Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

De Blasio Wants Police to Scold People For Saying Things That Are Legal But “Not Appropriate”

De Blasio Wants Police to Scold People For Saying Things That Are Legal But “Not Appropriate”

Literal Speech Police: De Blasio thinks it’s okay for the NYPD to confront you over hateful speech and take down your name.

https://youtu.be/WzuCd_JfExE?t=3295

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has no problem with the NYPD acting like the speech police to help combat so-called hate crimes against Asian-Americans:

“Even if something is not a criminal case, a perpetrator being confronted by the city, whether it’s NYPD or another agency, and being told that what they’ve done was very hurtful to another person — and could, if ever repeated, lead to criminal charges — that’s another important piece of the puzzle,” de Blasio told reporters.

“That’s why we need these reports,” he said.

Asked how the so-called “confrontations” would work, de Blasio said the NYPD is already trained at doling out warnings.

“If someone has done something wrong, but not rising to a criminal level, it’s perfectly appropriate for an NYPD officer to talk to them to say, ‘that was not appropriate, and if you did that on a higher level, that would be a crime,’” he said.

De Blasio insisted the confrontations could have an “educating” or “sobering impact” on people. That’s why the NYPD needs reports.

He also said: “I assure you, if an NYPD officer calls you or shows up at your door to ask you about something you did, it makes you think twice. We need that.”

I say “so-called” because the ones the MSM reported had nothing to do with racism: Oakland, CA, and Georgia Spa Murders.

Literal speech police. Literally the speech police. De Blasio wants these reports so they can keep an eye on you.

Look how he ended his answer: “And part of it is to report everything, track everything, and anything that might be criminal, prosecute. And anything that’s not criminal, still follow up on aggressively, so people feel the presence of law enforcement in the city watching them to make sure this does not happen again.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

thad_the_man | March 18, 2021 at 6:09 pm

The police answer to DeBlasio should be “Fuck off.”

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to thad_the_man. | March 19, 2021 at 1:15 am

    Perhaps the police could start by scolding De Blasio for saying police should run around scolding people.

    It’s a lot worse than just doing that. Di Blasio is an oaf, and he does what handlers tell him to do. That his handlers are telling him to send the police to intimidate free speakers is akin to that democrat psycho leading troops into Congress to intimdate Marjorie Greene. (This could not have been done with out that POS pelosi’s approval.)

    Drip, drip, drip, drip: they move the norm towards fascism.

    START THE F***KING TALK ABOUT SECESSION BEFORE YOU ARE ENSLAVED!

    Doctor-Elect Disco Stu_ in reply to thad_the_man. | March 19, 2021 at 9:58 am

    You beat me to it, Thad. If even an individual walking the streets of New York saw the Mayor and told him simply to #EffOFF might that be crossing some semi-flexible City’s hateful speech code?

    Not to mention state-wise enforcement if such a mechanism might also be adopted by #CaesarCuomo.

thad_the_man | March 18, 2021 at 6:14 pm

Now watch. Some cop will try do this with some 350lb black person who flips their lid. The cop will then have to subdue him, but he guy puts up a big fight. In the process of subduing him, the guy dies. Then everyone blames the cop for the whole thing.

“Even if something is not a criminal case, a perpetrator being confronted by the city, whether it’s NYPD or another agency, and being told that what they’ve done was very hurtful to another person — and could, if ever repeated, lead to criminal charges — that’s another important piece of the puzzle,”

Translation: We want to chill speech we don’t approve of. Otherwise, people might start thinking they have rights or something and we can’t have that!

So, DeBolshevik is going to turn out the police on people who are rude to someone else, right? It will be interesting to see how long this lasts once he harassment complaints and lawsuits start coming in. Especially the first time one of New York’s Finest beats a civilian half to death for Contempt of Cop because “He was rude to me!” I wonder if there will be quotas for how many citizens each officer in the Mayor’s Stasi will have to “chastise” each shift. One can only hope New York’s Finest live up to their name and tell the Mayor they’re not going to be his speech police.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Idonttweet. | March 19, 2021 at 5:34 am

    “” I wonder if there will be quotas for how many citizens each officer in the Mayor’s Stasi…”

    In the eyes of Law Enfarcemwnt, we are not citizens. We are CIVILIANS. They became militarized long ago and it gets worse

Under Comrade De Blasio’s regime, turnstile jumping, public urination and smoking weed in public are no longer crimes but calling someone a “bad name” will get the NYPD on your @$$. Makes sense. . .

