Senate Bill 742 threatens to jail anti-vaccine protesters for up to six months, as well as stick them with fines, for making their voices heard about the dangers and ineffectiveness of Big Pharma injections, including those for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).
Freedom protesters have been seen as of late gathering outside of clinics and other facilities where the jabs are being administered. These gatherings are peaceful, but they are apparently "triggering" pro-vaccine fanatics who believe that all vaccines are "safe and effective."
On August 19, SB 742 was placed in the California legislature's "Suspense File," meaning it will be considered at a later date "in a rapid-fire process" alongside other bills that have also been lumped into this category.
The purpose of the Suspense File, it would seem is to hide controversial legislation under the radar until it can be sprung up and resurrected suddenly in order to be quickly passed without too many people knowing what happened.
Included in the bill: "(a) It is unlawful to knowingly approach within 30 feet of any person while a person is making the approach within 100 feet of the entrance of a vaccination site and is seeking to enter or exit a vaccination site, or any occupied motor vehicle seeking entry or exit, for the purpose of obstructing, injuring, harassing, intimidating, or interfering with that person or vehicle occupant in connection with any vaccination services," Section 594.39 of Section 1 of the bill would add to California's Penal Code.
"(b) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment."
Big Pharma tyrants want to make speaking out against vaccines a crime
"Intimidation," as defined by the bill, includes making "a true threat" towards a person or group of people that puts that person or group "in fear of bodily harm or death."
Since some deranged vaccine lovers actually believe that not getting vaccinated, or not allowing a child to get vaccinated, is a form of "violence," this section of the bill could be applied in such a way as to criminalize merely publicly voicing an opposition to vaccines.
The bill goes on to define a "true threat" as "a statement where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular person or group of persons regardless of whether the person actually intends to act on the threat."
This, too, could easily be redefined to include free speech that calls into question the safety and efficacy of an injection. As you may recall, this has long been the excuse as to why vaccine studies never include a true control group: because to deprive one group of the experimental injection would be "inhumane," we are told.
The real kicker in the bill is the "obstructing" section, which is defined as "rendering ingress to or egress from a vaccination site, or rendering passage to or from a vaccination site, unreasonably difficult or hazardous."
Just think of the many ways that this section could be applied to any and all forms of free speech and physical presence in and around buildings or other facilities where vaccines are administered. One angry pro-vaxxer willing to file a complaint is all it would take to ruin an anti-vaxxer's life.
The latest news about the relentless government assault against free speech can be found at FirstAmendment.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
