Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Michigan - Wrong Pronoun Will Cost You 5 Years & $10K

Michigan residents could be charged with a felony, face up to five years in prison and get a $10,000 fine for using the wrong pronouns under 'unconstitutional' new bill
The Michigan House has approved a hate speech bill, HB 4474, that would criminalize causing someone to 'feel' threatened by words
The bill aims to replace the current Ethnic Intimidation Act and includes 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity or expression' as protected classes
Offenders could face up to five years in prison for the felony offense - some have argued that the legislation could infringe on free speech rights

By JAMES GORDON PUBLISHED: 01:49 EDT, 30 June 2023 | UPDATED: 08:12 EDT, 30 June 2023

Michigan's House of Representatives has passed a hate speech bill, known as HB 4474, which criminalizes causing someone to feel threatened by words, including the misusing of their pronouns, with the possibility of a hefty fine or even jail time. The bill introduces hate crime penalties for causing someone to 'feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened,' with 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity or expression' included as protected classes.

Offenders could face up to five years in prison for such a felony offense or a $10,000 fine.

It is part of a continues effort by Democrats in the state to advance a pro-LGBTQ+ agenda in their first months in power. The proposed legislation aims to replace the existing Ethnic Intimidation Act and extends protection against intimidation. The bill aims to replace the current Ethnic Intimidation Act and includes 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity or expression' as protected classes. Critics argue that the bill poses a threat to First Amendment rights and lacks clarity in defining 'harassment', leaving it open to subjective interpretation.

The bill reads as follows: 'Intimidate' means a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.'

If passed, penalties would be based on how the supposed victim and court 'feel' about a particular matter. What constitutes as being deemed 'intimidation and harassment' would be up to the interpretation of the listener and a local prosecutor.Critics argue that the legislation could infringe on free speech rights and undermine the principles of due process.

Michigan Democrats have made it a priority to further protect LGBTQ+ people since they took control of all levels of state government this year. In March, lawmakers codified LGBTQ+ protections into the state's civil rights law, permanently outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the state. This new hate speech bill passed in the Democrat-controlled House 59-50 and will now move to the Michigan State Senate (also Democrat controlled) for further consideration.

If approved, it would expected to be signed into law by the Democratic state Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

Distinguished Professor Emeritus William Wagner, an expert in constitutional law and former federal judge warns that the legislation could be used to silence conservative viewpoints and would oppose the due process required by the Constitution.

'Make no mistake about it. Those advocating for this legislation will wield these policies as a weapon capable of destroying conservative expression or viewpoints grounded in the sacred,' Wagner told The Daily Wire.

'One merely needs to look at the scores of cases brought against schools, churches, businesses, and individuals around our country. Proponents use these laws to silence and financially cripple those who dare to adhere to a different viewpoint and oppose their agenda.'

Its bad enough women are allowed to vote, now they are writing laws?!? Lord help us...

Great! Wife has booked us a trip to the UP in a couple of months. Been nice knowing you folks!

1984 was a true prediction
We are all being forced to use "new speak"

Well Michigan voted for them, reap what you sow! I will admit Michigan is the home of stupidity. My opinion, ymmv!

In American jurisprudence, we disallow laws which are based on the feelings of others, since we have no control over the feelings of others, and laws of this sort make ordinary citizens incapable of avoiding prosecution via traditional standards of lawful conduct.

With regard to speech, this is particularly the case, since such a law would give random strangers a veto over the freedom of our speech, which specifically violates the First Amendment.

That's assuming constitutions and laws can't be changed. That's not always a safe asumption.




Constitution of the People's Republic of China

Article 35 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.

Article 36 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of religious belief.

Article 51 When exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall not undermine the interests of the state, society or collectives, or infringe upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.

https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html

---

China’s Constitutional Rights: A Grand Illusion
By James A. Dorn
SEPTEMBER 1, 2021

Although there are numerous rights enumerated in China’s Constitution, all of those rights are negated by Article 51, which states: “When exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) shall not undermine the interests of the state.” Those “interests” are all encompassing, but the most important is maintaining the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) monopoly on power. Consequently, China’s constitutional rights are merely “paper rights,” and a grand illusion.

https://www.cato.org/blog/chinas-constitutional-rights-grand-illusion

---

In American jurisprudence, we disallow laws which are based on the feelings of others, since we have no control over the feelings of others, and laws of this sort make ordinary citizens incapable of avoiding prosecution via traditional standards of lawful conduct.

With regard to speech, this is particularly the case, since such a law would give random strangers a veto over the freedom of our speech, which specifically violates the First Amendment.