Page 1 of 2
#1
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

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.


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...")


#2
This will never happen...
VENUSIAN
FB SC BC TW
Patterns In The Ivy present ethnicity on an intriguing and dedicated level. ~Ambient Exotica
A mesmeric melange of yearning voice, delicate piano and carefully chosen samples. ~Lost Voices
#4
You peace rallyers and free speach lovers are the real terrorists.
two and a half men.
#5
Maybe in a pre-9/11 America

"The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6..."
#6
Quote by #12 & 35
Maybe in a pre-9/11 America

"The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6..."

I think that they were more on about a court defining sending a letter as force.

and if they aren't, I am.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#8
Doesn't one of your archaic and at times stupid ammendments make this law illegal, as it were?
The UG Awards exist only to instill me with existential doubt.


For me, the 60's ended that day in 1978...

Willies. Fuck the lick and fuck you too.
#10
Quote by doctor woot
**** BUSH
**** THE WAR
**** THE US GOVERNMENT


Good day.

BIG FREAKIN EDIT!!!l: Oh the irony.



+1
:
BC Rich Bronze Warlock
Ibanez Artcore AFS75T
Fender CD-SCE140 Acoustic Electric
1962 Guild MKIII Classical
#11
If this bill is to eliminate terrorism, how is speaking out against Bush and his administation and the war supporting terrorism?
Write your own lyrics or poetry? Post them HERE for a crit.
Follow me on Twitter
#13
As I've said before, there are other bills that I'm more concerned about. Freedom comes at a price, and frankly I'd give up a bit of it if it meant plans wouldn't be flying into my office building.

We can't have both security and a government that doesn't have the right to secure us. It just won't exist...
#14
They don't need to do that.

"During times of war, the commander in chief may deny habeas corpus or freedom of speech."
Dickless.
#15
Quote by denizenz
As I've said before, there are other bills that I'm more concerned about. Freedom comes at a price, and frankly I'd give up a bit of it if it meant plans wouldn't be flying into my office building.

We can't have both security and a government that doesn't have the right to secure us. It just won't exist...


Planes. Planes would be flying into your office.
two and a half men.
#16
*puts on Rage Against the Machine at full volume in disgust*
Quote by Hpda5121
im not a racist because racism is a crime, and crime is for black people

Quote by the dave
yeah man I put my hand up their skirt and pick em up like a six pack

Quote by Death_switch
mr bill0ws is right
#17
Quote by denizenz
As I've said before, there are other bills that I'm more concerned about. Freedom comes at a price, and frankly I'd give up a bit of it if it meant plans wouldn't be flying into my office building.

We can't have both security and a government that doesn't have the right to secure us. It just won't exist...

A society that would give up a little liberty for a little security deserves none and will recieve neither.
#18
Quote by doctor woot
A society that would give up a little liberty for a little security deserves none and will recieve neither.


Benjamin Franklin? That quote was in Civilization IV.
Quote by BLOBERT
BRO
#19
Quote by denizenz
As I've said before, there are other bills that I'm more concerned about. Freedom comes at a price, and frankly I'd give up a bit of it if it meant plans wouldn't be flying into my office building.

We can't have both security and a government that doesn't have the right to secure us. It just won't exist...

This sounds like a pretty big step towards dictatorship. i.e. no freedom.
#21
Quote by doctor woot
A society that would give up a little liberty for a little security deserves none and will recieve neither.

I won't be giving up any liberty because I'm not a terrorist...

How many people do you know who have been tried under the patriot act? How do you honestly think this bill would affect your daily life?
#22
Quote by denizenz
I won't be giving up any liberty because I'm not a terrorist...

Freedom of speech.

And you think insurgents in OTHER countries are going to obey OUR rules? Are you on crack?

"They can't talk smack on Bush"

"huh, maybe we shouldn't bomb them towers.."
#23
We dont have that problem over in the UK.
It's mostly old, uptight lesbians working for the local council who scream "HEALTH AND SAFETY!" if you leave your front door without a hard hat and high-visibility jacket when popping down the road to get some milk.
#24
Quote by Reject_666_6
Benjamin Franklin? That quote was in Civilization IV.



The actual quote is:

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

And yes, it was Ben Franklin that said that, and he was right!
#25
'Bill, you have two decisions. You can either clean up your act and be a good president, or you can start a chain reaction which will slowly see the eradication of free speech.'
'Hm...'
The UG Awards exist only to instill me with existential doubt.


For me, the 60's ended that day in 1978...

Willies. Fuck the lick and fuck you too.
#26
Quote by doctor woot
Freedom of speech.

And you think insurgents in OTHER countries are going to obey OUR rules? Are you on crack?

"They can't talk smack on Bush"

"huh, maybe we shouldn't bomb them towers.."

Eh? It has nothing to do with others obeying our rules. It has everything to do with granting our government the right to prosecute people who are not obeying the rules while they are here.
#27
well, i wouldn't put it past hillary, barack, or mccain at all. if the bill reaches any of them, they'll definitely pass it. hopefully it gets shot down, but i'm kind of skeptic about that.
#28
Quote by denizenz
Eh? It has nothing to do with others obeying our rules. It has everything to do with granting our government the right to prosecute people who are not obeying the rules while they are here.

That's ludicrous. The rules say we can say whatever we want, changing the rules to benefit nodoby in particular (excluding our wonderful government) is borderline tyrannical. You said you don't want people flying plans into your office building, but that has NOTHING to do with our personal liberties. We are equally killable one way or another, and as long as the government has the same self serving mindset as it has for the time being then other nations would have people hating us enough to go ahead and blow up your offices with their plans.
#29
Quote by doctor woot
That's ludicrous. The rules say we can say whatever we want, changing the rules to benefit nodoby in particular (excluding our wonderful government) is borderline tyrannical. You said you don't want people flying plans into your office building, but that has NOTHING to do with our personal liberties. We are equally killable one way or another, and as long as the government has the same self serving mindset as it has for the time being then other nations would have people hating us enough to go ahead and blow up your offices with their plans.

I'm sorry but where does it say you can't say anything about the government?

actually in the bill, not the twisted melodramatic interpretation of one line.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#30
Quote by doctor woot
That's ludicrous. The rules say we can say whatever we want, changing the rules to benefit nodoby in particular (excluding our wonderful government) is borderline tyrannical. You said you don't want people flying plans into your office building, but that has NOTHING to do with our personal liberties. We are equally killable one way or another, and as long as the government has the same self serving mindset as it has for the time being then other nations would have people hating us enough to go ahead and blow up your offices with their plans.

First off, I missed an "E". Get over it.

Next, what the fuck are you even talking about? How many liberties do you think this bill would force you to give up? Also, the "rules" don't give us the authority to say whatever we want, and certainly don't give us the right to use force to convey a message. You may want to brush up on your amendments.
#32
I don't feel threatened at all by this bill.

It's my opinion that it is broad enough so that when terrorist groups/organizations/people ARE apprehended, we have a much broader net with which to capture them.

I see no reason to go into panic mode and assume that this is going to be used to silence outspoken citizens, but rather I feel that it is going to put a stop to groups that otherwise, under our more lenient jurisdiction, would have been able to continue so long as they continued to twist the constitution to their benefit.
My God, it's full of stars!
#33
Quote by Dreadnought
I don't feel threatened at all by this bill.

It's my opinion that it is broad enough so that when terrorist groups/organizations/people ARE apprehended, we have a much broader net with which to capture them.

I see no reason to go into panic mode and assume that this is going to be used to silence outspoken citizens, but rather I feel that it is going to put a stop to groups that otherwise, under our more lenient jurisdiction, would have been able to continue so long as they continued to twist the constitution to their benefit.



Thank you.
#34
Quote by denizenz
As I've said before, there are other bills that I'm more concerned about. Freedom comes at a price, and frankly I'd give up a bit of it if it meant plans wouldn't be flying into my office building.

We can't have both security and a government that doesn't have the right to secure us. It just won't exist...


And I thought you were sensible, Denizens. There's a large difference between security and "securing" the people. I'm all for homeland security. I just think that it doesn't require extreme measures like this. The only reason any citizen in the US needs to be "secured" is if they are infringing on the rights of others, aka criminals, violent (like bodily hurting others) protest, etc. Restricting freedom of speech wouldn't even do anything to help with the war on terror. If the people don't like what the US is doing overseas, it is their responsibility to make themselves heard and vote against it. The government can only go against the will of the people if the people don't do anything to stop it or are too stupid to know what's going on.

