NationStates Jolt Archive

So, for the past few days, i have come across a few sites that talk about US SB 1959, which is the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Evidently, it is worded so vaguely that it could be possible for prosecution against non-violent dissent on the internet. I have only read a portion of the bill, but I was wondering if anyone more knowledgeable of the bill could tell us if there is a legitimate threat to internet free speech, included in the bill.

Here are some references:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html
http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/02/kucinich-on-hr-1955/
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9825287-38.html?tag=nefd.top

and here comes another "Patriot Act" designed to take away our freedoms for the sake of "Security". :rolleyes:

Terrorism ftw.

No, not really, but government officials never look at the white space. Muahahaa..muahhahaa....*is arrested*

Doubt it. The political climate's starting to change and a lot of this stuff will start to recede.

Terrorism ftw.

No, not really, but government officials never look at the white space. Muahahaa..muahhahaa....*is arrested*


Someone told me earlier that they reported me to homeland security for traitorous talk. Thats twice this year. Not kidding.

Someone told me earlier that they reported me to homeland security for traitorous talk. Thats twice this year. Not kidding.

Fo sho? IRL? URL?

Fo sho? IRL? URL?

On my local city forums. Lemme try to find the link real quick.

On my local city forums. Lemme try to find the link real quick.

Are you trying to implicate me in your schemes? Use me as the fall-guy when your plans fall apart around you? What about my orphans, what will happen to the orphans?!

On my local city forums. Lemme try to find the link real quick.

Well, I went to the thread the posted it in...and they changed it. I guess after I told them that they were hypocrite and an idiot, they changed there mind..So I guess only one time have I been reported :p

Well, I went to the thread the posted it in...and they changed it. I guess after I told them that they were hypocrite and an idiot, they changed there mind..So I guess only one time have I been reported :p

I suggest watching your back..or putting a sign on your back that says something like "I <3 America. Please don't shoot. Think of my taxes."

Doubt it. The political climate's starting to change and a lot of this stuff will start to recede.

I hope so. Between this, PATRIOT (lulz misleading acronym) ACT III, and the new "Assault Weapons" Ban, this country really isn't doing to well.

I suggest watching your back..or putting a sign on your back that says something like "I <3 America. Please don't shoot. Think of my taxes."

Actually, my new motto is Gitmo or Bust.

Actually, my new motto is Gitmo or Bust.

I think it is more like "Busted, Gitmo, Busting"

So, for the past few days, i have come across a few sites that talk about US SB 1959, which is the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Evidently, it is worded so vaguely that it could be possible for prosecution against non-violent dissent on the internet. I have only read a portion of the bill, but I was wondering if anyone more knowledgeable of the bill could tell us if there is a legitimate threat to internet free speech, included in the bill.

OK. I believe I found a copy of this bill here (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955), as H.R. 1955 which is the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007."

I'm not sure I support the bill, but I'm not scared by it.

Reading the bill, it does next to nothing.

It creates a Commission to merely "[e]xamine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States." I don't see how the mere existence of this Commission endangers our civil rights. I also note the Commission is to exist for only 18 months before its final report is due.

It also creates a university-based "Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States," which is tasked with studying "the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism." Again, this seems harmless.

Finally, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, with other agencies, "conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in their respective nations." Further, "[t]o the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution, the Secretary shall use the results of the survey as an aid in developing, in consultation with the Attorney General, a national policy in the United States on addressing radicalization and homegrown terrorism." Such a national policy, when implemented, could theoretically endanger civil rights, even though it specifically says such policy shall be only what is permissable under the Constitution. That said, any policy "could be" an infringement of our rights. Until such a policy exists there is no threat and nothing inherent in such a policy violates our rights.

I would note that the bill also includes the following provisions:

`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.


The controversy over the Bill centers on the definitions included therein:

`(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.

`(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.

I see some vagueness in these definitions, but nothing that alarms me. Remember the definitions are merely being used to direct what the Commission, Center, and Secretary shall study and report on. EDIT: I do see the definition of "violent radicalization" as a bit broad. That could be worrisome.

Here are some references:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html
http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/02/kucinich-on-hr-1955/
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9825287-38.html?tag=nefd.top

The first of these sources is heavy on examples of historical tyrrany and low on any actual specific objections to the bill. I can see the vague comparison to HUAC, but that somewhat assumes that the Commission will be malignant. That is a pretty big assumption. Nor does the Commission appear to have any actual power.

The second source is Dennis Kucinich warning that the bill is a "first step," making a basic slippery slope argument. I'm unconvinced. And, contrary to Kucinich's claims, I don't see the definitions in the bill creating "thought crimes"--they are rather specific about force and violence. And, again, all they do is study it.

The third article primarily warns about possible "mission creep" that "has the potential to turn ugly." I can see that is a possible worry, but hardly a concrete critique of the actual bill.

All in all, I'm not a fan of the bill, but I think some fear-mongering is evident in the hysteria about it.

I'd be curious to see why others might feel differently.

And, contrary to Kucinich's claims, I don't see the definitions in the bill creating "thought crimes"--they are rather specific about force and violence.

Isn't there a difference between advancing extremist belief systems to "facilitate" violence and actually committing or planning to commit violence oneself?

And surely the historical record should give us some caution about the state and its attitudes towards radical ideologies and organizations?

*teases Americans with freedoms*

...

*is carted off by the CIA to gitmo*