MA: Common Courtesy While Driving Act (Vetoed)

[ZuWo]

I voted for the repeal of the original bill, so I won't be supporting its return.

I removed the controversial bits of the original bill and lowered the fine so this is actually a compromise. Here's the old, repealed text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ZuWo]

I accept Talleyrand's amendment.

Due to reasons I have expressed in previous debates, primarily my support for free speech [...] this will not get my signature, though I am open to suggestions.

In what way does this bill violate the principle of free speech?

[ZuWo]

Since this is the only bill that the Assembly is debating at the moment I think we have enough time to have an in-depth discussion on all facets concerning this piece of legislation. I will certainly address your other concerns at a later point. However, since you said that you oppose the bill "primarily because of your support for free speech" I think it's important to clarify if and how this bill violates the principle of free speech. In fact, I am convinced that it doesn't.

I agree that the bill leaves certain things at a policeman's discretion (e.g. "excessive honking") so I'm ready to amend certain parts of the bill if necessary. But I don't see how this bill could possibly infringe on someone's right to say what they want, i.e. their freedom of speech (unless we consider it a human right to intimidate and threaten others physically and verbally, but that's highly problematic in my opinion). I admit that the old, repealed version of the bill could be argued to be at odds with the principle of free speech, but I don't see how that's the case with this bill.

[ZuWo]

Because as I've already said, the language used, particularly "intimidating drivers", could lead to many different interpretations. How do you define "intimidating drivers", Assemblyman ZuWo?

I guess we have to accept the fact that legal language is hardly ever completely unambiguous, but we can easily find a good definition of "intimidating drivers" if that's your main concern. What about changing the term "intimidating drivers" to "threatening drivers" and defining "threatening" as "intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury"*?

*from wikipedia "criminal threatening"

[ZuWo]

I'll say it again: Language is ambiguous to a certain extent. The definition of "threatening drivers" I have offered is the one that is widely used in the definition of "criminal threatening". If you look at how "criminal threatening" is defined in civil codes in countries all around the world you won't find a much better definition. Thus, I'm afraid it's impossible to avoid that there is some "wiggle room". Indeed, there's probably no statute which doesn't leave certain things open to interpretation.

I will address your other points later when I have more time.

[ZuWo]

To address certain points that have been raised:

- Firstly, I have no problem with replacing "turning on high beams" with "excessive flashing of lights".
- Secondly, we can also define the number of "multiple offences". What about three?
- Finally, I agree with Inks that a formulation along the lines of "excessive use of horn" is good enough. Why should we have to come up with a more precise definition than what we have in most statutes in the U.S., where these definitions apparently don't cause any problems?

[ZuWo]

Indeed, I don't consider it a problem at all that this bill leaves certain things up to a police officer's discretion. As Inks made clear with several examples, this is the case in numerous situations that can arise when you are on the street. "Wiggle room" for police officers is okay. It's their duty to assess certain situations in an accurate way and I think we can trust them to do their job right.

[ZuWo]

Aye

[ZuWo]

Aye

[ZuWo]

I cast a symbolic AYE