There won’t be viewpoint discrimination. We have a constitution.

    There is a delicate trust between elected and other government officials in America. The Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it’s written on once that trust goes.

    Just look at John Roberts, Pelosi, Schumer and Biden, and tell me there is still a Constitution governing our nation.

George_Kaplan | March 18, 2021 at 7:05 pm

This is both dangerous and stupid. Police already fail to enforce laws against smoking in certain locations or driving too close because well presumably enforcement means paperwork they don’t want to bother with, or perhaps they don’t care. So they won’t pursue things that are dangerous, yet de Blasio wants them to do a 1984 on speech? That will cause police:civilian relations to plummet, if enforced, and have a chilling effect on the 1st Amendment. Or is that the intent? Should the peasants cease thinking the 1st Amendment applies to them rather than their betters?

    So smokers are fair game for persecution, and the writer wants the police to crack more vigorously on the rascals. Do your duty officers; you took an oath! Another example the contributor offers of cops’ “[failure] to enforce” laws against “things that are dangerous” are the ones on the book against driving-to-close epidemic. Heavens! He attributes this laxity to police laziness, apparently a well-known fact. Here’s an idea: if you think a guy is tailgating you, pull over a little bit and let him pass. Maybe the cop should pull over the pokey driver who is too self-involved to realize, let alone care that he might be holding someone up. Then there’s the sort of person that is quite aware that the driver behind wants to pass, but deliberately does not offer courtesy because, his emotions tell him, the law says this or that Sorry but I think a cop should give said busybody a chewing out, not the tailgater for the crime of impatience Oh yeah, I guess I’m just “a peasant” in contrast to the stick-up-his-bum buttinski who wants the police to do his dirty work

great unknown | March 18, 2021 at 7:08 pm

classic grounds for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 federal lawsuit: infringing on civil rights under color of state authority. In this case, freedom of speech.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to great unknown. | March 18, 2021 at 8:09 pm

    What court will actually rule based on it?

      great unknown in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | March 18, 2021 at 9:46 pm

      In general, the 2nd Circuit bends over backwards to increase the local police powers. However, there are some judges on the circuit who actually rule per the Constitution and the intent of the Constitution.

      But wait until a member of a protected minority files suit: progressive heads will explode.

It is supposed to be illegal to disobey the instructions of a police officer, but the mayor wants them to give instructions that are unconstitutional. This can only end poorly for the police as all instructions become suspect.

    great unknown in reply to Mudboy. | March 18, 2021 at 9:43 pm

    Strictly speaking, illegal to disobey the lawful instructions of police officer. Which makes all the difference.

Now do stop-and-frisk.

Their gonna need a lot more cops if they force the NYPD to start policing rude speech in NYC.

Has he suggested yet that whites should start going to the back of the bus?

Could we just give them the “cut direct” ? It is after all the nuclear option in the war of the moral high ground.

I have great news! Excellent Etiquette Monitors can be hired at the middle school level. They can only work a few hours a week – but they can be paid at less than minimum wage, because they are less than 15 years old.

This way, the NYPD is prevented from doing tasks preventing them from doing real police work.

And De Blasio is prevented from abusing his office, abusing the NYPD.

But De Blasio can rest assured that yes, he is still at the top of the list of worst NY mayors ever.

“‘If someone has done something wrong, but not rising to a criminal level, it’s perfectly appropriate for an NYPD officer to talk to them to say, “that was not appropriate, and if you did that on a higher level, that would be a crime,”’ [DeBlasio] said.”

Article 58 is coming to NYC.

    Eddie Coyle in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | March 19, 2021 at 9:02 am

    Not being a lawyer, I could not find the meaning of article 58. It does bring into mind the “catch-all” article in the UCMJ, article 34:

    Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. 2

      I think he means Article 58 of the Russian SFSR Penal Code. It defined “the enemy of workers” and the criminal sanctions thereof. (It also touched on traitors and saboteurs.)

      Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said this about it:
      Who among us has not experienced its all-encompassing embrace? In all truth, there is no step, thought, action, or lack of action under the heavens which could not be punished by the heavy hand of Article 58.[
      (h/t to Wikipedia for the quote.)

        Eddie Coyle in reply to GWB. | March 19, 2021 at 9:48 am

        Thanks for the explanation. As a long ago 18 year old hard partying sailor, article 134 felt like an ‘all-encompassing embrace’. I don’t think the world has produced a people capable of such highs and lows as the Russians.

Jack Klompus | March 18, 2021 at 9:26 pm

What sane civilization hands power to this repulsive, incompetent shit-bag?

Old and Busted: Stop and Frisk

New Hotness: Stop and Scold.

Why doesn’t DiBlasio just jump to the punchline, get the Manson forehead tattoo, and get it over with?

@DeBlasio … “hey AH … FO … send the cops to my door to school me … I’ll tell them to FO too and slam the door in their face”

This is why the democrats cheat in elections, lie to voters and steal taxpayers money.
No sane individual would ever come up with this kind of Nazi style plan except some deranged Hitler wannabe.
Oh wait, we’re talking de blabbio. Never mind. I’ll bet he’s in the mayoral dungeon dressed in his thong leather bikini whipping his chained to the wall “minority sex servant” and chanting “I own you bwitch”.

(search for – Bill Burr’s black wife is a ‘minority sex servant’? Woke activist called out for ‘worst tweet ever)

When will new york voters tell this stupid marxist cunt to fuck off?

If the police were to implement his suggestions, which they won’t, this statement would be a gilt-edged invitation for a massive lawsuit. He not only admits that his policy, if implemented, would have a chilling effect on protected speech, he boasts about it and explicitly says that’s the whole point of the policy. The judgment writes itself. And I don’t believe there’s a court in the land that would find otherwise; this is black-letter law, after all.

The Friendly Grizzly | March 19, 2021 at 1:07 am

This sounds like a case for…
POLITENESS-MAN!!!

NYC rap “artists” quake in fear…..the Black Hebrew Israelites are going to be silenced also, right?

Needs a snappy name. How about “Nightwatch?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3VA9pZ_kY0

OwenKellogg-Engineer | March 19, 2021 at 7:11 am

So, does this apply to the various Universities that are discriminating (i.e. hating) against asian-americans? I’m surprised that hasn’t been brought up yet, but then again most republican pols are not much for critical thinking like that.

Warren Wilhelm (since re-branded as the more “ethnic” “de Blasio”) wants to turn the NYPD into the NKVD.

Typical Dhimmi-crat totalitarianism.

” And anything that’s not criminal, still follow up on aggressively, so people feel the presence of law enforcement in the city watching them to make sure this does not happen again.”

This is PRECISELY what police departments have been DISCOURAGED or even attacked for doing when it is against people of color.. Quality of life crimes are no longer addressed as good White liberals “know” their less able charges can’t actually follow rules and dysfunction is a protected cultural trait. What the MSM refuses to even touch is that this violence against Asians is largely coming from the Black community and has for a long time.

    Milhouse in reply to Eddie Coyle. | March 19, 2021 at 11:23 am

    Not the same at all. Those are actual violations of the law, which the police can do something about, but are being told not to. Here we’re talking about behavior that is against no law at all, 100% lawful, and constitutionally protected, and he wants the police to wag a finger at them and threaten unspecified consequences should they be repeated. That’s exactly what a “chilling effect” means.

    But don’t worry, the NYPD will ignore this.

      Eddie Coyle in reply to Milhouse. | March 19, 2021 at 11:40 am

      Following up aggressively, having people (of color) cowed or intimidated by police presence. THAT is why enforcing those laws and ordnances were suspended by the Left. This is not a call for the police to intimidate people of color over their speech, it is aimed directly at White people only.

      but you are correct, this one was dead on arrival with the Blue.

      behavior that is against no law at all
      I’d be interested to hear your speculation on how behavior that is legal at one point could be illegal “if you did that on a higher level”, which DeBolshevik mentions.

        Milhouse in reply to GWB. | March 20, 2021 at 11:21 pm

        For instance something that isn’t a threat, but if it were a threat it would be illegal.

        “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is [the president]”. Legally that’s not a threat, and is 100% lawful. It’s against the law for the police to do anything to someone for saying that, or anything that would have a chilling effect on saying it, which is why this idea of de Blasio’s is a non-starter.

