Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter
I would like to thank HB986 primary sponsor, Representative Brad Thomas, for his comments on my previous Substack, entitled, Contact Your GA House Members to Vote No on HB986-Political Censorship Bill!Police State Bill Will Imprison You 2-5 Years and $50K fine for Offering Your Opinion. And because Representative Thomas’ remarks helped spark an informative debate on this bill, I have decided to paste the content of that debate below such that voters and other interested parties might benefit from understanding the opposing sides.
Mar 13·edited Mar 13
Hank. This is Rep. Brad Thomas I am the primary sponsor of the bill and you couldn't be farther off base on this one. This is one of the most preeminent Election Integrity bills in the General Assembly. You need to read the definition of a person which you conveniently don't show. A person is someone who works for a PAC, a Political Candidate, or political organization. So it applies to deepstate political operatives and their money.
Basically, if you had not run for office, this bill wouldn't apply to you. It's okay you made a mistake on this. My advice is to admit to your error and run on what makes you the best candidate for your district. By fearmongering and misrepresenting the truth to scare your voters to choose you, you're already proven to be the type of politician I have been working to rid the Capitol of.
Author
Mr. Thomas, thank you for your comment, however, election integrity has nothing to do with advertising or media. Election integrity has to do with whether final election vote tallies accurately represent the numbers of lawfully cast votes by lawful voters. I have heard of no election in America, the outcome of which was changed by an advertisement, or dissemination of media such as the kind this bill would cover. This bill seeks to outlaw things that have never, and most likely will never affect an election outcome. And it presupposes the stupidity of Georgia voters not to be able to discern when someone is pulling the wool over on them. Any PAC, political candidate or political organization that would attempt to fool voters in ways this bill outlaws would naturally backfire on the candidate they support once an opposing candidate has a chance to respond and show the falsity of the media portrayal. Conservatives do not outlaw things before they are a problem. Conservatives do not extend the hand over government preemptively. Conservatives desire smaller government. If you run as a conservative Republican, and all Republicans run that way, then you must admit HB986 is not conservative legislation.
Happy to have a short debate with you regarding the bill.
1. You say, election integrity is limited to “whether final election vote tallies accurately represent the numbers of lawfully cast votes by lawful voters.” Although I agree that is a component of election integrity, I believe interfering with the administration of an election IS directly undermining an election and it’s integrity. I have identified this as a potential major issue in this years presidential election cycle, as highlighted in line 49, which explicitly prohibits actions that sow confusion about election administration.
2. You claim to have not heard of any instance where election outcomes in America were altered. However, I urge you to investigate instances such as the use of AI-generated phone calls impersonating Joe Biden to discourage voting in the New Hampshire primary. Deceptive media and election interference has already occurred and poses a growing threat.
3. You mention that any attempt by PACs or political entities to deceive voters, as prohibited by the bill, would backfire. This seems to imply acknowledgment of the narrow scope of the bill's definition of individuals. I appreciate this concession and suggest revising your subtitle, "Police State Bill Will Imprison You 2-5 Years and $50K fine for Offering Your Opinion," as it is misleading. I sincerely do appreciate you conceding the original point of my comment.
4. Everyone has their right to their beliefs on what conservatism is and I think that is bigger conversation than this string. Overall, it appears we largely agree, but it is not appropriate to pass judgment on what constitutes conservatism. I believe it is crucial to implement safeguards to protect elections and prevent the use of Artificial Intelligence in the fraudulent use of identities to deceive voters. We just disagree on this point and that's okay. Conservatives uphold free speech, not fraudulent speech.
Thanks for the debate but I have no more time to respond to this thread.
Author
1. Yes, election integrity is limited to the functions of government conducting a fair and accurate election. You are talking about campaign integrity, not election integrity. Their is no campaign integrity in politics, never has been. There is no measure to assess campaign integrity in politics. There is very little campaign truth in in politics, and I do not believe that legislating campaign integrity, in any measure, is a proper function of government. And allowing the government to play such a role is dangerous to a free society. Political campaigns are nothing if they do not sow confusion among the population. That is for the people to sort out, not for their legislators to prohibit.
2. I receive emails daily claiming to be directly from the desk of every politician seeking to receive a donation from me. Those politicians did not send those emails. But some people will believe they did. Why are you not concerned with the confusion sown by those impersonators? One large, well-known campaign consultant I expect you know, once purchased a web based news outlet and commenced the practice of writing news stories to spread fake news about that firms opposing candidates. Some people believed those stories. Why are you not concerned with confusion sown by those practices? Keep the government's hands out of legislating truth. Legislating truth in the past leads toward one source of truth, and that would be the government. Let the people sort this out. Why don't you write a bill outlawing governmental propaganda? Governmental propaganda actually does change elections. That I would support. HB986 is simply government propaganda inverted, selecting certain campaign strategies the government doesn't like and punishing people who use them.
3. Nice try, representative, but I have made no concession of anything. Your #3 only adds volume to your response, but no admissible content.
4.You say, "it is not appropriate to pass judgment on what constitutes conservatism?" Really? Representative Thomas, you've run out of arguments, clearly. So, when you go on the campaign trail and tell the voters you are "conservative," you are telling me that the voters should not pass judgement on what that means? In your next line, you claim to be a champion of placing the government in charge of not deceiving voters, yet you can characterize yourself as a conservative, act as a liberal sponsoring bills such as this, and they are not being deceived? Why is your brand of deception better than someone else's brand? It's all deception, one way or the other. That's what politics is, organized, sanctioned, bought-and-paid-for DECEPTION. Deception is how all this works. You deceived readers right here claiming I agreed with you in #3. That is rhetorical deception. Yet, I am not going to push for legislation to imprison you for 2-5 years and collect a $50K fine for deceiving readers here. Anyone reading these comments can figure this out for themselves. No true conservative Republican would consider this bill "conservative." This is Big Brother legislation, which once passed into law contains abusive powers which by the tweaking of a few words could outlaw just about any political speech the government does not like, and severely punish individuals for expressing it. HB986 must not become law. I urge the Georgia Senate Rules Committee to table it, and urge the senators to vote it down should HB986 make it onto the floor for a vote. Should any so-called "conservative" vote "Yea," perhaps we need to pass a bill defining the term, "conservative," with heavy punishment for politicians using it during campaigns and sponsoring bills like HB986 once in office.
This is the deepfake/meme 1st amendment crushing bill we have discussed for a while now. We had an impressive (for the House) 22 NO votes on this bill but it passed the house and is now in the Senate in the Judiciary committee. It has a hearing today at 4 pm and it is IMPERATIVE that ALL the grassroots call the Committee today and ask the members to VOTE NO ON HB986!!!!! Here are the numbers:
**Brian Strickland 404.463.6598**
*Bill Cowsert 404.463.1366*
Mike Hodges 404.463.1309
Steve Gooch 404.656.9221
Bo Hatchett 404.651.7745
John Kennedy 404.656.6578
Ed Setzler 404.656.0256
Ben Watson 404.656.7880
EVERY CALL MATTERS!
