"Virginia Governor Issues SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDERS to TAKE TOTAL POWER..."

[TECSHARE]

§ 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

"If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia."

[1715557397]

1715557397

[1715557397]

1715557397

[nutildah]

§ 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

This particular law was enacted in the year 2000. The major change proposed to it states that if the person was harassing a state official they can be tried in the capitol instead of their home county.

§ 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Yeah, sure, its a TOTAL POWER GRAB.

Tell me, was this sneaky alteration forced into law by secret executive order as well? 

I know, I know: Can't I see how this is hastening our descent into TOTAL STATE CONTROL??!

Well, no, I can't.

[TwitchySeal]

I'm thinking he fell for one of the articles with the fake "Democrats Push Legislation to Make Criticism of Government Officials a Criminal Offense" headlines, didn't realize they were amendments and misinterpreted the old laws (thinking they were new) to fit the headlines he had just read.

Virginia Bill Wouldn’t Criminalize Criticism

Online headlines falsely claim that Virginia lawmakers want to make criticizing state officials a “criminal offense.” The bill doesn’t create new offenses. It would merely allow cases of threats or harassment against some state officials to be prosecuted in Richmond.

Viral headlines peddled by multiple websites have warned that a bill in Virginia’s state legislature would make a “criminal offense” out of criticizing the state’s elected officials.

Actually, the bill in question doesn’t create any new criminal offenses.

A review of the proposed state legislation, House Bill 1627, shows that the bill would make changes to where certain crimes against public officials can be prosecuted, but it doesn’t change the existing statutory offenses.

The bill proposes several amendments to the law that would make it so that cases of threats or harassment against certain state officials — or threats against some state-owned property — could be prosecuted in the state capital of Richmond, regardless of where such messages were sent or received. Under the current law, some of the statutes contain language that says such prosecutions can occur in locales where the communication was made or received.

[nutildah]

I'm thinking he fell for one of the articles with the fake "Democrats Push Legislation to Make Criticism of Government Officials a Criminal Offense" headlines, didn't realize they were amendments and misinterpreted the old laws (thinking they were new) to fit the headlines he had just read.

Most likely. Here's such an article from Newsmax:

Not content with destroying the Second Amendment with a rushed-through laundry list of gun control measures, Virginia lawmakers are now assaulting the First Amendment, the most cherished of constitutional guarantees.

Virginia HB1627, introduced January 16, would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor for engaging in “Threats and harassment of certain officials and property.” According to the bill’s summary, it would come into play only:

“if the victim is the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.”

Of course the author of this story either has serious reading comprehension problems or just didn't care what he wrote because he knew it would satisfy the hunger of his reader base -- either way it is purely a wrong take.

Oh, here's what he more likely read: zerohedge's (also wrong) interpretation of the bill:

Yet another new bill is on the table and this one criminalizes criticism of certain government officials...

By the very nature of running for public office, one should expect to be the target of some verbal harassment. People who are so thin-skinned as to make a law about why nobody should be able to say mean things to or about them have no business whatsoever in government.

Again, the law has been effect for almost 20 years already. The proposed amendment serves to clarify where the prosecution should take place.

[TECSHARE]

I'm thinking he fell for one of the articles with the fake "Democrats Push Legislation to Make Criticism of Government Officials a Criminal Offense" headlines, didn't realize they were amendments and misinterpreted the old laws (thinking they were new) to fit the headlines he had just read.

Most likely. Here's such an article from Newsmax:

Not content with destroying the Second Amendment with a rushed-through laundry list of gun control measures, Virginia lawmakers are now assaulting the First Amendment, the most cherished of constitutional guarantees.

Virginia HB1627, introduced January 16, would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor for engaging in “Threats and harassment of certain officials and property.” According to the bill’s summary, it would come into play only:

“if the victim is the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.”

Of course the author of this story either has serious reading comprehension problems or just didn't care what he wrote because he knew it would satisfy the hunger of his reader base -- either way it is purely a wrong take.