        But if it rose to the level of an actual threat it would be a crime for which the speaker could get 5 years in prison. So that’s something the police could tell the speaker, if not for the chilling effect it would have. I would guess that’s what deBlasio means, and that’s why he’s wrong.

NYC became an unlivable sewar…. a fed-up largely Democrat populace votes in Republican mayors (grown-ups) for 24 years and the city is made a jewel.

Then a new generation grows up and liberal hipster hayseeds from Iowa and Indiana move in to former hell holes they have no clue about, millions of tourists come each year without the attrition they used to face… People forget…and again vote their far left progressives in… city gets ruined…. people move out…tourists stay away…city’s finances in tatters…

CYCLE…RINSE…REPEAT

    Hard Times make Hard Men
    Hard Men make Soft Times
    Soft Times make Soft Men
    Soft Men make Hard Times

      Eddie Coyle in reply to GWB. | March 19, 2021 at 11:23 am

      Wait to you see who the Dems put up for mayor NEXT. Please Bloomberg, come home!

        Milhouse in reply to Eddie Coyle. | March 19, 2021 at 11:24 am

        Bloomberg’s a Dem, just like all the others.

          Eddie Coyle in reply to Milhouse. | March 19, 2021 at 11:43 am

          You have to live here to see who lines up to get the nod on the Dem side. DiBlasio was the least harmful, believe it or not.

          Bloomberg a Dem yes. Like the others, no. He is a grown up, a businessman, and administrator. He did a pretty good job as mayor.

          He did a pretty good job as mayor.
          You mean the soda tax? The politics played to give him a 3rd term by waiving a law? The Hurricane Sandy aid problems? Aside from a lot of progressives loving him and his policies? That “pretty good job”?

          Eddie Coyle in reply to Milhouse. | March 19, 2021 at 12:40 pm

          In reply to GWB below, yeah on balance Bloomberg did a good job. He took over basically as NYC was reeling from 9/11. If he shot himself in the foot with the soda tax and a few other goofy things, they aren’t even worth mentioning compared to running that city well, and continuing it’s recovery, not just from 9/11 but from decades of Democrat mismanagement. The city of NYC as you knew it 8 years ago is squarely the achievement of Giulliani, Bloomberg & the NYPD.

          I’m a conservative, but to expect a Republican conservative to EVER get elected to that position in our lifetime is FOOLISH. To whine about a mayor being a liberal or Dem in a Dem town is FOOLISH if they are otrherwise running the city in a capable manner. Bloomberg ran as a (R) because he would NEVER have won the progressive primary win as a (D)..

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 20, 2021 at 11:30 pm

          Eddie, I do live here, and de Blasio was not the least harmful Democrat candidate. The only time I have ever voted for a Democrat was in 2009, when I voted for Bill Thompson over Michael Bloomberg. And Thompson was a candidate in the D primary against de Blasio. Thompson is no conservative, but for a Democrat I think he was the most reasonable and moderate of the bunch.

          I think the reason he lost the primary was that too many black voters were so uninformed that they were not only impressed by Dante’s ad, but didn’t understand that Thompson is black. I don’t know how that can be, but I think it’s what happened.

          Oh, and the only reason Bloomberg ran as a R in the first place wasn’t that he could never win a D primary but that there were already 4 very strong candidates in the D primary while the R primary had Herman Badillo with a budget of about $500. So he decided to save his money and take the road with no opposition.

so people feel the presence of law enforcement in the city watching them
That’s the very essence of the East German police state. And he actually thinks that’s a good thing.

The real problem is so very many will meekly accept it as the price of living in modern society. That’s why we can’t have nice things.

Actually, what he is wanting is called harassment and intimidation. Cops need to tell him to GFH….

I don’t want the police knowing my address.

De Blasio is so bad that I think a Republican candidate actually has a chance this year.

I don’t get these mayors. They violate our constitutional right to be safe by defunding the police. But want to use police to violate our constitutional right to free speech? ‘Who the hell elected them’? I’m just paraphrasing our great Ted Cruz. Maybe the police will be at my door for saying ‘hell’.

Actually, De Blasio can keep the etiquette police busy. Everything he says is inappropriate.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend