Politician attacks 1st Amendment.

Again. It's not McCain and 'campaign finance reform' this time, it's Conyers(PaidFor-MI).

The Baron notes some of the points along the road to 'hate speech' laws, and particular note of one that's been used a lot lately:
5. Muslims are the equivalent of a racial minority.

Even though Muslims come in as many races as other human beings, even though Christians, Jews, and Hindus have no such protections, Islam has claimed for itself the same status as blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. It’s a shrewd move, one that has been patiently and painstakingly crafted over the last ten or fifteen years by CAIR and similar organizations.

There's been lots of that the last few years, and it's followed the same lines as the crap from various black groups/individuals, especially Denny's Race Warlord Poverty Pimps: "We can call you names and threaten you and insult you all we want, but don't you DARE call us on it!" And the BPMs at CAIR have made lots of haystacks with it: there's no such thing as a racist or traitorous or whatever muslim, ANY criticism of a muslim individual or group is racism and 'islamophobia'. Remember when Sen. Boxer rescinded an award given to a man connected with CAIR because, among other things, "...a handful of individuals who have had ties to CAIR in the past have been convicted or deported for financial dealings with Hamas—another reason cited by Boxer for her action. The senator directed her staff to withdraw the certificate—which she routinely gives to community leaders in California—and asked that a statement she had previously made endorsing CAIR be stricken from the group’s Web site, Ravitz said in an e-mail." And what was the reaction from CAIR? "CAIR has formally asked for a meeting with Boxer and demanded that she withdraw the action—which one top CAIR official said smacks of “Islamophobia.”
And so on.

And here we have an elected Representative, either sucking up for votes or already bought for them(or both; no, I don't like or trust Conyers) who wants to do further damage to the Constitution.

I've said before, I don't care if they're about homosexuals or illegal immigrants or women or some church or whatever, 'hate speech' laws are an abomination that are much like 'gun control' laws: they're primarily about control, in the case of 'hate speech' laws controlling the very way people are allowed to think and/or speak. As the Baron puts it:
Why do we need to restrain IHN? What could he do that requires speech laws to guard against?

He could get a gun and shoot every black person in sight. No, wait; that’s already illegal.

He could torch the car of his next-door neighbor from Somalia. No, we’ve got laws that cover that.

He could scream racial epithets at every swarthy person he passes on the street. But even that is already covered by existing laws against disorderly conduct, public nuisances, stalking, and so on.

The ugly truth is that “hate speech” rules are a cynical way to cow political opponents and intimidate those who don’t fall in with the party line. However, you’ll notice that these rules are very selectively enforced — no particular consequence ever seems to fall on those who scream, “Death to the Jews!”