It all sounds like a plot to me. Muslim imams deliberately cause a scene on a plane, get kicked off, sue everyone, and eventually get the public scared to report anything malicious that terrorists may try in the future. The terrorists' job is made easier, pushed along in the name of political correctness, in the sue-happy USA. Am I missing something?
If people are worried about getting sued to do what's right, then they are cowards. I don't think we need laws defending cowards. Who get's legal immunity? People in the gov't who are acting in their capcity of thier jobs and such are granted immunity for certain things. Also diplomats. Whistle blowers don't get legal immunity. Nor do good samaritans. If you try to save someone's life, they can sue you. Should we have a law against that? No. If they pass a law that lets you have legal immunity for making accusations, then people will just start making accusations all over the place. People will report thier neighbors. People will abuse that law like crazy. I mean, that's the stupidist law I ever heard passed. What's wrong with the Republican party these days? Have they gone nuts? Have they just completely been scarred by 9/11 and forgotten that this is America and not Saudi Arabia????
While I think bobrek has some good points, you hit the nail on the head, as did others here. Granting immunity to those who make accusations against others, and are then found to be wrong, for whatever reason, would lead to the same kind of situation you had during the Cold War in East Germany, for example. People lived in fear of expressing themselves in the most innocuous ways due to the huge numbers of informers working for the government. Paid, frightened into doing it, blackmailed, or from a misguided sense of "patriotism," an incredible number of East Germans "informed" on their friends, neighbors, coworkers, even relatives. bobrek is an intelligent fellow, and means well, unlike basso, but passing these "immunity laws" for informers is yet another step towards changing America from being the country we know and love. If you toss away what has made us the envy of the world, our freedoms... all of them, you open the door to Fascism and worse. The United States has always paid a price for our kind of society. It is imperfect. As imperfect as it is, however, it is far, far better than the vast majority of countries outside of Europe. We are innocent until proven guilty. Even France and Britain don't have all the freedoms we possess. We need to keep a tight grip on those we have left. If that means having to deal with the occasional situation that, on the face of it, may seem reasonable, but impinges on our fundamental rights, it is the price we pay. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
Yes, you're missing the full story. At this point, it's unclear whether the imams deliberately caused a scene in the first place.
Um yep, they can. Senate rules and all that. Not to mention that even if it gets passed Congress it still has to be signed. The number of threatened filibusters in the Senate are up, as is the number of threatened vetos.
Ah yes... here it is from another thread... and again, the current total is only after 7 months of a 2 year term.
You know, I know personally how disturbing this proposed law is. I had a roommate years back for the summer, and he left on bad terms. Well, his last night he got pretty drunk, walked into my room to cause trouble, and thinking he was a burgler i socked him really hard not realizing who he was. I Realized it was him, he sheepishly stumbled off, I fell asleep again, and the next thing i know the cops were knocking on my door. He said that i had assualted him and that I was involved in terrorist activity. The cops asked what happened, i spoke, and then they said ok and ended up taking him down to the station for using 9-1-1 improperly and being an idiot. So now you want this guy to be protected? I'm telling you crazy right-wing nuts, I'm quickly moving to a place where I find not only Bush and Chaney dispicable, but I'm losing faith in the entire republican party. They keep this kind of stuff up and I will never vote for another Republican candidate again.
I would be okay with a compromise bill that would allow the falsely accused to sue for compensatory damages but would exempt the accuser from punitive damages. I think saving lives is more important than the odd falsely accused person's feelings, and with no actual losses, they can just move on with their lives.
Interesting. So a group of people can be routinely inconvience and harrassed because of stereotypes and bigotry. . but hey. .. no big deal it is just their lot in life. . . nothing like a lil racial profiling to keep the trains on time Rocket River
This doesn't make sense as the proposed law isn't a law yet so nothing changes. People can still report on suspicious activity if they truly feel under threat. While they need to be careful about what they report this isn't any different than things have been all along.
So a few thousand people can be killed, just so long as you are allowed to sue people for inconveniencing you? In pro-choice America, that is hardly surprising.
So if you thought a thousand people were going to be killed the idea of losing some money would stop you? To me . .this is like Protecting Vigilantes If they do it right and save and protect people. .it is all gravy but when they do it wrong. . it can go REALLY WRONG I just see alot of people reporting alot o stuff then saying. . OOPS better safe than sorry then I will notice a trend that those that are inconvienced more often than not .. are not the majority but people that look like this or that Once it reaches the point of picking on one group . .it is a problem and once you let that cat out of the bag . . .it won't be undone. A large part of GOOD LAW imo . . is seeing how it will be abused Rocket River
that whole imams thing did get me pretty pissed. so obvious they were trying to be suspicious...like a guy in a bar sticking his foot out in front of people then picking a fight when someone steps on it. the bill itself...it would be nice to make a open and honest comment concerning suspicious behavior without fear of being sued, if said act happen to be done by someone with extra pigment in their skin.
who are the few thousand people who were killed? Are you saying that people won't report suspicious behavior if they are told that if you make it up you can get into trouble? That's like proposing that people who yell "fire" in a movie theatre should be protected against lawsuits.
if you suspicion is valid you will be fine. and if you do get sued, i'm sure a ton of legal firms would love to take the case
How can you get sued for point out suspicious behavior? Isn't it the airlines that need the protection?
What if you get in trouble if you didn't make it up, but there turns out to be a good explanation for the behavior or no one can find proof that there was anything suspicious besides your testimony? Like the musicians that were acting suspiciously on the plane. It turned out they were just musicians traveling together, but there were people who thought their behavior was odd. Isn't it better to report them, find out that they are innocent, and everyone moves on with their lives than have them turn around a sue, or have the person not report their suspicion for fear of a lawsuit. If there was some way to protect the people who are mistaken, but not the people who are malicious, that would be good. I don't know that it can be done, and I would prefer to protect the vigilant and the liars instead of neither. It is more like saying you shouldn't be sued if you see someone coming out of their house with garbage bags dripping blood and call the police, and it turns out they were just cleaning a deer they killed. The prohibition against yelling fire in a theater does not apply if you think there really is a fire, AFAIK. Likewise, if you think someone is behaving suspiciously, you should not be punished if you are wrong. I guess I would have to weigh how certain I was that something was going on against how much I had to lose. I would prefer that was not an issue, and that if I had the barest inkling I would be free to pass it along and let someone whose job it is to worry about those things handle it. This is a bit different, as vigilantes typically get physically involved in stopping crime. More like protecting a neighborhood watch. Good. It is better safe than sorry. That problem is likely unavoidable. If you look like one of the "bad guys" you are going to face extra difficulties in life. That is just the way it is. We cannot know everyone in the world, and at some point you may have to make decisions based on incomplete information. I would say it is more important to do a cost/benefit analysis. Are the consequences of the law being abused worse than the consequences of not having the law?
I know a lot of people get upset when people like Al Sharpton make questionable or unfounded accusations of racism but what this law would do is protect people to make questionable or unfounded accusations of terrorism.
oh no. lets protect people who make 'questionable or unfounded accusations' that are probably entrenched in racism and bigotry.
