Authorities use ‘stalking’ laws to kill freedom of speech

Source: Paul Joseph Watson

The Homeland Security unit of Charlotte’s Mecklenburg Police Department is working hard to crush the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion activists by re-characterizing protest as “stalking,” ensuring that institutions merely have to complain that they feel “threatened” in order to have police remove demonstrators.

The domestic terrorism branch of the CMPD is targeting the anti-abortion group Operation Save America because of its efforts to dissuade mothers from terminating pregnancies outside abortion mills.

“Rev. Flip Benham, the National Director of Operation Save America, will appear at the Charlotte School of Law in Charlotte to appeal a “guilty’ verdict for “stalking.” The charge of “stalking” is simply the latest of many blatant attempts by the abortion industry and the city of Charlotte to remove from the streets gentle Christians who offer mom’s a real choice at abortion mills. There have been lawsuits, injunctions, temporary restraining orders, and every other imaginable strategy, to silence the Gospel of Christ,” reports Operation Save America.

The group claims it is being targeted because its efforts have saved over a thousand babies from being aborted, representing a huge chunk of “lost revenue” for the abortion industry.

“This new North Carolina “stalking” statute is so egregious because it can be used by virtually anyone to silence the First Amendment rights of another by simply saying that he or she “feels” threatened,” states the press release.

The fact that a local unit of the DHS is flexing its muscles to silence anti-abortion voices is unsurprising given Homeland Security’s routine demonization of right to life activists as hate groups.

In a 2009 report distributed to law enforcement organizations entitled , “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” anti-abortion activists are put on a par with white supremacists and domestic terrorists.

The wider move to re-characterize free speech activities as “stalking” or “harassment” has accelerated in recent months.

Previous stalking laws have been ruled unconstitutional because they “could undercut free-speech rights, including the media’s newsgathering ability and a citizen’s right to “redress political or legal grievances.”

The ACLU has decried a new bill that would criminalize any speech on the Internet that “has the effect of causing substantial embarrassment or humiliation to [a] person within an academic or professional community.”

Of course, legitimate criticism of public figures would fall under this category. Genuine allegations of corruption would be chilled by this law because it would create fear of reprisals.