Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Introduces Bill Criminalizing ‘Conspiracy to Commit White Supremacy“

[el midgetron]

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced a House Bill criminalizing “conspiracy to commit white supremacy,” which includes criticism of non-white people which influences an individual to commit a hate crime….

 ……The congressional bill, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, states that someone engages in a white supremacy inspired hate crime “when white supremacy ideology has motivated the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of actions that constituted a crime or were undertaken in furtherance of activity that, if effectuated, would have constituted a crime.”

Accordingly, “conspiracy” to engage in white supremacy inspired hate crime entails the publishing of material “advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on ‘replacement theory’, or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/16/rep-jackson-lee-introduces-bill-criminalizing-conspiracy-commit-white-supremacy-criticism-non-white-people/
 

So, if someone criticized illegal immigration on FaceBook and some nut job “viewed” their post prior to committing a hate crime against illegal immigrants, the person who made a post on FaceBook would be guilty of “conspiracy to commit white supremacy”.

 

“(iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/61/text?r=22&s=1

[+and-then]

That Party has gone completely to the Dark Side.  They have actually become anti-American in all but name.  And, that's all I better say about that...

[Hankenhunter]

Lol, too little, too late as shown in post #2. Also white supremacy should be changed to domestic terrorism. 

Edited January 17 by Hankenhunter
Content

[Alchopwn]

5 hours ago, el midgetron said:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced a House Bill criminalizing “conspiracy to commit white supremacy,” which includes criticism of non-white people which influences an individual to commit a hate crime….

Pfft.  This is pipe dream legislation that can't stand up to the First Amendment if challenged.

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

Pfft.  This is pipe dream legislation that can't stand up to the First Amendment if challenged.

I dunno, Al. The federal concept of "conspiracy" in existing US law is already a prosecutor's dream. Despite the etymology (con + spire = "breath together"), fed-conspiracy doesn't require any particular degree of contact or communication among conspirators. It suffices that each conspirator do some overt act that advances a criminal project. The threshhold overt act need not itself be criminal, and by the nature of joint enterprises, can include speech acts. Conspiracy or no conspiracy, speech that is incidental to a crime ("Hand over your wallet or else") is not protected by the First Amendment.

Definitions that depend on race are suspect, but again existing federal law has categories of protected persons, including race (but any race) for a variety of purposes. At a really abstract level, what makes "hate crime" possible as a prosecutable offence within the network of American guarantees is that in the US it refers to an aggravating circumstance to be considered during sentencing after someone has been convicted of behavior that is criminal anyway.

The courts might look at something like this (in the unlikely event that it is passed by a Republican led House) and see that it crosses some abstract line where the speech itself has been effectively criminalized (which is, after all, plausibly what the sponsors really want to accomplish). That would sink the ship in the current legal environment (ask again in, say, 2040).

3 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Also white supremacy should be changed to domestic terrorism. 

Yes, that would brighten the prospects both of passage (Republicans apparently love the Patriot Act, they just might buy something draped in that rubric) and help intimidate the federal bench into letting it stand (what judge wants to help terrorists?). You should consider moving to DC and starting a K Street boutique consultancy .

[Hankenhunter]

8 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I dunno, Al. The federal concept of "conspiracy" in existing US law is already a prosecutor's dream. Despite the etymology (con + spire = "breath together"), fed-conspiracy doesn't require any particular degree of contact or communication among conspirators. It suffices that each conspirator do some overt act that advances a criminal project. The threshhold overt act need not itself be criminal, and by the nature of joint enterprises, can include speech acts. Conspiracy or no conspiracy, speech that is incidental to a crime ("Hand over your wallet or else") is not protected by the First Amendment.

Definitions that depend on race are suspect, but again existing federal law has categories of protected persons, including race (but any race) for a variety of purposes. At a really abstract level, what makes "hate crime" possible as a prosecutable offence within the network of American guarantees is that in the US it refers to an aggravating circumstance to be considered during sentencing after someone has been convicted of behavior that is criminal anyway.

The courts might look at something like this (in the unlikely event that it is passed by a Republican led House) and see that it crosses some abstract line where the speech itself has been effectively criminalized (which is, after all, plausibly what the sponsors really want to accomplish). That would sink the ship in the current legal environment (ask again in, say, 2040).

