re: #80 Lawrence Schmerel

Oh, I see:

Now that certainly sounds like it will pass Constitutional muster to me!

Assuming the linked bill is the same version of the text the article is about, I think the article overstates what would actually be criminalized. The part of it describing what is covered seemed pretty limited to what would be considered by most reasonable to be terrorist activities.

Of course, just because the bill limits what would actually be covered doesn’t mean it can’t/won’t/isn’t intended to be used in a much broader manner of harassment and intimidation. That is what the real goal is, most likely.