From the Washington Times:
House Republicans today surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity—the first step by lawmakers to protect “John Doe” airline travelers already targeted in a lawsuit by Muslim imams that charges profiling.
The introduction of a motion to recommit the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language was introduced by Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. King says all Americans, airline passengers included, must be protected from lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior that may foreshadow a terrorist attack.
A vote on the measure is expected tonight.The language is based on a bill introduced last week by Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, to protect “John Does,” or passengers targeted in the suit filed by six Muslim imams earlier this month in Minneapolis.
A Republican memo issued before the vote cites the November incident, in which the Muslim men were removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix for suspicious behavior, the details of which were first reported by The Washington Times.
The men prayed loudly before boarding, did not take their assigned seats, formed seating patterns officials said mirrored the September 11 hijackers, asked for seat-belt extenders they did not use or need, and criticized President Bush and the war in Iraq.
“Earlier this month, the six imams filed suit against the airlines. Shockingly, the imams also filed suit against the passengers who reported the suspicious behavior,” the memo said.
“The Republican motion to recommit will ensure that any person that voluntarily reports suspicious activity—anything that could be a threat to transportation security—will be granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosure,” the memo said.
The amendment is retroactive to activities that took place on or after Nov. 20, 2006—the date of the Minneapolis incident, and authorizes courts to award attorneys’ fees to defendants with immunity.
[my emphasis]
Happily, this measure passed, and marks a significant victory against that part of the Islamist strategy that—like Jurassic Park Raptors systematically attacking an electrified fence—has them probing at our legal system to find its vulnerabilities. However, what is notable is that the vote was 304-121, with all 121 votes against cast by, well, need I say it? Meaning that there is still a considerable portion of our Congressional leadership that is willing to play to PC sensibilities rather than react to the very real threat we are facing.
And that is pretty frightening.
(h/t Rusty)
****
More, from Michelle Malkin, Bryan Preston, and Powerline.
****
update: Ace has a teary-eyed Ben Franklin. And pooter.
Which reminds me of a fraternity Halloween party I once went to—though that’s another story entirely.
Geez. It’s pretty clear who values PC victimology garbage over security from THAT vote.
Heh. CAIR must be fuming. The attorneys fees part is the most effective part of the bill. Just having to mount a defense can bully the average person into complaince with a well Wahhabi funded, er…plaintiff’s wishes.
Like I need to tell Jeff about how expenseive counsel is…
Finally, the one time I can say “Our tax dollars at work” and not sneer.
“Meaning that there is still a considerable portion of our Congressional leadership that is willing to play to PC sensibilities …”
PC Sensibilities had zip to do with it. They’re on the other f*kin side.
Uh, the Dhimmicrats?? You’re making it too easy, Jeff. Didn’t even have to click the link to the vote.
I actually do have some problems with this kind of law – but it’s needed and I don’t have an alternative, so I can only shrug and support it.
Any privilege or protection can be abused, as some “good samaritan” laws have been. But unfortunately, because of the underhanded, sneaky, low-down double-dealing bottom-dwelling creepy jerks who are behind this assault on good citizens, and their clients, we have to cut off this particular avenue of attack.
Hopefully the number of false reports of “suspicious behavior” will be minimal, and/or the language of the bill recognizes the possibility of ill-will reports… haven’t read it yet.
You know, it reminds me of the time that I was asked to write an essay on whether words could ever affect people as much as actions, and I simply wrote, “Fuck off.”
I got suspended, but I laughed my ass off till Dad found out.
I would have given you an “A” Dan.
And then suspended you.
Thanks, Gary. I wish my teacher would have been as broad-minded as you.
It would be interesting to see the actual text of the motion. All I see is the propaganda. One of sites says that “innocent” people are protected. Does that mean that if it is actually intentional libel/slander then they are not immune? Does this really immunize intentionally hurtful activity or false reporting, libel, or discriminatory or retaliatory activity? How about shouting ‘suicide bomber’ in a crowded theater?
They should have just subpoenaed them as witnesses. Of course people who report suspicious activity can expect to be called as witnesses.
You won’t have to look far for the actual language of the proposal, emmadine. It means what it says: that people who report suspect activity will not suffer lawsuits for doing so, barring malicious intent.
Where do you get the exemption for malicious intent? Does that include racist or discriminatory intent?
The text that is posted says that “any person that reports suspicious activity will be granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosure.” That doesn’t have an exemption.