Oh, here's what he more likely read: zerohedge's (also wrong) interpretation of the bill:

Yet another new bill is on the table and this one criminalizes criticism of certain government officials...

By the very nature of running for public office, one should expect to be the target of some verbal harassment. People who are so thin-skinned as to make a law about why nobody should be able to say mean things to or about them have no business whatsoever in government.

Again, the law has been effect for almost 20 years already. The proposed amendment serves to clarify where the prosecution should take place.

[I post a bill]
[you flip out and post a source for the bill I didn't even use and claim it discredits it as you project your imagination on me as usual]

Thanks for more evidence of your mental illness. Now I am responsible for sources I didn't even use when I post directly from the Virginia legislature. Not insane at all.

[TwitchySeal]

I'm thinking he fell for one of the articles with the fake "Democrats Push Legislation to Make Criticism of Government Officials a Criminal Offense" headlines, didn't realize they were amendments and misinterpreted the old laws (thinking they were new) to fit the headlines he had just read.

Most likely. Here's such an article from Newsmax:

Not content with destroying the Second Amendment with a rushed-through laundry list of gun control measures, Virginia lawmakers are now assaulting the First Amendment, the most cherished of constitutional guarantees.

Virginia HB1627, introduced January 16, would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor for engaging in “Threats and harassment of certain officials and property.” According to the bill’s summary, it would come into play only:

“if the victim is the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.”

Of course the author of this story either has serious reading comprehension problems or just didn't care what he wrote because he knew it would satisfy the hunger of his reader base -- either way it is purely a wrong take.

Oh, here's what he more likely read: zerohedge's (also wrong) interpretation of the bill:

Yet another new bill is on the table and this one criminalizes criticism of certain government officials...

By the very nature of running for public office, one should expect to be the target of some verbal harassment. People who are so thin-skinned as to make a law about why nobody should be able to say mean things to or about them have no business whatsoever in government.

Again, the law has been effect for almost 20 years already. The proposed amendment serves to clarify where the prosecution should take place.

[I post a bill]
[you flip out and post a source for the bill I didn't even use and claim it discredits it as you project your imagination on me as usual]

Thanks for more evidence of your mental illness. Now I am responsible for sources I didn't even use when I post directly from the Virginia legislature. Not insane at all.

Just speculating on why you posted what you did since you didn't really clarify.

By the way, since the whole 'SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDER' has been debunked, maybe edit the topic so others don't assume it's true? 

[BADecker]

[I post a bill]
[you flip out and post a source for the bill I didn't even use and claim it discredits it as you project your imagination on me as usual]

Thanks for more evidence of your mental illness. Now I am responsible for sources I didn't even use when I post directly from the Virginia legislature. Not insane at all.

Just speculating on why you posted what you did since you didn't really clarify.

By the way, since the whole 'SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDER' has been debunked, maybe edit the topic so others don't assume it's true? 

Just curious. Where is the debunking documentation?     

[TwitchySeal]

[I post a bill]
[you flip out and post a source for the bill I didn't even use and claim it discredits it as you project your imagination on me as usual]

Thanks for more evidence of your mental illness. Now I am responsible for sources I didn't even use when I post directly from the Virginia legislature. Not insane at all.

Just speculating on why you posted what you did since you didn't really clarify.

By the way, since the whole 'SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDER' has been debunked, maybe edit the topic so others don't assume it's true?  

Just curious. Where is the debunking documentation?    

Just read the article.  Executive order isn't even mentioned other than in the headline.  It's just a list of bills.  The headline is just clickbait.

[TECSHARE]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-house-approves-assault-weapons-ban

[nutildah]

[I post a bill]
[you flip out and post a source for the bill I didn't even use and claim it discredits it as you project your imagination on me as usual]

Thanks for more evidence of your mental illness. Now I am responsible for sources I didn't even use when I post directly from the Virginia legislature. Not insane at all.

Just speculating on why you posted what you did since you didn't really clarify.

By the way, since the whole 'SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDER' has been debunked, maybe edit the topic so others don't assume it's true?  

