Well, this could be interesting

[The Ozzman]

The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com

This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated. This is not an exaggeration. It is a literal reading of the law, which you can check yourself here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml

The bill states:

‘...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...

Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:

• 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

You get the idea. "Force" could be defined as practically anything. And since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would be engaged in terrorist acts.

If you stopped someone on the street and handed them a Bible, for example, this could be considered an act of terrorism ("...use of force to promote the individual's religious beliefs...")

If you sent a barrage of angry letters to Washington about global warming and the destruction of the environment by the U.S. military, this could also be considered an act of terrorism ("...to promote the individual's political beliefs...")

If you believe in same-sex marriage and you wrote a letter threatning a sit-in protest in front of your state's capitol building, this could also be considered an act of terrorism, even if you never carried it out! ("...planned use of force to promote a social belief...")

The United States is on the fast track to fascism, and the Congress is working right alongside this nation's traitorous leaders to criminalize any thoughts, words or speeches that disagree with current government policies regarding war, terrorism, domestic surveillance and civil liberties. Simply speaking out against the war on Iraq could soon be labeled a crime. Merely thinking thoughts against the war on Iraq could be considered a criminal act.

http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html

The interpretations of this bill are grossly exaggerated on this website, but it's still a good discussion to have.

 

[Zephyrus]

So why isn't CNN on top of this?

 

[unknown]

because CNN is run by a bunch of tools

it's registered with the FCC as an entertainment channel

 

[cookiecutter]

This bill is terrible and I think tha-<USER HAS BEEN DELETED>

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Well well well. Looks like the revolution should be coming any day now. Good think they've kept that second amendment on the books, else we'd have to bats and pitchforks and shit.

 

[genocide roach]

So why isn't CNN on top of this?

because the guy who wrote that article is a quack! force is not speech. and if anything like that was insinuated, it would have never passed the house and certainly wouldnt pass the senate. also consider its election season. no one is gonna stray from the beaten path on anything until after the election.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force
force

/f&#596;rs, fo&#650;rs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fawrs, fohrs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, forced, forc·ing.
&#8211;noun 1.physical power or strength possessed by a living being: He used all his force in opening the window. 2.strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence: to use force to open the window; to use force on a person. 3.strength; energy; power; intensity: a personality of great force. 4.power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order. 5.Law. unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property.

etc.

look at the LEGAL definition of force. it specifically states VIOLENCE.
~gR~

 

[waif]

I dunno, the government has a way of interpreting things in ways that allow them to do whatever the fuck they want and not tell us about it.

This doesn't look good. I don't think it's as dire as this guy claims, but it doesn't look good at all.

 

[Pessimism]

This doesn't surprise me since the administration says IT'S ALRIGHT TO KIDNAP PEOPLE lawlz

 

[panzerfaust666]

Well well well. Looks like the revolution should be coming any day now. Good think they've kept that second amendment on the books, else we'd have to bats and pitchforks and shit.

yeah looks like it.

This shit is really scary, not to sound childish, but it is. Thankfully Bush's term is almost over .He's even been having an effect on Canada, where this idiot harper is fucking everything up, because he wants to be on "good terms" with the U.S.

 

[Valerie]

Definitely exaggerated. I mean, if they really wanted to silence everyone speaking out against the administration, why didn't they do it back in 2001? Why now when Bush only has a year left in his term?

 

[genocide roach]

Definitely exaggerated. I mean, if they really wanted to silence everyone speaking out against the administration, why didn't they do it back in 2001? Why now when Bush only has a year left in his term?

.
~gR~

 

[Evil?]

because CNN is run by a bunch of tools

it's registered with the FCC as an entertainment channel

.

CNN blows ass hole.

 

[Matt]

It would never pass in the house or senate anyway.

 

[ohiogrinder]

because CNN is run by a bunch of tools

it's registered with the FCC as an entertainment channel

entertainment? last time I checked, video footage of soldiers getting killed in IRAQ and hearing Wolf Blitzer drone on and on about the President wasn't exactly entertainment. the FCC is on drugs.

 

[genocide roach]

It would never pass in the house or senate anyway.

The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent.

it wont pass the senate though. especially with clinton and obama trying to win a primary. this is a debate topic they dont want. they vote yes and they support the republicans, vote no and they can trash the republicans and "save" free speech, which really wasnt in danger anyways
~gR~

 

[cookiecutter]

entertainment? last time I checked, video footage of soldiers getting killed in IRAQ and hearing Wolf Blitzer drone on and on about the President wasn't exactly entertainment. the FCC is on drugs.

 

[genocide roach]

i think they have to classify it as entertainment because they have commentary shows.
~gR~

 

[unknown]

Definitely exaggerated. I mean, if they really wanted to silence everyone speaking out against the administration, why didn't they do it back in 2001? Why now when Bush only has a year left in his term?

because before you silence dissent you have to get the masses whipped up into a frenzy over attacking a foreign enemy, and then you slowly take away their private liberties

also, if you click the link to read the bill, it says it was passed in October...over a month ago, and we're just now finding out about it? looks like the watchdogs are falling asleep on the job (then again, that's nothing new).

do we know who authored the bill?

edit: FUCK...my representative, Jane Harman, sponsored the bill!

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1955/show

 

[Hubster]

Holy fuck man. (Putting my usual bullshit aside here) - you guys must be pissed off with crap like this happening in your government. You poor folks are getting treated like shit by this Administration. I totally feel for you guys, your government has totally fucked your country over.

We're lucky over here - we just ousted our equivalent of Bush

 

[unknown]

reading the original post, after the quote from the bill is basically the author hypothesizing what the government could do depending on its definition of "force". it doesn't necessarily mean that will happen. (I'm trying to keep some optimism).

I read the bill, and it's not very long. What it basically wants to do is create a commission...then the commission will release a report with suggestions on what should be done...a "Center" will be created to train and educate the proper authorities on everything regarding "home grown terrorism" er whatever term they're using, and then the graduates of "The Center" can employ "measurement to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States [that] should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents."

because our government clearly has no problem pissing on habeas corpus