That kind of assumes that the report is truthful, doesn’t it? It’s then up to the authorities to determine whether it’s significant or not. Are you saying that it is preferable that people be muzzled for fear of civil liability for misinterpretation? Whom would you make responsible to look into their hearts of hearts and determine whether their motives were pure and free from bias?
Why is it important for us to determine the motivation of a person reporting suspicious behavior on an airliner?
If the behavior is genuinely suspicious, by whatever standard you choose to use, then does it really matter why the whistle-blower chose to report it?
Let me ask you this. Having read accounts of the behavior of the mullahs, can you guarantee me that their behavior was free of malicious (or at least litigious) intent?
Case A: John Doe reports the suspicious behavior of the flying Imams because he harbors a hatred for Muslims.
Case B: John Doe reports the suspicious behavior of the flying Imams because he has a genuine concern that the plane might be hijacked or blown up.
Are we supposed to psychoanalyze John Doe to determine whether his motives are closer to A or B, and then grant him immunity only in Case B?
Submit him to a brain scan, of course, Aldo. No airport should be without the technology, don’t you think?
Otherwise, of course, you can resort to a dunking stool, which is easier on the pocketbook.
Ensign: Admiral the sky is full of Japanese aircraft, and their pilots are displaying suspicious behavior. Should I report them?
Admiral: What? And face a lawsuit? Are you crazy?
Admiral: Now get back to planning the Christmas dance, you little racist bastard!
If I see an arab male or female in the eleven to ninety age range boarding a plane that I’m getting on – I’m going to watch his/her ass. Every fucking move they make.
If something doesn’t look right, that plane ain’t taking off with me and the arab on it. I don’t care what stage of departure we’re at.
Fuck a bunch of arab’s ‘feelings’.
Not to be used to determine the intentions of people behaving suspiciously, of course. To be reserved exclusively for determining the intentions of the reporting parties.
This type of thinking is the bane of modern politics: issues are no longer evaluated on their own merits, but instead on the presumed motivations of the parties involved.
If this had gotten sufficient publicity and left leadership to oppose it, I doubt it would have passed it. They would have successfully portrayed it as “the terrorists winning” and “not a threat anyway” and “racist, islamophobic” and all the usual nonsense.
It can be true that the activity is suspicious as well as there is malicious intent. Lets say john doe admits he reported the suspicious activity because he wants those muslims to pay with some jail time and humiliating searches for praying to their moon god. Or that the activity is suspcicious but “those people” are all terrorists anyway and should feel the brunt of our law for awhile. Or even the person knows that the individuals are not threats, but they truthfully report on some behavior which is suspicious, and they make this report due to malice.
To begin with, I don’t know what civil liability one would be liable for here—perhaps intentional infliction of emotional distress—so I don’t know why immunity is required. The complaint didn’t spell it out. Which makes me think the immunity is unnecessary
Who would I make responsible for looking into hearts and minds? The same people we use when determining malice and intent in other situations.
So, what you’re saying is that if you felt uncomfortable as a result of someone’s behavior prior to taking off on a flight, you’d either suck it up and pray for the best, or decide not to go and let the airline keep your cash, because you’d be afraid of tripping a lawsuit? Cool. And what if you were apparently being followed home at night on a deserted city street at 3 am by some random guy? Would you not stop if you saw a cop, because there’s a chance the guy might just happen to be headed towards the same part of town as you?
People who are falsely accused suffer litigation fees, emmadine, and sometimes they haven’t got the largesse of CAIR behind them. Don’t you think it might have been reasonable for the ACLU to have intervened on behalf of these people, or are they de facto rascists?
Pathetic how thoughts of racism immediately come up as a defense for a group of people who intentionally drew attention to themselves, ignored the instructions of the stewardesses (violation of Federal Law), were inconsiderate to their fellow passengers & then filed suit seeking financial compensation for actions taken in direct response to their outlandish behavior. No sympathy for the people having to move because some asshole took their seat while potentially trying to make a ridiculous point or to the added work load of the stewardesses, nor for the innocent passengers who merely expressed their natural, post 9/11 uncomfortableness of the illegal & rude actions of a group of passengers’ intentional actions. I wonder if they had been Christians praying aloud, if Emmadine would be so quick to suggest that they were being unfairly targeted because of their apparent differences or for their prayers… my guess is not so much.
Why is it those that claim to love their fellow man so much, “progressivesâ€Â, never ever bother to extend the simple courtesy of giving others the benefit of the doubt & immediately assume the very worst. Had the imams boarded the plane quietly, not moved around, not ignored the instructions of the stewardesses, not filed a suit attempting to go after unnamed, fellow passengers, I might likely agree, but they didn’t, so I don’t. If I’d been on the plane I would have complained as well & told them to sit the fuck down as I have in the past against drunken assholes making a scene.
I think you’re missing the point that I’m asking if there are any exemptions, not if innocent activity should cause liability. We aren’t talking about products liability or negligence here, are we?
If you must know, If I’m afraid for my life there won’t really be a lawsuit threat that stops me. We all are going to make some sacrifices, as burrhog already shows he is willing to do. burrhog won’t be stopped when some arab makes some suspicious act. Like use a blackberry or pray to the wrong god.
But I don’t see why the fear with causing a lawsuit. The complaint didn’t even allege the john does did anything wrong. Our legal system handles these sorts of things already, no? Even if not. Fine then, award fees. Why award immunity? Thats the part I’m not getting.
emmadine,
Suppose that Black, who is black, observes White, who is white, committing a rape. Black reports the rape to the police, and White is arrested and charged with the rape.
Your theory is that Black’s motives for reporting the rape should be examined, and if they are found to be racist, White would have a legitimate civil cause of action against Black for “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Why stop there?
According to your logic, we should charge White for rape and Black for a hate crime.
Then, since the evidence against White is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” it should be dismissed under the Exclusionary rule. White, the rapist, should go free, and Black should go to prison for reporting the rape for politically incorrect reasons.
Are we pulling people out of airports and incarcerating them for suspicious behavior these days? Is it not a crime to file a false police report?
And yet, they’re named as defendants. Curious, that.
Aldo,
Actually I said I didn’t know what liability one would have. The only guess I have is intentional infliction of emotional distress. I can’t really imagine how it would work in the case you describe.
Pablo,
I know. Their names aren’t under the allegations. Sounds like an easy case for summary judgment. And probably Rule 11 punishment
Absolutely a true statement. I’m assuming the malicious intent is from the people that report what they think is suspicious activity.
But if you get on an airplane where people are seriously making you nervous about your own and other’s safety, shouldn’t you be able to report it without fear of being sued?
emmadine,
I’m not missing your point, your argument methodology is quite common amongst other progressives, find the worst case scenario & use it to hammer away at legitimate points, when that fails apply thinly veiled hints of racism or incorporate the 2. The pro-choicers used back alley abortions, incest & rape as a means to legitimize their stance, ignoring that collectively that those cases are a very small percentage of the reasons women seek abortion. Al Gore uses the extremely worse case scenarios to justify his claims supporting man’s participation in Global Warming, while ignoring that man-made co2 levels account for maybe 3% total. little “a,†in another thread here, is arguing that because there may be faults in 2 or more cases of the thousands captured, questioned & detained by coalition forces, that Gitmo should be closed or that military tribunals are unjust, while ignoring the plain truth that according to the Geneva Conventions, they have no rights what-so-ever & could be shot at any time or that as non-US citizens, in a foreign country, our laws do not apply to them.
So you’ll have to forgive my lack of empathy for a group of individuals who at best are seeking to gain financially for their own rudeness & stupidity & at worst, were probing our transportation system for weaknesses & further attacks.
Certainly. But what would I fear being sued for? There already is a bar on frivolous litigation. I’m wondering why the immunity is necessary. Immunity from what?
I’m not so concerned about these guys. I’m worried about what the scope of this immunity is, and what it is an immunity from, and whether it is really needed, as there are penalties for filing frivolous suits already. But if people think there aren’t, then we can fix those.
But note that if the suit is frivolous, it sort of means the immunity is not necessary.
.
Dude, you gotta elaborate on this one!!
Having to defend oneself from such frivolous lawsuits, particularly when designed to intimidate people from reporting suspicious activity.
The fact that you can win a suit doesn’t relieve the burden of having to defend yourself.
Or, we can just nip the problem in the bud, which is what the House just did. And the problem with that is?
Lemme guess…it’s RACIST!!!!
Brain scan?
What if his globe has the fever of religion?
Does my aluminum foil hat defeat the scan and can I wear it as a religious symbol through the scanner… not that I personally want to, but just like to know and stuff…
On the flip side, I know people who pray *LOUDLY* to Jesus before boarding an airliner (particularly one laden with iman) and they do have that right. I assume the lawyers will push the Islam side of that line hard.
Hopefully the court will decide this is a tie. Iman’s get to pray loudly and often. Seat belt extenders are not found to be items integral to prayer. Passengers have the right to think and say someone is a loon. Airline staff are prudent to check into it.
Oh yeah. Some of the clergy are dickheads. The Christian side has Falwell, Robertson, Jim and Tammy Faye, and a whole bucketful of priest pedophiles. Islam has theirs. I’ve met asshole Buddhist monks…. for some reason the Asians put them in the front of the plane.
Pablo,
It isn’t racist itself, but it allows the continued, undisputed racist persecution of all non-whites, because as we all know within all, non-progressives, lies the uneducated, insensitive heart of a racist. Just ask CAIR or the majority of Duke professors.
I love, love the first part of this statement.
But do you really think there are penalties for frivolus lawsuits? Do you have any examples?
That’s not really a challenge, because you seem to me to be a very decent guy. I’ve not checked in here alot lately so maybe you’ve made you’re arguments before.
Emmadine, as others have pointed out, that a suit is frivolous does not relieve the defendants from having to defend.
You’re using lawyer language, so I assume you’d know. Could you cite the proportion of lawsuits that are deemed legally “frivolous”, and the proportion where defendant is awarded lawyer fees from the plaintiff (which is the Rule 11, I belive?)
Won’t CAIR quietly fund the litigation, right up to a dismissal and award of fees, at which point the Imams will claim destitution and say (ironically enough) “sue me”?
Actually, their tactic is to push the suit, while loudly condemning the target, right up to the point where they’ve got to start providing discovery, unless the target folds first.
Andrew Whitehead is one example, and I’m sure he’d like those two years of his life back.
I’m not going to pretend to be a legal scholar, but is the retroactive piece of this OK? I just remember seeing several cases designed to “backdate” the effectiveness of a law not making it past the first legal challenge.
Looking over the actual bill(.pdf), I see no mention of airline passengers.
It protects all Americans from civil actions for “good faith” reporting of “suspicious behavior” to any and all security personnel from FBI agents to mall security guards.
Aren’t we already protected for this?
Seems like it would have come up some time in the past, oh, 233 years or so.
Looks like more identity politics from the crazy right to me.
Non jurist opining here.
The retroactive aspect is probably ok because it is a form of immunization, as opposed to criminalization, which would constitute a bill of attainder/ex post facto law – such would be verboten.
Don’t try going conservative on us, jihadi-boy.
Quite frankly, alphie, I’m not sure. Are you?
And if hasn’t been done for 233 years, does that mean we shouldn’t take a look at it now?
Or was that our only chance and now we have to live with it forever?
And if your answer is yes, are you honest enough to extrapolate that thinking to other issues?
emmadine, you F’ing moron…
First of all, it is quite apparent that English is not your native language (did we all say “Huh?”?)
I am enamored with the way that violent little pukes use our laws and our languagwe to make American morons flock to your ditziness.
9/11?
Not your fault! 9/11 was caused by all white people with a functional brain! It’s those f’ing arseholes who think that freedom means “Kiss my ass”. If you want freedom, it will be on my terms, MoFo!
There ya go, emma-etc. How’s that for someone who has trouble with the English language?
Although there are a lot of brain dead Americans, this is not the place to look for them.
All hail PW!!!
Hey Jeff!
Maybe you should have awards every year for the most dysfunctional and clueless posters (and maybe even those who are not that familiar with the English language).
I have always thought that there should be some kind of award for “mature” people who think like I did when I was twelve years old and didn’t even suspect that those things were wet.
Yeah. Yeah. I got over it quick enough…
Thanks TD. That rings a bell. Faintly.
Well, lunar,
I don’t know.
I suppose it depends of who determines the “good faith” of the person reporting suspicious action, doesn’t it?
At best, this bill reminds me of Dad’s Army.
At worst, I can’t see a thing about it Stalin would object to.
Typical of bill’s put forth by the “Patriotic Right”
Very disappoined with your answers, alphie, but I’ll give you credit for responding.
You put ‘good faith’ in “quotes” but that was not what I questioned.
But your response is still telling.
The left has pretty much always favored the bad actor over everyone else.
Since this has neither been adjudicated or fully published (and I’m too lazy to call my congresscritter and try to get a copy, or even look up the places where I should be looking for the text), we’re all riding on assumptions.
