From what I've read of this law, each of you have violated it.
Just by open debate.
It is not directly stated as such, rather it is intentionally left open for adjudication of interpretation.
As an advocate of freedom and simplification of law, I would have to take exception on First Amendment grounds.
To no longer allow free and open discourse, also impacts the very basis of reasoning found in legal argument in the court room!
I find it difficult to believe any officer of the court would entertain the idea of this holding substance worthy of debate!?
I surely would like to know if there is any stand opposing this in reference to the First Amendment.
Then too, I must have really been asleep if I missed a Constitutional Convention...?
It is my limited understanding that there are basic procedures in legalities to be followed, that a mere vote is insufficient to cover.
Taken very literally to the heart of the whole matter, there are already laws on the books covering all these antisocial behaviors.
There can be no merit to a direct confrontation to the Constitution such as this.