3911a527db

Prison Awaiting Hostile Bloggers
Proposed congressional legislation would demand up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to “coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/prison-awaiting-hostile-bloggers/

As a friend of mine commented, who defines hostile?

One person's hostile is another person's humor is another person's stupid.

Are the Democrats going to define hostile? lawyers? politicians? ministers? atheists? environmentalists? the military? gun owners? your mother?

Lest you think that this doesn't pertain to you, think again. The bill (HR 1966) doesn't just pick on bloggers. Oh no, it's fair in its unfairness. It includes email, telephones, instant messaging, text messages and website. Yep, if you are hostile (however someone might define it) via any device using electronic means, you could be jailed for up to two, count 'em, two years.

Can you imagine going to jail for two years and not having access to your cell phone, computer or telephone? Talk about hostile.

If you "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person”, per the bill, off you go to the pokey.

What is it with Democrats and free speech? What happened to all the peace, love and freedom loving types from the 60s and 70s? Did they take sour pills? Free speech has come to mean speech that I like and can agree with wholeheartedly. I can yell, but you can't. I can tear you down but you can't reciprocate.

Remember "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me"? Seems that we've become so sensitive and wimpy that words are worse than sticks or stones.

What's next? Thought crimes? Oh, wait, we may already be there. I haven't gotten into the issue much, but there are some who wonder why beating up a person of another race or sexual preference is worse than beating up someone who's of the same race or sexual persuasion.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and friends want to shut down talk radio because they don't like what's being said. Now a fellow Democrat wants to go after bloggers. Just how long do you think it'll be before we're living in some Orwellian nightmare world once we start down the road Sanchez and her ilk are trying to shove us?

I don't like hate-speech, harassment, nastiness any more than the next person. However, I defy anyone to find a definition that the majority of us can agree upon. I also think we're getting really, really stupid with this stuff.

Oh man, I think that comment might have been somewhat hostile. Cuff me, I'm a cyberbully.

Here's part of the bill:

SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.
(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:`Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.`(b) As used in this section--
`(1) the term `communication' means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and`
(2) the term `electronic means' means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'

Time for the media to flex its' muscles?

Yesterday I watched Mr. Obama and Timothy Geithner give an overview of the restrictions they were placing on companies taking TARP funds. (Just so you know, in the fine print of those restrictions is a bit that says something along the lines of "we can exempt anyone if we choose"). It struck me as odd that immediately after speaking, Obama and Geithner turned on their heels and walked away without answering any media questions. I understand that sometimes they don't and usually the media is told beforehand. However, the thought flitted through my mind that Obama had pledged open access, change and all that stuff. It seemed that he was shutting out the media.

More and more stories are coming out about how Mr. Obama is using the media and / or going around the media. I predict that if he keeps it up, there is going to be a media backlash. In fact, all the news that's creeping out and then blossoming hugely (cabinet pick problems, stories on his perks in office, etc.) may be a sign of the media flexing its muscles.

Here are a couple of stories that I found interesting this morning:

(I only include this story because of the first paragraph... if you read the story, it is written by someone who is firmly in Obama's camp, best case of outright, blatant bias I've seen in a few days.)
Obama to enlist local GOP in stimulus fight
The irony of President Barack Obama’s Blue Tuesday is that the wall-to-wall television interviews he granted were designed not to apologize for Tom Daschle’s fall from grace but to fight back against the Republicans’ success in tarnishing his stimulus package.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6247503.html

White House Cheat Sheet: Bypassing the Media Filter
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama and his team learned a very important lesson that they are seeking to put into practice in the White House: the power of the media is overrated.
Time and again during the campaign, Obama used his burgeoning grassroots army -- now more than 13 million email addresses strong -- to push out the message that he wanted to dominate the day rather than the message the media was focused on.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/02/white_house_cheat_sheet_around.html?hpid=topnews

Obama poised to be first 'wired' president
(CNN) -- As the first president-elect with a Facebook page and a YouTube channel, Barack Obama is poised to use the Internet to communicate directly with Americans in a way unknown to previous presidents. Judging by Obama's savvy use of social-networking sites during his campaign and the interactive nature of his transition team's Web site, Americans can expect a president who bypasses the traditional media's filters while reaching out to citizens for input, observers say.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/15/obama.internet.president/index.html

On one level, I like the idea of our elected officials going straight to the public, bypassing all the hype and bias of the media. However, if all we get is one side, then that's not a good thing either. What elected official is going to send out an email saying "here's how this will destroy life as you know it" or any negative points of view on their proposals (unless it's to rebut negatives)? We need opposing views.

There's another scary side to this one, too. There are a lot of people concerned about the direction this administration is heading in regards to free speech. The "Fairness Doctrine", which targets talk radio, will ostensibly shut down one large opposition view media. Does anyone really think it will stop with talk radio?

The media needs to flex fast or it's possible they won't be able to work their muscles at some point.