Just curious. Where is the debunking documentation?    

Just read the article.  Executive order isn't even mentioned other than in the headline.  It's just a list of bills.  The headline is just clickbait.

Do you ever find it odd how some people can have such an austere, one-sided belief system to the point where they just ignore obvious lies in order to keep espousing their initial viewpoint? I enjoy entertaining opposing viewpoints for the sake of actually bettering my understanding of the reality of any given situation.

TS missed the real news that Virginia actually passed the bill about awarding all electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, amid certain conditions of course. It's a total power grab -- for which ever president wins the popular vote, provided the commonwealth of states signing similar laws into practice is active.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/482766-virginia-house-passes-bill-to-award-electoral-votes-to-whoever-wins-the

[TECSHARE]

Do you ever find it odd how some people can have such an austere, one-sided belief system to the point where they just ignore obvious lies in order to keep espousing their initial viewpoint? I enjoy entertaining opposing viewpoints for the sake of actually bettering my understanding of the reality of any given situation.

TS missed the real news that Virginia actually passed the bill about awarding all electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, amid certain conditions of course. It's a total power grab -- for which ever president wins the popular vote, provided the commonwealth of states signing similar laws into practice is active.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/482766-virginia-house-passes-bill-to-award-electoral-votes-to-whoever-wins-the

That is a pretty convoluted way to say I was right.

[nutildah]

Its a total power grab for whoever wins the popular president vote, not governor vote. This also includes Donald Trump, should he win the popular vote. So in no way were you right. You were just spreading misinformation, I suppose because you've sunk to the depths of becoming a full-on troll. Hard to explain otherwise.

[TECSHARE]

Its a total power grab for whoever wins the popular president vote, not governor vote. This also includes Donald Trump, should he win the popular vote. So in no way were you right. You were just spreading misinformation, I suppose because you've sunk to the depths of becoming a full-on troll. Hard to explain otherwise.

So wait, you agree it is a power grab. You now admit these are more than just bills but actual passed laws as I warned was likely as you dismissed them as only bills. Because it "could also be Trump" even though removing the electoral college is absolutely a democrat goal, now my argument is invalid? Cool story bruh.

[nutildah]

Its a total power grab for whoever wins the popular president vote, not governor vote. This also includes Donald Trump, should he win the popular vote. So in no way were you right. You were just spreading misinformation, I suppose because you've sunk to the depths of becoming a full-on troll. Hard to explain otherwise.

So wait, you agree it is a power grab. You now admit these are more than just bills but actual passed laws as I warned was likely as you dismissed them as only bills. Because it "could also be Trump" now my argument is invalid? Cool story bruh.

This is what I had a problem with:

"Virginia Governor Issues SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDERS to TAKE TOTAL POWER while everyone was watching GUN BILLS!"

Literally none of that is true.

[TECSHARE]

Its a total power grab for whoever wins the popular president vote, not governor vote. This also includes Donald Trump, should he win the popular vote. So in no way were you right. You were just spreading misinformation, I suppose because you've sunk to the depths of becoming a full-on troll. Hard to explain otherwise.

So wait, you agree it is a power grab. You now admit these are more than just bills but actual passed laws as I warned was likely as you dismissed them as only bills. Because it "could also be Trump" now my argument is invalid? Cool story bruh.

This is what I had a problem with:

"Virginia Governor Issues SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDERS to TAKE TOTAL POWER while everyone was watching GUN BILLS!"

Literally none of that is true.

Yes, we are all well aware of your focus on anything other than the facts of the matter. You know the content. What is important is you can find something, ANYTHING, to dismiss the rest of it. Thanks for playing Nutilduhhhhhh. Back to your walled garden where only people who don't hurt your feels can talk.

[nutildah]

So the entirety of your OP doesn't matter? Why did you make a thread for it then?

[TECSHARE]

So the entirety of your OP doesn't matter? Why did you make a thread for it then?

Thanks for the immediate demonstration of what I just said.

GREAT JOB!