It just seems to me a matter of basic fairness that, if we are going to federalize the area of protecting people who are trying to cross protester lines, or picket lines, or something like that, after all it does not make any difference to the person who was harassed why they were harassed, and it should not make any difference to people who are concerned about violence what the reason was, and, as the gentleman said, I think it makes the law constitutionally much more likely to be infirm if the penalty discriminates on the basis of the content of the speech.
James M. Talent: “It just seems to me a matter of basic fairness that, if we are going to federalize the area of protecting people who are…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing fairness in federal laws regarding harassment at protest lines.
Share
More from James M. Talent
I think success means protecting the American homeland, the territorial integrity of allies, the economy, from attacks.
We fear our military lacks the capability to attract, use, and keep the unconventional, technical, and cutting-edge talents and skills that it needs to meet future threats and new realities.
More than ever, the U.S. military must fully engage the entirety of American society, not only to expand the military's access to talent, but to also reconnect the Nation to its military.
I certainly agree that these are vital concerns, given the power of cyber weapons, their escalatory potential, and the downside consequences of a miscalculation.





