Joe Biden Signs Anti-Lynching Legislation: ‘Racial Hate a Persistent Problem’

[christian]

Does this mean the democrats have to let off their fanatical determined efforts to lynch President Trump, and they can no longer use an army of lawyers to go after Sarah Palin?

[sneakypete]

Does this mean the democrats have to let off their fanatical determined efforts to lynch President Trump, and they can no longer use an army of lawyers to go after Sarah Palin?

@christian

Of course not. No laws apply to Dims.

[christian]

“The same racial hatred that drove the mob to hang a noose, brought that mob carrying torches out of the fields of Charlottesville just a few years ago,” Biden said, referring to the 2017 protests. “Racial hate isn’t an old problem. It’s a persistent problem.”

Odd how when democrats get in trouble and show up in a courtroom, their amnesia can be as recent as the day they show up in court.  But when it comes to reviving the old evils of history, and cast blame (usually away from themselves) their memories appear to be razor clear and flawless.  Shouldn't modern medicine be investigating these miracles of our times?  Isn't it amazing the clarity of massively demented Joe biden can be?
 Perfectly severely demented to escape accountabilities, yet a flawless memory to accuse and cast blame?
Or is Joe just proving to the world how easy it is to make useful fools out of clueless people?

How wonderful for governments that people do not think!  Adolf Hitler.

[mountaineer]

New ‘Antilynching’ Federal Law Could Let Prosecutors Imprison You For A Crime You Never Committed
The Emmett Till Antilynching Act may become a key piece in the arsenal for U.S. intelligence agencies’ war on free speech.
By: Liam Cosgrove
April 05, 2022

Touted as an overdue (if duplicative) law that no one could disagree with, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act signed by President Biden last week includes a subtle provision that could boost the Biden administration’s war on wrongthink.

The bill sailed through the U.S. Senate and the House with ease. The tactful naming made the bill radioactive to oppose, which is why 422 congressmen voted in favor while only three opposed.

Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the three who voted against the bill, expressed a handful of concerns, including that there are a limited number of constitutionally specified federal crimes, that lynching is already criminalized, and that “Adding enhanced penalties for ‘hate’ [on top of existing criminal punishments] tends to endanger other liberties such as freedom of speech.”

He also highlighted another potential pitfall of the legislation: “The bill creates another federal crime of ‘conspiracy,’ which I’m concerned could be enforced overbroadly on people who are not perpetrators of a crime.” Here’s the section Massie is referring to:

Whoever conspires to commit any offense under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall, if death or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 2246 of this title) results from the offense, or if the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, be imprisoned for not more than 30 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both.

... So as of last Tuesday, it is illegal to simply “agree” to participate in an act if it falls under the categories highlighted above. One can imagine dark political humor venturing into these categories (a comment such as “I hate so-and-so so much I could kill him,” for example) being interpreted as “conspiring to lynch.”

The key issue here is that intent should not be the sole subject of a court case. ...

Entire article at The Federalist