Treasonous new laws may limit free speech.

[Purge_WTF]

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

[Eyeball Chambers]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Hugo Chavez]

This is disgusting...  Looks like I called this one right...

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=182252.0

[Eyeball Chambers]

I'd be interested to hear Beach Bum, KH300, MM69, HH6, or Cap86 opine on this.

[Deicide]

I'd be interested to hear Beach Bum, KH300, MM69, HH6, or Cap86 opine on this.

OK...here I am...

[Hugo Chavez]

I'd be interested to hear Beach Bum, KH300, MM69, HH6, or Cap86 opine on this.

Especially after the response I got from some of these guys for being suspicious of the hearings.  I would like to hear from them on this too...

[Dos Equis]

The author is overstating the scope of this bill.  Here are some definitions:

“(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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml

I think the key words are "violence" and "force."  Without those words, I'd have a problem.   

[Hugo Chavez]

Excellent points made in this article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_robert_w_071130_the_homegrown_terror.htm

Remember, we've just had 7 years of Gonzales and others making some pretty far reaching interpretations of law and the constitution for Bush.  This wouldn't even require far reaching interpretations.

[Dos Equis]

Sounds like the same alarmist points from the first article:

Will “ideologically based violence” or the use of “force” become little more than the mayhem resulting after a peaceful protest, daring to move beyond the barbed wire of the free speech zone, is attacked by a truncheon-wielding riot squad armed with tear gas, German Shepard dogs and water cannons?
 
Will the unarmed, constitutionally protected dissenters who are fending off blows or dog bites, or who are striking back in self-defense become “homegrown terrorists” and suffer draconian sentences for their attempt to “intimidate or coerce” the state with free thought and free speech?

[Hugo Chavez]

but before you roll your eyes in typical BB fashion, please tell me why we should not worry in light of experiencing far reaching interpretations of the law under Gonzales and the like?  Had we not had the last 6 years of questionable paths under the current admin, I would be laughing right with you...  But unfortunately I know quite well the step by step building that goes on in gov.  As soon as something becomes common place, it's so easy to add on as is frequently the case.  Look at this one, holy cripes, you only need change one word... "violent"  Do you even remotely see the concern

[Dos Equis]

but before you roll your eyes in typical BB fashion, please tell me why we should not worry in light of experiencing far reaching interpretations of the law under Gonzales and the like?  Had we not had the last 6 years of questionable paths under the current admin, I would be laughing right with you...  But unfortunately I know quite well the step by step building that goes on in gov.  As soon as something becomes common place, it's so easy to add on as is frequently the case.  Look at this one, holy cripes, you only need change one word... "violent"  Do you even remotely see the concern

Dude I am convinced you use the eye roll more than me.  Just so we're dealing with the facts here.   

But no, I am not remotely concerned.  If we didn't have the courts, the media, watchdog groups, etc., then I would be worried.  Heck, I'd probably move (to some other island in the middle of nowhere).  Bush was checked by the courts.  The system worked. 

This particular bill is targeting violence. 

[Hugo Chavez]

Dude I am convinced you use the eye roll more than me.  Just so we're dealing with the facts here.   

But no, I am not remotely concerned.  If we didn't have the courts, the media, watchdog groups, etc., then I would be worried.  Heck, I'd probably move (to some other island in the middle of nowhere).  Bush was checked by the courts.  The system worked. 

This particular bill is targeting violence. 

please name me one watch group over the last 7 years that has effectively stopped something questionable from the Bush admin...
You seem to have forgotten that when the courts attempted to oppose Bush, there was a major campaign against "activist judges"  You yourself sided for Bush's ability to fire prosecutors for not going political in the prosecutions of politicians.  hello??!!??  You are not remotely concerned, how odd... I heard nothing but concern from righties on every single goddamned move made by Clinton?  Why was that?  Will it help you to know dems were at the helm of pushing this BS?  Maybe you can name me the case where someone was radicalized on myspace?  Maybe you can name me the top 5 cases of homegrown terror that warrant this legislation?  I'm listening?

[Dos Equis]

please name me one watch group over the last 7 years that has effectively stopped something questionable from the Bush admin...
You seem to have forgotten that when the courts attempted to oppose Bush, there was a major campaign against "activist judges"  You yourself sided for Bush's ability to fire prosecutors for not going political in the prosecutions of politicians.  hello??!!??  You are not remotely concerned, how odd... I heard nothing but concern from righties on every single goddamned move made by Clinton?  Why was that?  Will it help you to know dems were at the helm of pushing this BS?  Maybe you can name me the case where someone was radicalized on myspace?  Maybe you can name me the top 5 cases of homegrown terror that warrant this legislation?  I'm listening?

Judicial Watch.  If you don’t know about them you should read up on them.  I don't know that a watchdog group necessarily stops activity but itself; they shine the light on certain conduct.  They essentially play the same role as the media. 

Regarding U.S. Attorneys, what I said, first and foremost, is that I did not support firings to interfere with or obstruct legitimate criminal investigations.  I said, secondly, that they are at-will employees and political appointees.  I had/have no problem with firing political appointees if they don't follow your political agenda, belong to the wrong party, have the wrong ideology, etc.--subject to what I said regarding investigations, etc. 

The courts didn't attempt to oppose Bush.  Bush was checked by the courts.  That's a fact.  He was told certain conduct was illegal/unconstitutional and he stopped.  System worked. 

Not sure what Clinton moves you're talking about, but we are in a different era.  Get ready . . . 911 has changed everything.   

I have not read the legislative history of this bill, but I would imagine there is something in the committee reports about why they are proposing this thing.  It's a bipartisan bill.  Doesn't really strike a nerve with me one way or the other, though I will say I have no problem with the government targeting violence. 

[Hugo Chavez]

Judicial Watch.  If you don’t know about them you should read up on them.  I don't know that a watchdog group necessarily stops activity but itself; they shine the light on certain conduct.  They essentially play the same role as the media. 

Regarding U.S. Attorneys, what I said, first and foremost, is that I did not support firings to interfere with or obstruct legitimate criminal investigations.  I said, secondly, that they are at-will employees and political appointees.  I had/have no problem with firing political appointees if they don't follow your political agenda, belong to the wrong party, have the wrong ideology, etc.--subject to what I said regarding investigations, etc. 

The courts didn't attempt to oppose Bush.  Bush was checked by the courts.  That's a fact.  He was told certain conduct was illegal/unconstitutional and he stopped.  System worked. 

Not sure what Clinton moves you're talking about, but we are in a different era.  Get ready . . . 911 has changed everything.   

I have not read the legislative history of this bill, but I would imagine there is something in the committee reports about why they are proposing this thing.  It's a bipartisan bill.  Doesn't really strike a nerve with me one way or the other, though I will say I have no problem with the government targeting violence. 

I have a novel sized reply to this coming.