Yes, that would brighten the prospects both of passage (Republicans apparently love the Patriot Act, they just might buy something draped in that rubric) and help intimidate the federal bench into letting it stand (what judge wants to help terrorists?). You should consider moving to DC and starting a K Street boutique consultancy .

I'm  too old, and crotchety. Besides, I was a forestry consultant on Vancouver Island. Good pay, but aggravating. 

Good post btw.

[Ell]

In my opinion Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) is insane.

 

On the starship Enterprise, which is valiantly trekking, the medical officer has the authority to revoke the captain's command privileges if he deems his captain to be insane. 

 

It may be the far future, but we ought to learn from that principle.

[Piney]

3 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

I'm  too old, and crotchety. Besides, I was a forestry consultant on Vancouver Island. Good pay, but aggravating. 

Good post btw.

Good pay but full of screwballs now.

11 hours ago, el midgetron said:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced a House Bill criminalizing “conspiracy to commit white supremacy,” which includes criticism of non-white people which influences an individual to commit a hate crime….

 ……The congressional bill, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, states that someone engages in a white supremacy inspired hate crime “when white supremacy ideology has motivated the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of actions that constituted a crime or were undertaken in furtherance of activity that, if effectuated, would have constituted a crime.”

Accordingly, “conspiracy” to engage in white supremacy inspired hate crime entails the publishing of material “advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on ‘replacement theory’, or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/16/rep-jackson-lee-introduces-bill-criminalizing-conspiracy-commit-white-supremacy-criticism-non-white-people/
 

So, if someone criticized illegal immigration on FaceBook and some nut job “viewed” their post prior to committing a hate crime against illegal immigrants, the person who made a post on FaceBook would be guilty of “conspiracy to commit white supremacy”.

 

“(iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/61/text?r=22&s=1

In the 1970s and 80s the KKK would rally in Millville, New Jersey and it was about 10 clowns that everybody ignored including the press.

But this woke culture with crybabies who dredge up and can't get over the past push people towards White supremicists groups.

A 12 year old Black student and my Quaker Meeting wrote a poem on segregated beaches. Something she never experienced but my dad did.

I told her she needed to shut the **** up and listen to what Morgan Freeman said.

"You want to end racism. Stop talking about it".

[HandsomeGorilla]

4 hours ago, Piney said:

I told her she needed to shut the **** up and listen to what Morgan Freeman said.

"You want to end racism. Stop talking about it".

I understand the sentiment, but I'm not sure the answer is to simply stop talking about it. There's a delicate balance that needs to happen here; first and foremost we must acknowledge past injustices but we can't make straight white men feel like they're personally being attacked. 

I have mixed feelings on this. We just lost one of our best, most resourceful men due to a no tolerance policy. A memo was taped to the refrigerator talking about resources for marginalized groups. This man, who constantly touted the Morgan Freeman policy, taped a note next to it asking where any men's groups were, then suggested that since there aren't any, we can all just go to the bar and hate on women. It was completely in jest, but according to the COO, their hands were tied due to it being in writing and including the word 'hate'. Did they overstep? 

My issue with much of this is while I agree with the sentiment, it's often biased when it comes to implementation. Why does the trans girl who refers to me as 'sexy' and 'baby' never get a talking to when a guy who referred to one of the zookeepers as 'sweetie' get pulled into the office and have his job threatened? 

[Zebra3]

I just wanna see non-black San Fransiscans get bent over for the rest of their lives for voting the way they do so their black neighbors can be debt free and become millionaires overnight.

[+OverSword]

Banning pro racial supremist talk is a clear violation of the first amendment.  Inciting crime with speech is already illegal so this is just another example of a useless politician virtue signaling.  

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, HandsomeGorilla said:

I understand the sentiment, but I'm not sure the answer is to simply stop talking about it. There's a delicate balance that needs to happen here; first and foremost we must acknowledge past injustices but we can't make straight white men feel like they're personally being attacked. 

I have mixed feelings on this. We just lost one of our best, most resourceful men due to a no tolerance policy. A memo was taped to the refrigerator talking about resources for marginalized groups. This man, who constantly touted the Morgan Freeman policy, taped a note next to it asking where any men's groups were, then suggested that since there aren't any, we can all just go to the bar and hate on women. It was completely in jest, but according to the COO, their hands were tied due to it being in writing and including the word 'hate'. Did they overstep? 

My issue with much of this is while I agree with the sentiment, it's often biased when it comes to implementation. Why does the trans girl who refers to me as 'sexy' and 'baby' never get a talking to when a guy who referred to one of the zookeepers as 'sweetie' get pulled into the office and have his job threatened? 

They most certainly overstepped....

[Myles]

5 hours ago, Piney said:

 

I told her she needed to shut the **** up and listen to what Morgan Freeman said.

"You want to end racism. Stop talking about it".

I think instead of "Stop talking sabout it", it should be stop trying to bring it up when it isn't there. 

Calling don't walk signs racist because the light is white.

Calling math racist because white students do better

Those are 2 recent things that happened that should not have been brought up.  

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

I think instead of "Stop talking sabout it", it should be stop trying to bring it up when it isn't there. 

Calling don't walk signs racist because the light is white.

Calling math racist because white students do better

Those are 2 recent things that happened that should not have been brought up.  

Goddammit my house is racist towards me cause it's White!!!!!!.......

........I wondered why my plumbing hates me. 

[Zebra3]

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think instead of "Stop talking sabout it", it should be stop trying to bring it up when it isn't there. 

Calling don't walk signs racist because the light is white.

Calling math racist because white students do better

Those are 2 recent things that happened that should not have been brought up.  

Don't forget that outer-space is now racist. That story is out there today also.

[+Desertrat56]

1 hour ago, HandsomeGorilla said:

My issue with much of this is while I agree with the sentiment, it's often biased when it comes to implementation. Why does the trans girl who refers to me as 'sexy' and 'baby' never get a talking to when a guy who referred to one of the zookeepers as 'sweetie' get pulled into the office and have his job threatened? 

I agree with this.  When I worked for a large corporation we had a 60+ year old woman who constantly made passes and lewd remarks to and about the young men we worked with.  It caused all the women's hackles to go up, but the men laughed when we complained because she was "harmless", but then again, she wasn't as she quit doing her job, started messing programs up and complaining to the CEO about our boss, she went 3 layers over his head to lie about him and the HR people were so stupid they never asked us what was going on.  Instead she got the status of unfireable, until the boss and supervisors were able to document a years worth of proof that she should be fired.  Then of course she sued but it was not something that could be upheld.  She was still in litigation from her previous employer.   My opinion is that people who act like she did towards the opposite sex should at least be called on the carpet whether they are men or women.    

[HandsomeGorilla]

9 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I agree with this.  When I worked for a large corporation we had a 60+ year old woman who constantly made passes and lewd remarks to and about the young men we worked with.  It caused all the women's hackles to go up, but the men laughed when we complained because she was "harmless", but then again, she wasn't as she quit doing her job, started messing programs up and complaining to the CEO about our boss, she went 3 layers over his head to lie about him and the HR people were so stupid they never asked us what was going on.  Instead she got the status of unfireable, until the boss and supervisors were able to document a years worth of proof that she should be fired.  Then of course she sued but it was not something that could be upheld.  She was still in litigation from her previous employer.   My opinion is that people who act like she did towards the opposite sex should at least be called on the carpet whether they are men or women.    

I've been sexually harassed and assaulted (butt slaps, grabbing my groin or other body parts) innumerable times on jobs and nothing was ever taken seriously through HR and therein lies the rub, for me. Now, I'm a larger guy and don't really worry about getting overpowered and raped like a smaller woman may fear if the tables turned, but I don't see why it shouldn't be treated the same or be told, "ahh, don't worry about it" as I've been told several times by higher management. 

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Banning pro racial supremist talk is a clear violation of the first amendment.  Inciting crime with speech is already illegal so this is just another example of a useless politician virtue signaling.  

What else do our crop of politicians  do these days?  Any issue that costs money or thought  is off the table.  Any issue that is not a binary choice or a non-existent issue is deemed too complicated for the voters.  Certainly anything that displeases the donors is off the table.  That may be what gets Santos in trouble, its OK to lie to the voters, but don't mess with the donors.

