Speaking of Freedom of Speech

This bill is now in the Senate and will probably be decided on early in 2008.

I found it frightening, based on the definitions in the bill, how long would it be before we could be labeled terrorists just for speaking out against the government’s actions; depending of course on how any one person chooses to define the word “violence”.

S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

S 1959 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1959

To establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

August 2, 2007

Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. COLEMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007′.

SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Subtitle J–Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

`In 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.

`(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.

`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.

`The Congress finds the following:

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be used 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) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.

`(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 and lawful permanent residents.

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

Full Text

The 3rd item under findings was particularly interesting: “`(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.” An opening for limiting (censoring as in China?) the internet if you ask me.

The 5th one has me almost laughing, as the obvious answer to that is the government itself is the major motivational factor these days: “`(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.

The 6th one should make us pause and wonder what exactly is meant by “incorporation of state and local solutions”. “`(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.

The 8th item under findings is even more curious: “`(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 and lawful permanent residents.

Notice how it states that the measures should not violate constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. This looks like a major loophole to me.

Knowing how much they love to redefine words, overlook things, twist the meaning, this statement should be ironclad and read: Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States WILL NOT violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Even better is the use of the phrase “homegrown terrorism”. More fear mongering to get the people feeling they are in danger from their neighbors. Get them so afraid that they will give up their rights and freedoms just to believe the government is actually doing something to keep them safe. Not believing that what is actually going on is that the government is just keeping “the people” under tight control. Is this really the “freedom” we want to live under? I know I don’t. I actually like the word freedom as defined and generally accepted (at least until someone decides to change that definition).

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry:
free·dom Listen to the pronunciation of freedom
Pronunciation: \ˈfrē-dəm\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century

1: the quality or state of being free: as

a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!

Advertisements

~ by swfreedomlover on December 30, 2007.

15 Responses to “Speaking of Freedom of Speech”

  1. I don’t know how these people live with themselves, how they sleep at night knowing they are doing evil. This is the worst kind of evil and not since we fought to liberate ourselves from tyranny has the United States of America been so under siege, and by its own government no less. Our leaders are committing the most atrocious acts against the American People, (We The People), and saying it is for our own good??? Was slavery for the good of the Negro people? Was the confiscation of lands from Native Americans for THEIR own good? NEVER!!!! Too bad capitol punishment is not given to those who take our Freedom from us!

  2. Anything that shuts down the Internet is fine with me.

  3. If you hate the internet so much, why are you even using it?

    Or is it that you like the internet, can’t stay off it, and want the government to shut it down so you don’t have a choice? That just makes so much sense, doesn’t it? Have the government remove the choice from everyone because you don’t want to make it?

    Tell me, will you sing the same tune when they finally do come after something you really enjoy and don’t want to lose?

  4. It’s simply obvious that the Internet facilitates violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence. The Internet is the nuclear alternative to accomplishing these ends by letters, published pamphlets, and phone calls. It would be ludicrous to overlook the fact.

  5. As does the media, TV, movies. Should we shut them all down? OH, and let’s not forget all those lovely video games on the market today…..notice how many of them are all about killing?

    Using your logic here, we’d have to be shut off from everyone and everything else.

    Why not instead put the blame where it really belongs? On the individual, personal responsibility, parents not talking with their children?

  6. Chatting with your daughter won’t prevent her from whoring herself on MySpace. Every new development, makes it a less civil society. At some point, it’s no longer possible to depend on personal responsibility. That’s like the long gunman theory of the Virginia Tech killings. It took some pretty permissive state law to allow that stupid kid to buy all those guns. At fault there wasn’t the kid and it wasn’t the university. It was the State of Virginia and all those other 2nd Amendment loonies who think it’s people who kill people.

  7. It is people who kill people. If not with guns they’d just find other ways. While I don’t agree that we have a need to bear arms anymore, and don’t need them to put food on our tables, and for that matter see no reason why anyone needs a gun; I don’t believe it is the guns that cause people to kill. It IS the people themselves who choose guns as their weapon of choice.

    On this too we’ll need to agree to disagree. But that’s the great thing about life and diversity. Respecting the other person’s right to their own opinion.

    Happy New Year!

  8. Focus on that unfortunate kid at Virgina Tech. Would there have been any deaths that day if it wasn’t as easy to purchase an assault rifle in Virginia as to buy a candy bar?

  9. scandle17 needs to get OFF the internet, LMAO. If s/he believes that all the internet is is for violent radical, homegrown terrorism, and ideological violence, then s/he must be part of the problem instead of the solution. To state that all of us MUST share that view is what is wrong with the mass mind. Get a life! And it seems that if you disagree with this person they simply get more obnoxious and goes off on some other tangent. Poor slob!

  10. Blog Justice,

    This post is about freedom of speech not about gun control. People do bad things, not guns. I am not advocating for guns or the control of them. But if you take guns out of the hands of good citizens, the only people who will have them are criminals.

  11. Our Constitution gives us the right to object to our government practices and even to form up to revolt against it if needed. This type of thing interferes with that. Just what definition of “radical”, “extreme”, etc is used here? I’ve been saying for years that we are heading in a direction that will require the citizens to fight the government. Am I now a violent terrorist threat?

    I find it more than disgusting that other people can attack us and walk around free, yet our own government declares war on us, the American people, yanking our rights away. Increasingly we are being punished because someone else doesn’t like us.

  12. Jales, our Constitution not only gives us the right to stand up to the government but it basically spells out that it IS our DUTY to stand up against the government when it stops working as designed.

    I find it even more disgusting that “Americans” find it UNconstitutional to question or stand up against our government when we see them doing wrong. These people need to understand that “freedom” is not free. It is not free from dissent, nor free from views we don’t agree with. Those who find our freedoms are wrong I feel are more dangerous than any terrorist. For they spread their poison slowly and subtly, until the people become sheeple…..which is where we are at now.

  13. We tend to forget what freedom is worth when we don’t have to fight for it…

  14. Very true. We’ve become complacent in our “freedom” as we’ve never really been to a point of losing it. Until now, and even now most don’t realize just how close to losing it we are.

  15. […] of all nannies) isn’t overly concerned with our First Amendment right to free speech either. A couple of months ago I posted a piece about a bill making the rounds that would basically label a blogger like myself a domestic […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: