Senate Bill 1959 - Thought and Speech Laws

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

This has already passed the House 404-6. It is up before the Senate. Here are some interesting excerpts:

`For purposes of this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change. [HERE IT IS FOLKS - NO MORE THINKING OR SPEAKING AGAINST GOVERNMENT!] :mad:

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

The Congress finds the following:

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

`(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.

`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

It all depends on how "force" is defined. In Washington, force could be defined as any of the following:

• A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
• A non-violent street protest
• A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
• A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
• A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agency

That would target blogs, authors, speakers, and anyone who even THINKS about conducting a grassroots campaign.
 
yeah! Thats gonna stand up in the Supreme Court!
 
we are both assuming it passes. You know as well as I there will be lawyers and special interest legal groups waiting in the wings when (and if) this law is inacted and enforced. As soon as there is an incident that can be consider in any way unconstitutional, these lawyers will pounce. Wouldn't be suprised if the ACLU got involved in one of these cases.


BTW, luv the whole "CNN: the most busted name in news" thing. Have you noticed that no one on in this forum seems to be questioning or downplaying the whole media bias thing anymore?
 
we are both assuming it passes. You know as well as I there will be lawyers and special interest legal groups waiting in the wings when (and if) this law is inacted and enforced. As soon as there is an incident that can be consider in any way unconstitutional, these lawyers will pounce. Wouldn't be suprised if the ACLU got involved in one of these cases.
Maybe, but someone will have risked their freedom for that to happen.

And this bill has already OVERWHELMINGLY passed the House.

I view this as a trial balloon. If nobody notices, they will try to actually make laws to that effect.
BTW, luv the whole "CNN: the most busted name in news" thing. Have you noticed that no one on in this forum seems to be questioning or downplaying the whole media bias thing anymore?
Yep. If you repeat the truth enough, it becomes...wait, that's - uh - yeah. ;)
 
You would think, in an assembly that is bloated full of worthless attorney's, that they would have the ability to write better legislation than that. Stuff that would both hold up to constitutional scrutiny and narrow enough in focus as to not be completely misused and abused.
 

Members online

Back
Top