Seems like many of the younger ones are mostly viewing Congress as a first step toward being a media influencer and financially independent. 

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, HandsomeGorilla said:

I've been sexually harassed and assaulted (butt slaps, grabbing my groin or other body parts) innumerable times on jobs and nothing was ever taken seriously through HR and therein lies the rub, for me. Now, I'm a larger guy and don't really worry about getting overpowered and raped like a smaller woman may fear if the tables turned, but I don't see why it shouldn't be treated the same or be told, "ahh, don't worry about it" as I've been told several times by higher management. 

I think those women who did that should have been reprimanded or fired, even if you don't feel you are in danger it is still assault.   I was in the army in the 70's and a few men thought they could do stuff like that to the women and some women got raped.   It was a different time, when even the officers really thought women should  not be there.  

I made sure that if anyone touched me inappropriately I loudly told them to back off.   It started with men grabbing my arm and trying to drag me somewhere, and they had bruised shins and sore ears, as well as people noticing.   The unit I was in in the states did have a rape that went to the bizzare, a sergeant that told a lesbian that he would make sure she would come to love men (for some reason everyone ignored there were lesbians even though it was against the rules - another double standard, though I have to say it should not make any difference gay or not);   the guy was stupid and got kicked out of the army because he had assaulted verbally and physically enough women that when they heard what happened they came forward.   

[HandsomeGorilla]

4 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

What else do our crop of politicians  do these days?  Any issue that costs money or thought  is off the table.  Any issue that is not a binary choice or a non-existent issue is deemed too complicated for the voters.  Certainly anything that displeases the donors is off the table.  That may be what gets Santos in trouble, its OK to lie to the voters, but don't mess with the donors.

Seems like many of the younger ones are mostly viewing Congress as a first step toward being a media influencer and financially independent. 

One thing I've learned about most organizations is that you can **** on the employees all you want, just don't p*** off the shareholders. 

[+OverSword]

25 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

What else do our crop of politicians  do these days?  Any issue that costs money or thought  is off the table.  Any issue that is not a binary choice or a non-existent issue is deemed too complicated for the voters.  Certainly anything that displeases the donors is off the table.  That may be what gets Santos in trouble, its OK to lie to the voters, but don't mess with the donors.

Seems like many of the younger ones are mostly viewing Congress as a first step toward being a media influencer and financially independent. 

Quote

 

Bureaucracy destroys initiative.  there is little that bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better results than the old routines.  Improvements always make those at the top of the heap look inept.

Frank Herbert

 

That quote feels relevant to your take on it.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

That quote feels relevant to your take on it.

Chapter House Dune

The last 2 Dune novels show how a democracy becomes a entrenched bureaucracy and destroys itself. More people need to read them.

 

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

Chapter House Dune

The last 2 Dune novels show how a democracy becomes a entrenched bureaucracy and destroys itself. More people need to read them.

 

I try to recommend them to my friends and it's always, "Yeah I mean to read those some day"

[+Desertrat56]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I try to recommend them to my friends and it's always, "Yeah I mean to read those some day"

Some people balk at large tomes.   

[Tatetopa]

19 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Bureaucracy destroys initiative.  there is little that bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better results than the old routines.  Improvements always make those at the top of the heap look inept.

Frank Herbert

 

 I disagree with Frank on this one.  Bureaucrats do their jobs, they get paid.  If a system requires less labor or is easier, they adopt it.  Government regulators or legislators squelch innovation at the behest of their donors.

The people that hate innovation are the entrenched owners, the donor class, because it requires them to reinvest or face obsolescence.   Travel agents, cab companies, oil companies, advertisers all have to adapt or die.  Notice the petroleum giants are calling themselves energy companies now because they had to buy the competition, wind and solar farms, and offshore power development.

Observe that a huge proportion of new paradigm shattering innovations are done by wet behind the ears college age kids.  Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook to name a few. 

Once they become established leaders in a new field, they seek to buy out or stifle competitors and either take or kill the new technologies  those competitors develop.

Hate to bring him up but Zuckerberg is a good example.  A billionaire with money to burn who now has years of experience in the world of innovation and commerce under his belt does not invent another Facebook, he puts billions into META.  Got your $1000 VR headset yet so  you can flirt with cartoon characters?  Me neither.