New Bill Strips First Amendment Rights If Words 'Have No Legitimate Purpose'

1/21/2021

But who decides what's a 'legitimate purpose'?

Rep. Carol Bush wants folks to be nice on social media platforms. So she's using her authority to make a law. The Tulsan believes that having someone talk about her, might be an "invasion of her privacy & serve no legitimate purpose". So that's exactly what she wants to criminalize.
I may have already violated this language because I told you she's from Tulsa (invasion of her privacy) and I warned you that she's trying to redefine what speech is constitutionally protected (why... that kind of criticism has to be harassment! It serves no legitimate purpose to her!).
Facebook, Twitter, and other big tech giants are increasingly interpreting their own website rules in such a way that they are only enforced harshly on conservatives, and global terrorists go unfiltered while publishing death threats openly.
Bush, who's been recruited to run for office by well known Tulsa liberals; has consistently been working to pass laws which strip constitutional rights. This is yet another chapter of Bush Laws proposed to the legislature, to further control people whom she doesn't trust to manage their own affairs and interactions.
HB1007 is posted below..

Comments

FRONT PAGE • OKLAHOMA NEWS • EDITORIAL • SOONER ISSUES • STATE GROUPS • SOONER ANALYSTS • LAWMAKER'S JOURNAL • NATION • NATIONAL COMMENTARY • CARTOONS •

918 . 928 . 7776

SoonerPolitics.org is committed to informing & mobilizing conservative Oklahomans for civic reform & restored liberty. We seeks to utilize the efforts of all cooperative facets of the Conservative movement... Content of the diverse columns are solely at the discretion of the dozens of websites who create the content. David Van Risseghem is the founder of this platform.
Sooner Politics News is a platform, not a media site. All our bloggers get their feeds promoted regardless of content. As soon as We suppress or delete even one posting, we become an endorser of whatever We didn't censor..The publisher doesn't (and could not) logically agree with all the content, so we would not expect any rational reader to agree, either. What we do hope, is that readers will think for themselves, and at least be better informed of the issues, events, and values that our citizen journalists work hard to provide for free.. We automate much of the tasks so that our sources' content gets as much exposure as possible. We encourage constructive discussion & debate. The solution is more free speech, not less.