>>SENATOR TOM COTTON DOES NOT LIKE GETTING LETTERS OR ANY TYPE
OF CORRESPONDENCE THAT CRITICIZES HIM HER PROTESTS WHAT
HE'S DOING, SO HE HAS DECIDED TO SEND OUT CEASE AND DESIST
LETTERS TO ANY ACTIVIST HE DOESN'T LIKE.
THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT WAS REPORTED BY THE ARKANSAS TIMES, THEY FOUND THAT
--
>>THE LETTER ACTUALLY THREATENED THEM WITH POSSIBLE
POLICE ACTION --
>>HUGE DISTINCTION HERE, THEY CLAIM THERE ARE TWO CATEGORIES,
ONE IS COMMUNICATION THAT CONTAINS A THREAT.
IF YOU ARE
THREATENING A SENATOR OR ANYONE THE COPS SHOULD COME TALK TO
YOU, THAT'S NOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THAT'S A VIOLATION OF
THE LAW AND SOMETHING PEOPLE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT.
THE
OTHER IS WHAT THEY CALL REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE
HARASSING IN VOLUME.
BY THAT STANDARD I COULD ARREST HALF THE
INTERNET.
THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS.
AND YOU ARE A SENATOR, YOU WERE
SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THESE PEOPLE.
YOU CAN'T SAY SOME OF
THE PEOPLE I REPRESENT, IT TURNS OUT THEY DON'T LIKE ME, CAN I
GET THEM ARRESTED?
THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK IN A DEMOCRACY.
>>AND EVEN UNDER THE MORE LOOSE DEFINITION THERE'S NO
EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS CONTACT THAT WAS VULGAR OR
HARASSING, IT WAS JUST REPEATED CONTACT WITH PEOPLE HE
DIDN'T AGREE WITH, HE DECIDED THAT SHOULD BE HARASSMENT.
I'M SORRY, THAT'S NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS.
>>SO ONE OF HIS STAFFERS TWEETED ABOUT THIS AND FROM THAT TWEET
IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS WAS NOT ABOUT DIRECT THREATS TOWARD
THE SENATOR, IT WAS MORE ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS THE SENATOR
DIDN'T LIKE.
SO ACCORDING TO JOHN NOONAN, A STAFFER FOR TOM
COTTON, HE SAID THE TONE WAS THREATENING, NO THREATS WERE
MADE BUT THE C-WORD WAS INVOKED.
OKAY, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND
TRAMPLE ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY USE WORDS
THE SENATOR ISN'T IN FAVOR OF.
>>AGAIN, HALF HOUR STAFF COULD HAVE AT LEAST 1/4 OF THE COUNTRY
ARRESTED ON THAT STANDARD.
AND WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT.
AND WE
AREN'T SENATORS, WE ARE JUST -- I MEAN, SENATOR IS SUPPOSED TO
BE MORE RESPONSIVE, NOT LESS, TO THE PEOPLE HE REPRESENTS.
AND
YOU KNOW THEY AREN'T REAL THREATS BECAUSE HE SAID THEY
AREN'T THREATS.
BUT THEY FEEL THREATENING.
NO, FEEL
THREATENING IS NOT THE SAME AS THREATS.
IF YOU ARE CALLING THE
COPS ON PEOPLE THAT'S SERIOUS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE SENATOR,
THE COPS WILL TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY.
SOME RANDOM DUDE GETS
THREATENED ON TWITTER AND CALLS THE COPS, THE COPS WON'T CARE AT
ALL, BUT SOME SENATOR SAYS YOU ARE A THREAT, THEY WILL COME TO
YOUR HOUSE.
SO MAKE SURE IT'S A THREAT AND DON'T USE IT FOR I
FELT INSULTED, THAT'S NOT A THING.
>>IT'S NOT THAT TOM COTTON IS SOME SORT OF LOVELY, HUGGABLE
GUY AND HE GETS INTIMIDATED WHEN PEOPLE USE FOUL LANGUAGE BECAUSE
HE'S A GOOD CHRISTIAN GUY, NOT AT ALL.
THIS GUY IS ALSO IN
FAVOR OF WATERBOARDING.
HE WANTS AMERICAN PEOPLE TO USE PHYSICAL
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS BUT WHEN SOMEONE CALLS HIS STAFF THE
C-WORD, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE, THEY HAVE TO CEASE AND DESIST
STRAIGHTAWAY.
SO WHERE IS THE STANDARD HERE?
>>AND ALSO, WHAT HAPPENED TO PEOPLE ON THE LEFT BEING
SNOWFLAKES?
YOU ARE A U.S. SENATOR, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO
REPRESENT YOUR CONSTITUENTS, SOME PORTION OF YOUR
CONSTITUENTS AREN'T HAPPY WITH THE JOB THEY ARE DOING AND THEY
ARE VOICING YOUR OPINION, IT'S YOUR JOB TO RESPOND TO THAT, NOT
TO VIOLATE THEIR FIRST AMENDED RIGHTS AND SQUASH ANY AND ALL
COMMUNICATION THEY COULD HAVE WITH YOU.
ARE YOU REALLY THAT
WEAK?
YOU ARE TOUGH GUY WHEN IT COMES TO WATERBOARDING, BUT NOT
WHEN IT COMES TO COMMUNICATING WITH THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS.
>>TORTURING OTHER PEOPLE IS EASY BUT WHEN YOU CALL HIM A
NAME, HE'S LIKE, THAT HURT MY FEELINGS.
AND LAST THING ABOUT
THIS, WHEN THEY GOT HEAT FOR THIS, THE STAFFER PUTS OUT THE
TWEET ANA READ TO YOU, THEY WILL PUT OUT THE MOST DAMAGING ONE
THEY HAD.
IT TURNS OUT THE MOST DAMAGING ONE THEY HAD DIDN'T
EVEN HAVE A THREAT AND IT.
SO IT APPEARS BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE
SAID, NO ACTUAL THREATS.
IT WAS ALL THINGS THAT INSULTED THEM.
THE C-WORD IS THE WORST ONE THEY HAD, BUT THEY SENT OUT A BUNCH
OF THEM.
SO THERE MUST HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT WERE WAY LESS THAN
THAT THAT THEY ACTUALLY WERE THINKING OF HAVING THE COPS
INVESTIGATE YOU FOR, AND FINAL PIECE OF IRONY IS A CEASE AND
DESIST LETTER, WHAT ARE YOU, USING LAWYERS?
I THOUGHT YOU
GUYS WERE AGAINST LAWYERS.
>>I KNOW YOU SAID LAST THING, CENK, BUT I THINK THE SCARY PART
OF THIS ISSUE ISN'T THAT THIS GUY IS A BIT OF A SNOWFLAKE,
THAT'S KIND OF FUNNY, BUT I THINK WHAT IS REALLY SCARY IS
HE'S TELLING PEOPLE I WILL USE THE FULL FORCE OF THE LAW TO
STOP YOU FROM SPEAKING YOUR MIND.
AND IF HE CAN GET AWAY
WITH IT, IF THESE LETTERS ARE SUCCESSFUL IN INTIMIDATING
PEOPLE INTO SILENCE OR IF HE DOES ACTUALLY COME AFTER THEM IF
THEY CONTINUE TO CORRESPOND AND HE USES THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO STOP
THEM, THAT I THINK IS THE NEXT STEP IN THIS TRUMP PRESIDENCY.
>>THAT'S A GREAT POINT, JAYDE.
THAT HAS FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES.
YOU CAN USE THE FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES NOT ONLY TO SPEAK OUT BUT
TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO ADDRESS YOUR ISSUES.
THAT'S PART AND
PARCEL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND HE'S SAYING IF YOU DO THAT
AGAIN I WILL HAVE YOU ARRESTED.
AND WHAT IS THAT?
THAT'S BIG
GOVERNMENT, THAT IS THIS GUY USING THE MIGHT AND POWER OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO INTIMIDATE YOU INTO NOT SPEAKING.
I WAS LED
TO BELIEVE THAT THE CONSERVATIVES CARED ABOUT THE
FIRST AMENDMENT AND CARED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND DIDN'T LIKE
BIG GOVERNMENT.
I WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT.