In Michigan, the battle over ‘free speech‘ rights has been reignited, with the Democratic–controlled state House of Representatives passing legislation on Tuesday which could criminalize hurt feelings.
House Bill 4474 could make it possible for offenders to be sent to prison for up to five years and fined up to $10,000 if someone “feels“ threatened or intimidated by their words.
It is a vague and clearly unconstitutional censorship law that attempts to cloak itself as protection from “hate speech.” Under this law, there is no need to actually threaten someone with violence, and if a person “feels“ threatened by something you say or post online, then you can be prosecuted.
This has civil liberties advocates and conservatives there outraged, with some even likening it to the creation of a “thought police.”
“To be clear, you are not allowed (and should not be) to threaten people with physical violence,” said Jason Overstreet, Director of the Libertarian–leaning Michigan Association for Free Speech. “But there‘s a huge difference between saying ‘I know where you live and I‘m going to come burn down your house‘ and ‘I refuse to put a pride flag on my Twitter account.’ The problem is, too many liberals today view the latter example as something hateful or threatening.”
With the new bill passing through the House, the next step will be signing into law by Governor Gretchen Whitmer. While there is no official word yet from the Governor‘s office, it is expected that she will likely support the legislation due to her record of progressive policies.
The punishment proposed under the bill for offenders is a maximum five-year jail term and a $10,000 fine, though the alternate sentence suggests “community service“ with the goal of “enhancing the offender‘s understanding of the impact of the offense upon the victim and wider community.”
The new bill defined offenses as a “willful course of conduct, involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.”
Critics of the bill are worried that it‘s too vague and could be used to target anyone who has different beliefs than the current social norms of Michigan liberals. There is no doubt that this bill will be challenged in court, and the case could make its way all the way to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, Michigan residents of all political stripes should rally together to fight against what is an obvious attempt to stifle free speech. If this law is allowed to stand, then the liberal majority in Michigan will have effectively outlawed dissent.