I'd say that we have ample homeland security if we haven't had a war on American soil since the civil war apart from individual attacks like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Besides, denizens, the terrorists weren't aiming for any random buildings on 9/11. They were aiming for emblems of American strength, like the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. They have no reason to aim for your office building.

Freedom of speech, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is one of the best things that this country has, and it will never be taken away, law or no law.
#35
Quote by rockergurl09
And I thought you were sensible, Denizens. There's a large difference between security and "securing" the people. I'm all for homeland security. I just think that it doesn't require extreme measures like this. The only reason any citizen in the US needs to be "secured" is if they are infringing on the rights of others, aka criminals, violent (like bodily hurting others) protest, etc. Restricting freedom of speech wouldn't even do anything to help with the war on terror. If the people don't like what the US is doing overseas, it is their responsibility to make themselves heard and vote against it. The government can only go against the will of the people if the people don't do anything to stop it or are too stupid to know what's going on.

I'd say that we have ample homeland security if we haven't had a war on American soil since the civil war apart from individual attacks like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Besides, denizens, the terrorists weren't aiming for any random buildings on 9/11. They were aiming for emblems of American strength, like the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. They have no reason to aim for your office building.

Freedom of speech, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is one of the best things that this country has, and it will never be taken away, law or no law.

again, can I ask where this removal of freedom of speech is explained?

If the courts can be that broad with their interpretations they don't need new laws they can just interpret the current laws so broadly that any activity could be outlawed.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#36
^ The World Trade Center was someones office building.

And you just said the answer:

Freedom of speech, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is one of the best things that this country has, and it will never be taken away, law or no law.


Exactly.
My God, it's full of stars!
#37
Quote by brandon369852
If this bill is to eliminate terrorism, how is speaking out against Bush and his administation and the war supporting terrorism?


I'm surprised that the government doesn't already know that a lot of the things people have against the war on terror are the technicalities and the way the war is being fought, and the motives behind it (aka oil and other selfish reasons), not a protest against protecting the US from terrorists.
#38
^ I assure you, the government knows that. I'm a little surprised to see that you think you know something that the government does not.
My God, it's full of stars!
#39
Quote by freedoms_stain
This sounds like a pretty big step towards dictatorship. i.e. no freedom.



yet you guys laugh about us Americans thinking we need guns to protect our freedom.There is a thin line between a westernized nation and a 3rd world nation.

I'm not saying this legislation is actually a step toward tyranny.....accusations can run wildly and this needs more indepth consideration with stripping away the propaganda being touted.

But there is always a chance however slim that events would lead people to allow themselves to be herded into hysteria and support exteme measures....like Iraq or Nazi Germany.

I'm not saying America is anywhere near that...though people in europe seem to love to shout "facism" and rhetoric about America....but constant vigilance on liberty is always a must.
Last edited by LK_revival at Feb 14, 2008,
#40
Lots of assumptions = bad logic.

Quote by rockergurl09
And I thought you were sensible, Denizens. There's a large difference between security and "securing" the people. I'm all for homeland security. I just think that it doesn't require extreme measures like this.

You assume that this bill goes to extreme measures. I don't think so. It sounds pretty common sense to me, don't use force or violence to bolster your opinions.

The only reason any citizen in the US needs to be "secured" is if they are infringing on the rights of others, aka criminals, violent (like bodily hurting others) protest, etc. Restricting freedom of speech wouldn't even do anything to help with the war on terror.

You assume that this bill actually will infringe on innocent people's free speech. I don't think that is the case at all. The purpose isn't to restrict free speech, and says nothing that hints at political silencing.

If the people don't like what the US is doing overseas, it is their responsibility to make themselves heard and vote against it. The government can only go against the will of the people if the people don't do anything to stop it or are too stupid to know what's going on.

What? Did you read the bill?

I'd say that we have ample homeland security if we haven't had a war on American soil since the civil war apart from individual attacks like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Besides, denizens, the terrorists weren't aiming for any random buildings on 9/11. They were aiming for emblems of American strength, like the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. They have no reason to aim for your office building.

No shit, I don't even work in an office building. I'd say our homeland security is far from ample...we're just big and imposing so no one has mustered up the nerve to mess with us.

Freedom of speech, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is one of the best things that this country has, and it will never be taken away, law or no law.

I'm all for free speech. In fact, I consider myself a constitutionalist. If I felt this bill were an infringement of my constitutional rights, I would be among the first to be calling my representative. However, I do not.
Page 1 of 2