And the assumptions on the left are ALWAYS in favor of the jihadis, or the thugs, or whomever, and against the responsible citizen and the US in general.
It is tiresome.
I’ve been a freaking Libertarian since before I was even an adult, but I think legal manipulation of our labyrinthine court system by thugs and psychos is a greater threat to my constitution than a law that shields reporters of suspicious activities in transportation.
Is there too much government? Yes. Is there a better solution? Probably. Do we have those tools now? No.
Though the delicious irony of the left, which so downplayed and excused Soviet brutality, dredging up Stalin’s ghost to smear an attempt by a free Western power to protect itself, is impossible to overstate.
Emmadine, you can be sued in Federal court for being the host of an email list on which someone posted a negative review of a business. You can be sued for discussing that case. I know people who have had that happen; anyone with an ounce of sense would look at that and say “what a stupid lawsuit; it’s obvious they were within their rights”—yet the some of the targets of the suit had to settle because it was cheaper than fighting it to its conclusion.
Oh, and burrhog’s yet another moby.
Does anyone know why our resident troll’s been on a Stalin kick recently? Did he just get bored of Nazi references and decide to switch out for variety? Should we be repealing laws against theft, because Stalin would have approved of them?
Seriously, alphie, it’s obvious that current protections against frivolous lawsuits are insufficient, as we are witnessing an example of the threat of a frivolous lawsuit being used to intimidate people. Do you have a better solution, or do you just like spewing nonsense? I’d think that without a shield against lawsuits, more tips will be anonymous just so there’s no chance of a suit.
I suspect it’s a recent talking point.
Civilis,
What about frivolous laws?
“Good faith” is a legal term.
Why can’t the people suing the airline passengers simply sue them again with the claim they weren’t acting in “good faith” when they got the Muslims booted off their flight if this law is passed?
Rep. Steve Pearce generates quite a few bills in the House, btw. Less than three months into the 110th Congress and he’s already introduced 16 of them.
Including one (H.R. 301) that would have people handing out voter registration forms thrown into jail if they don’t first get the permission of state government to do so.
Doesn’t really seem like a guy who’s concerned about the right of American citizens to do the right thing without fear of prosecution to me.
Doesn’t seem like anyone gives a damn what you think, alpo. Ever wonder why that is?
“Good faith” answers the question. The immunity has limits. Same with the fact that the suspicion must be “reaosonable.” Ie, a jury must find that the behavior was suspicious. That still leaves plenty of room for the aggrieved by libel or other claims. Though I don’t really see what they would be.
No I don’t know how many suits get Rule 11 sanctions. never heard of a study. Like I said, if you feel that this isn’t enough, we can think of more to do. But I don’t see why having immunity is necessary.
Robert: Note that you have immunity (from CDA 230) for hosting a discussion list. And yet people get sued.
Funny, that didn’t help the Aquatic Plants Digest.
They weren’t even helped out by the fact that the plaintiff was representing himself, was not a lawyer, and repeatedly made procedural “mistakes” that prolonged the process and the expense to the defendants. Experienced lawyers pointed to dozens of Rule 11 violations and what appeared to be purposeful “errors” by the plaintiff, yet absolutely nothing was done by the court. I suspect the guy’s got another bogus lawsuit out there at this very minute—he even stated to the press that filing lawsuits was his “hobby”.
The only target of his suits who didn’t back down and was never named—despite repeated threats to add them to the suit—was a guy living in California. Why? Because California law gives him the option of an Anti-SLAPP suit that would recover all his costs.
That’s what this bill is, a national version of an Anti-SLAPP law. I only wish it covered ALL speech.
That’s more than John Kerry has produced in his entire career!
Robert,
So it seems like the problem isnt with the law, its with how it is applied. I don’t know if this case would be covered by SLAPP, since I think that has a public participation component.
As for all speech, surely you don’t mean to place immunity for threats, harassment, or libel? I think you want it for what this bill does: good faith reasonable suspicions. Or maybe not. Just double checking.
And CDA 230 is what? A law passed by Congress, just as the RPTSA will likely be with the language just added.
And the suits get kicked out at the front door, as they did in DeMeo v. Max. Note what the Judge said in his ruling to dismiss:
Yes. I’m familiar with how CDA 230 works. My point is that people still end up on the other side of the “v.” Note that the CDA 230 immunity is broader than the qualified immunity this bill gives, at least as it has been interpreted.
Whatever happened to those servicemembers suing the govt for injunctive relief?
