Roll call! S265, criminal threatening bill passes House
S 265, expanding criminal threatening to include threats to third persons, passed with an amendment in the State House of Representatives April 12, by a vote of 89-32.
Purpose: The underlying language of S.265 would allow for the legal punishment of citizens who threaten public officials.
A citizen prosecuted under S.265 could be sentenced to up to two years. A fine between $1000 and $2000 is also in play.
The key language in section 1.f of the bill states, "A person who violates subsection (a) of this section with the intent to terrify, intimidate, or unlawfully influence the conduct of a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or public employee in any decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion taken in capacity as a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or public employee, or with the intent to retaliate against a … for any previous action taken in capacity as a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or public employee, shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $2,000.00, or both." Additionally, S.265 makes it more difficult for a defendant's legal defense to claim that the defendant was unable to carry out their threat.
The Notte Amendment adds sexual assault to the Senate's list of illegal conduct, and reorders section of S.265 to make more logical sense.
Analysis: Those voting YES believe that the increased levels of conflict between citizens and school board members and other public official across the country, particularly in regard to Critical Race Theory (CRT) and controversial Covid policies, warrants increased protections for elected officials from threats of violence, above those of ordinary citizens. In Vermont, they point to recent allegations of threats to legislators, election officials, healthcare workers, neighbors of shooting ranges and women of color in Vermont. Protecting the 'victim' from further attacks could give the courts license to remove an individual's firearms.
Those voting NO believe S.265 infringes on the Constitutional rights to free speech and to petition government for redress of grievances. S.265 could potentially result in citizens being punished for criticism (rather than actual threats) of certain groups, which is clearly protected speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The ACLU of Vermont chose not to endorse S.265, warning lawmakers that an earlier version of S.265 could be applied too broadly and chill "certain forms of political hyperbole." Vermont law enforcement already has the authority to deal with truly violent threats. Officials chose not to prosecute recent threats under current, which suggests a conscious decision by officials, rather than a failure of Vermont law. S.265 could also give the courts more freedom to violate an individual's 2nd Amendment rights by removing an individual's firearms while the case is being processed.
Please go to Vermont Daily Chronicle to learn more.
A citizen prosecuted under S.265 could be sentenced to up to two years. A fine between $1000 and $2000 is also in play.
The key language in section 1.f of the bill states, "A person who violates subsection (a) of this section with the intent to terrify, intimidate, or unlawfully influence the conduct of a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or public employee in any decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion taken in capacity as a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or public employee, or with the intent to retaliate against a … for any previous action taken in capacity as a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or public employee, shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $2,000.00, or both." Additionally, S.265 makes it more difficult for a defendant's legal defense to claim that the defendant was unable to carry out their threat.
The Notte Amendment adds sexual assault to the Senate's list of illegal conduct, and reorders section of S.265 to make more logical sense.
Analysis: Those voting YES believe that the increased levels of conflict between citizens and school board members and other public official across the country, particularly in regard to Critical Race Theory (CRT) and controversial Covid policies, warrants increased protections for elected officials from threats of violence, above those of ordinary citizens. In Vermont, they point to recent allegations of threats to legislators, election officials, healthcare workers, neighbors of shooting ranges and women of color in Vermont. Protecting the 'victim' from further attacks could give the courts license to remove an individual's firearms.
Those voting NO believe S.265 infringes on the Constitutional rights to free speech and to petition government for redress of grievances. S.265 could potentially result in citizens being punished for criticism (rather than actual threats) of certain groups, which is clearly protected speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The ACLU of Vermont chose not to endorse S.265, warning lawmakers that an earlier version of S.265 could be applied too broadly and chill "certain forms of political hyperbole." Vermont law enforcement already has the authority to deal with truly violent threats. Officials chose not to prosecute recent threats under current, which suggests a conscious decision by officials, rather than a failure of Vermont law. S.265 could also give the courts more freedom to violate an individual's 2nd Amendment rights by removing an individual's firearms while the case is being processed.
Please go to Vermont Daily Chronicle to learn more.
________
More from the Bolshevik state of Vermont:
This is why politicians don't want their illegitimate authority to be questioned or threatened...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.