Commentary

Klar: In Vermont, can’t say ‘let’s kill all the lawyers’ anymore

John Klar speaks freely on the State House steps at a 2020 rally. He wonders how long the law will allow him to do so.

By John Klar, American Thinker

Vermont’s social justice legislators have launched a transparent and illegal assault against free speech liberties. 

Vermont’s Senate has amended the state’s assault statute mightily.  S.265 seeks to heighten penalties for threatening with the “intent to terrify, intimidate, or unlawfully influence the conduct of a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or public employee in any decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion.” Conviction carries a prison sentence of up to two years and/or a $2000 fine.

Vermont seeks to send citizens to jail for threatening political leaders for twice as long as the same act carried out against a regular Vermonter. Political speech is the very highest and most protected form of free speech in American jurisprudence: Vermont now has more upside down than right side up laws, and the whole bizarre circus is unraveling.

A Shakespearean character famously proclaimed “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”  Now, under Vermont’s new law, that statement could land someone in jail, especially if one of the faux lawyers in the legislature says they feel threatened – the revised statute will criminalize threats against “groups of people,” possibly even when they aren’t present. These legislators do not seek to shield public servants from unprotected threatening speech, but to intimidate the public for engaging in protected speech that criticizes social justice.

This specifically targets a political intent.  The obviously unconstitutional S.265 makes little effort to hide the fact that its purpose is to intimidate voters against criticizing representatives – even when the latter are overtly violating basic tenets of law.  Legislators in Vermont have called to ban unvaccinated people from entering public buildings, suborned voter fraud, pushed for transgender therapies for children with no age limit or parental consent, distributed funds and privileges solely according to skin color, and are currently crafting numerous other patently unconstitutional laws.  Meanwhile, a Republican state senator who challenged a teacher on behalf of constituents for pressuring young students to employ gender pronouns was attacked by the Vermont Left for allegedly “doxxing” the teacher – for making his already-public email public.

S.265 also eliminates a statutory speech protection making it an affirmative defense if it is impossible for the defendant to carry out the crime. Thus, if a person threatens nuclear war against filthy lawyers, they could be charged even when they own no nukes.

The statute seeks to ban specific content, and it is also strikingly vague – it seeks to protect all public servants and employees, including teachers, from threats:

“A person who violates subsection (a) of this section by making a threat that places any person in reasonable apprehension that death or serious bodily injury will occur at a public or private school; postsecondary education institution; place of worship; polling place during election activities; the Vermont State House; or any federal, State, or municipal building shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $2,000.00, or both.”

What of off-duty teachers or employees – are they always held to a higher protection status than the parents of their students?  Is there an affirmative defense or mitigating factor if the public employee actually violated the law in the performance of their duties?  This idiotic statute is designed to silence dissenting opinion by parents and constitutionalists, and is thus the most base form of unconstitutional law.  It is content-based, and creates two classes of Vermont citizens.

This is a big issue in Vermont, which has nearly twice as many public employees per capita than neighboring New Hampshire.  This statute says any citizen who threatens state elites for violating their oath of office can be imprisoned for twice as long as if one of those “public servants” (rulers?) threatened a parent or citizen.  H.265 would penalize the political protester more severely than a public official who threatened to coerce money: “give me $100 or I will beat your face to a pulp” would carry only half the jail sentence as “You groom my kindergartner for sex any more and I’m going to smack you!”  This is content-based government restriction, and it is unconstitutional.

The clueless drafters of this bill rushed to illegally silence Vermonters so quickly they left common sense at the door: there is no heightened penalty in Vermont for actually assaulting this list of government-protected political elites – 13 VSA §1023 provides only one year in jail for purposely causing bodily injury to another.  It protects certain categories of public workers engaged in official duties, but the traitorous teachers and legislators undermining the constitution with their eugenics-like racism are not currently granted heightened protection from assault.

There are several dastardly miscreants in Vermont’s legislative midst, abusing their legal training to lie about the law.  These are what I call “bad wizards” – they cast legal spells that they know full well won’t work or are in fact illegal.  I aspire with my law degree to be a “good wizard,” arming the public with the law so that they may defend themselves.