But not for long. Anyone can file suit for anything, whether it proceeds is another question. I could file Pablo v. Emmadine today claiming that you unfairly attacked me by engaging in a groundless dispute. But that suit, like DeMeo v. Max would last about 30 seconds. But hey, filing fees akbar!
What did ever happen to those servicemembers suing the govt for injunctive relief?
Oh, and let’s just stipulate that under the proposed statute Jihadi Bombvest Mujahid v. Joe Cognizant Citizen could still be filed.
No; this bill does pretty much what I want, but I’d like to see it expanded to speech in general, to make suits like the APD so rare as to be non-existent. If by “speech in general” you think I mean threats, harassment, or libel, you’re wrong.
They call it “Puppy Love”
Paul Anka was a friggin’ musical genius.
It seems to me this bill is in line with the sanctuary shields that we give to illegal aliens when they are willing to come forward to report a crime or even suspicion of a crime.
Perhaps one of those who object to this new bill can explain it in terms of how one is acceptable and the other is not.
Seems like the only two reasonable responses to things such as emmad* and alp* are:
1. The kindly response: I’m sorry but you have severe problems with your brain that makes it impossible for you to have rational thoughts, please just sit in a corner and do not interrupt the rest of the people that have the ability to think. Here’s a sparkly thing, have fun.
or
2. The “to the point” response: emmad* (or alp*), you ignorant slut. You know nothing of substance, your opinions are harmful to others and you are an obnoxious twit. Please STFU before someone less tolerant than I am shoves a telephone pole up your $#%&*.
Are you John Doe?
tw: care55
Mmmmmmm…phonetics.
alphie, what kind of guns do you have? Just curious.
You seem like a .38 special type to me. Maybe .380 ACP.
Personally, I support both.
Since you are demanding that any supporter of this bill answer for the presumed hypocrisy of all who support it, it is only fair that I should ask you to defend the arguments of the bill’s critics here:
If we are wrong about the intentions of a person who is behaving suspiciously on an airplane, the possible consequences of that mistake will be hundreds of lost lives.
If we are wrong about the motivations of the person who reported the suspicious behavior, the possible consequences are inconvenience to the person who was behaving suspiciously.
Given that discrepancy, why are the bill’s critics exhibiting so much concern about the possibly racist motives of the whistle-blowers, but no concern about the possible motives of the people behaving suspiciously on an airliner?
The reason immunity is being extended is to prevent lawsuits that try to intimidate or out-price people so that they stop complaining and stop pointing out troublemakers on planes. This is a pretty easy technique to spot and track, starting with a few test cases and a massively well-funded CAIR lawyer team who can wait out any private citizen and their funds. People will prefer to avoid any complaints at all just to avoid the lawsuit that will inevitably follow.
So this bill was introduced to protect whistleblowers, which is a concept already in place in federal law. If you spot somebody doing something wrong and turn them in, you’re safe from lawsuits by law. This simply extended and specifically noted the transportation industry to protect people on planes, for instance. Specifically the people in a lawsuit already in place.
The exceptions are not that hard to work out, and I frankly am surprised anyone would even honestly ask about this. The case is pretty obvious, and the same language is used in many other laws including the existing whistleblower laws. Malicious means just that: trying to cause trouble for someone who is not being a problem or breaking the law.
Even if you hate Muslims and are trying to make them suffer, if they are actually doing something wrong and this is demonstrable, the law protects the whistleblower. The critical aspect is whether the accusation or concerns were valid. If they are valid, your mood or intent is irrelevant. If they are not, then your mood or intent is presumed to be malicious and you lack the protection from lawsuits.
Is that really so complicated?
Um, Aldo?
This, from you,
…doesn’t square with this, from the guy you’re responding to:
‘Cause to me it looks like Defense Guy supports the bill too.
Reading. It’s fundamental.
Oops. Never mind.
Not sure what you are talking about Aldo, because I am not demanding anything and as McGehee has already pointed out a careful read of my comment should show you that I do support the new Bill.
I also support the sanctuary shield laws.
Thats what I get for taking to long to craft a response.
I like the Raptor/fence analogy, it should appeal to the kids. And it’s basically what is going on, systematic testing until they can break through.
alphie, what kind of guns do you have? Just curious.
You seem like a .38 special type to me. Maybe .380 ACP.
Posted by Jim in KC
I’m guessing a Lorcin, chromed, in 9mm.
Nah. Hasbro, spring-loaded.
Squirt.