Virginia Democrats are pushing a bill that aims to label election oversight as a ‘hate crime
Annoy an election official, face a hate crime investigation?
Imagine a scenario where expressing your dissatisfaction with an election official could lead to being labeled a “domestic terrorist.” In today’s political climate, where the government colludes with social media platforms to suppress speech and targets conservatives, this possibility is not far-fetched. Election volunteers are now taking the threat of retaliation seriously.
A new bill, Senate Bill 364, is causing concern among election officials in Virginia. The bill aims to create a protected class for election officials and categorize offenses against them as “hate crimes.” If convicted, offenders would be added to the Virginia State Police “hate crime” database. Additionally, the bill includes provisions that would protect social media companies from First Amendment challenges if they collaborate with the government to restrict speech. This comes at a time when the Supreme Court is already considering cases involving Big Tech’s suppression of speech.
Despite the potential consequences of this bill, its sponsor, Sen. Adam Ebbin, has not responded to inquiries.
A ‘Threat Narrative’ Cottage Industry
SB 364 is part of a larger narrative pushed by Democrats that portrays conservatives as a threat to democracy and election workers. This narrative gained momentum after the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and has been perpetuated through partisan show trials. However, the evidence supporting this narrative is questionable at best. The Brennan Center, a progressive think tank funded by George Soros, is often cited as a source, but its surveys have a high margin of error and rely on distorted data.
Spinning the Narrative
Despite concerns about election integrity and trust in the electoral process, the “threat” narrative persists. Claims that election officials have faced violent threats are not supported by causation, and surveys have shown that the majority of election workers do not feel pressured to leave their jobs. Yet, this narrative continues to be used as a pretext to block transparency in the election process.
Poll Watchers Have Reason to Fear Retaliation from Election Workers
If SB 364 becomes law, it could be used to target poll watchers and concerned citizens who raise issues about the conduct of elections in Virginia. Recent cases, such as the one involving election lawyer Janet Angus in Wisconsin, demonstrate the potential for retaliation against those who question election practices. This expansion of protected classes for hate crimes is unprecedented and raises serious concerns.
J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department prosecutor, warns that any Virginia official who disregards election law should expect legal action from organizations like the Public Interest Legal Foundation. The fate of SB 364 now rests in the hands of Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin.
rnrn
In what ways do critics see the bill as a way to silence dissent and stifle free expression?
Cy and the stability of the government. This narrative has been used to justify various measures that suppress speech and limit the rights of those with conservative viewpoints. The bill’s supporters argue that it is necessary to protect election officials from harassment and intimidation, but critics see it as a way to silence dissent and stifle free expression.
The idea that expressing dissatisfaction with an election official could be equated with a hate crime is concerning, to say the least. Hate crimes are typically defined as offenses motivated by prejudice or bias towards a certain race, religion, or other protected class. To label expressing frustration or disappointment with an election official as a hate crime would be a dangerous expansion of the concept and a threat to free speech.
Furthermore, the provisions in the bill that protect social media companies from First Amendment challenges raise concerns about censorship and government control over online platforms. Many conservatives have already experienced the suppression of their voices on social media, with platforms like Twitter and Facebook actively censoring or fact-checking conservative viewpoints. By giving these companies immunity from legal challenges, the government would effectively be granting them even more power to control the flow of information and manipulate public discourse.
The timing of this bill is especially problematic as the Supreme Court is already considering cases related to Big Tech censorship. The outcome of these cases could have far-reaching implications for free speech and the ability of individuals to express their opinions online. It is crucial that any legislation regarding speech and online platforms takes into account the importance of protecting the First Amendment rights of all individuals, regardless of their political beliefs.
In a time when open and honest dialogue is needed more than ever, it is crucial that we protect the right for individuals to express their opinions, even if they are critical of those in power. Suppressing speech and labeling dissent as hate crimes only serves to further divide our society and undermine the principles of free expression and democracy. Instead of targeting and silencing those who disagree, we should encourage respectful and informed debate that allows for the exchange of ideas and the discovery of common ground.
The threat of being labeled a “domestic terrorist” for expressing dissatisfaction with an election official is a chilling prospect. It is a stark reminder of the erosion of free speech rights and the dangerous path we may be heading down if we continue to allow government overreach and the suppression of dissenting voices. We must remain vigilant in defending our rights and ensuring that legislation does not infringe upon our constitutional freedoms.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
