>>5308748 (lb/Q)
>HATE HOAX by [SMOLLETT] [FF designed to pass anti-lynching law]
Hate to be a pest but see
>>5308441 (lb)
>>5307064 (pb)
>conspires…punished…same manner as…completed violation…
Not a lawfag, but "conspires" is a slippery word when unsavory politically-biased prosecutors get a hold of it.
Would be nice to get clarification by a known attorney (not an anonymous 'lawfag') on this particular language.
Thanks. Does the violation need to be completed in order for there to be a conspiracy?
Larger point being is wondering if there is a motivation behind this bill over and above scoring political brownie points.
Whether there's something in the language of the bill that could be interpreted in a nefarious way to criminalize what is now covered under 1st Amendment protections.
Especially with the 'political correctness' craziness intensifying.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s488/text