As a good wizard, I must observe that for Vermont parents upset over the criminal indoctrination of their children by trusted government actors who are preying on them for ideological power, it would be legally preferable under the new law to physically beat them senseless as an expression of that view rather than to verbally threaten to do so.  Under S.265, threatening to punch a teacher for betraying your child will soon carry twice the jail sentence and fine as actually pummeling them: political speech is being criminalized even more forcefully than actual assaults, in the New Age Vermont.  It is better to speak with your fists than your tongue.

The thugs in the Vermont legislature will soon realize the ludicrous error they are displaying, and will doubtless rush to inflict greater jail time on the parental underclass for assaulting their elitist rulers.  That Shakespeare line about “killing all the lawyers” – that was a reference to what tyrants do, so that those who uphold the laws cannot oppose totalitarianism.  Tyrants don’t want any good wizards around to restrain them with the Rule of Law.  What the bad wizards and ignorant zealots in Vermont seem to have forgotten is that after they have dismantled the Rule of Law, only anarchy – and the guillotine – remain.

Gee, I hope I don’t get arrested for stating that truth….. Did I threaten a “group of people”? 

11 replies »

  1. reminds me of a good lawyer joke, “whats the difference between a dead lawyer in the road vs a dead dog in the road?”, answer = the dead dog has skid marks around it!

  2. Can we still question the veracity, and necessity of their chosen profession ? I still maintain that if there were fewer lawyers we’d all be better off.

    • Sorry, questioning a person’s “veracity and necessity” could make someone feel inadequate and hence constitutes a microaggression. By today’s snowflake standards, it’s the same as punching them.

      • The only reason I have long hair is to try and cover my red neck, but there are times it still shines through. LOL !

      • Question: “What do you call 5000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?”
        Answer: “A good start.” That is an old joke.
        Have I just violated State Law?

  3. There is a symbiotic relationship between free speech and violence. If one goes up, the other goes down. Oh yeah, and not because I say so!

  4. This is not only ironic but full of hypocrisy, as FOIA’s revealed to me in inter-office communications about a specific subject (word) how disdainful these officials and head of depts. are of us by how they speak of us to each other. Its okay for THEM to gaslight, bully and emotionally blackmail US into complying with draconian standards and rules – as long as they don’t get caught – but for the rest of us who are just authentic and honest about how we feel about public figures and expressing it (freedom of speech WAS protected until this year), we must pay a fine for thought crimes we speak outloud that violate fake standards that justify… thought policing.

    I have seen more than one email chain that utterly disrepects by name citizens who ask questions, or question authority in this State. The privilage and arrogance behind those sentiments – apparently their farts don’t smell so don’t need to be taxed – expressed in the emails I read was shocking on one level – are they stupid to put that stuff in writing? – but utterly reflective of the current status quo between US and THEM.

    THEY are legislating protections so THEY can legally abuse us and don’t have to be accountable.

    They are legislating personal accountability out of politics.
    This can ONLY stand in a REAL world where the voting machines are interfered with to carry out the nightmare they inflict on us.

    What I DO know is that Satan always claims his due, and with all these legislators so willing to sleep with the Devil and do his bidding in enslaving humanity and their right to be informed and to choose from that place of informedness – the bill WILL come due. And they WILL be held accountable by a higher authority than Satan.

    Every single writer, signatory and go along to get alonger will be held accountable.

    I will not ask permission to express myself, nor will I censor myself out of fear of retribution by some jealous fearful sycophant of Satans dressed all pretty an ever lil’thang.

    I will continue to speak truth to power, and let THEM deal with the inevitable accounting when their adrenochrome fed bodies finally return the Devil his due – another lost human soul.

    Truth is the Path of God that was given to us to walk.
    We’re just aren’t on the path of God if we are trying to suppress, oppress or punish those who speak it.

    The only thing this oppression does is reveal within us our immortality to their contracts that come due with death. While we Rise.

    Hallaleujah! He has Risen and shown us the way.

  5. And check the roll call!

    Only Benning and Ingalls voted against this monstrosity.

    Brock, Collamore, Parent, Terenzini and Westman were all Republican Yays.

    Remember that when you vote this year.

  6. I see no reason to praise people who threaten teachers or officials. Likewise i see no reason for additional laws to forbid what is already forbidden.

Leave a Reply