mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , i thank the chairman for his support . 
for the balance my time here , i do want to point out one other provision that has gone largely unnoticed , but is a very important part of this bill . 
i have beside me , and it is difficult to read from afar and , frankly , it is difficult to even read from up close , a web site that distributes the personal information about judges , police officers , elected officials , and the like . 
this web site , and we have obviously obscured the url , goes so far as to talk about the comings and goings of undercover officers in new york city . 
it provides sensitive details of about 79 different officers , things such as what type of car they drive , things about what the comings and goings of their families are , personal habits . 
this is an example where we find the matrix , or perhaps i would call it the conflict , of the virtues of the internet , how it is a place to bring information far and wide and the ability to use the internet for what is in this case a very pernicious , mean-spirited , and perhaps deadly cause . 
we know from the examples we have had judges ' families stalked based on information the criminals were able to find on the internet . 
in this bill we essentially incorporate h.r. 1710 , the internet police protection act , that i offered . 
it becomes section 18 of this bill . 
what it says is there is a lot of publicly accessible information about judges ; there is a lot of publicly accessible information about police officers . 
if someone wants to , if they really want to harass or harm a police officer or a judge , we should not allow the internet to be used as a repository for information like that . 
i am someone who spends a great deal of time as a member of the judiciary committee and a member of this house fighting for the rights of people to free speech . 
i know there are going to be things on the internet that are troubling to us , and we are always going to be in a tug and a push to try to figure out where we draw the line . 
in this case , the line clearly gets drawn in the following place : if people are going to use the internet to harass , intimidate , or harm law enforcement personnel , to harm court officers , to harm judges , then they should be illegal . 
this makes the test very simple . 
if they simply compile the database and a police officer 's name happens to be on it with no intention of ill will , then obviously this would not make that illegal . 
but if it is clear that they are compiling a web site like this one , which starts out , i should point out , the very first line says : `` welcome to this legal , noncriminal web site which provides publicly available information about nypd , new york city police department , officers . 
this page is this web site 's most visited page , '' i also draw another distinction , mr. chairman . 
when one is an elected official , a public official , their comings and goings are going to be more public than others . 
that is part of the cost of doing business . 
any information about where a congressman shows up obviously is not going to be covered by this legislation . 
but if one is a police officer , if one is an undercover police officer , imagine what it feels like to go home after a hard day at work dealing with some very bad people and find information about their comings and goings posted on a web page . 
this bill , the court protection act , is going to make that illegal , as it should . 
and there may be tests that we have to figure out where the line gets drawn . 
courts have come down in different places , but one thing we know : threatening speech is not protected speech . 
speech that endangers someone 's livelihood , endangers someone 's life is not protected speech , and this provision in the court security act will make that abundantly clear . 
i ask for a `` yes '' vote on the weiner amendment . 
