Freedom of speech... Illegal soon?

[Dejavu]

yea there is alot of 9/11 truther undertones in this video but watch it to take account of the larger implications that are implied with the bill.



As much as i like to think that the government is working in our best interests... lol. But due to the lose wording in the bill one could have grounds to make peaceful protest and posting a dissenting political view on the internet as illegal activities.

This also makes undermines one of the key ideas that is used in the declaration of independence.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

When this bill passes (cause i truthfully have little hope that it will be stopped after how easily it got through the house) i could very easily be labeled a homegrown terrorist and all dissenting views of our current political environment could be stopped.

If you would like to read the bill yourself then please go to the link below. Also even though neither of their names are on the bill it seems to be getting spear headed by Sen. Joe Lieberman which means that Mccain is probably all over it as well...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

 

[Alyada]

God. Scary.

 

[Carste]

I didn't watch the videos so I don't have the media bias yet (at work with no sound - will probably watch when I get home). Reading through the bill though, I'm getting the impression that your "peaceful protests" and "dissenting political views" are still safe as long as they aren't threatening violence (this could potentially branch out to condoning violence as well). As I recall, freedom of speech does not protect someone making violent threats.

The definitions they use for "Violent Radicalization", "Homegrown Terrorism", and "Ideologically Based Violence" focus on the aspect of "use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual" (Sec 899A). By definition, I would say your peaceful protest is still safe since you are not using, planning to use, or threatening to use force or violence. Posting on your website is not protected if you're posting something to the effect of "I will kill this politician because he is not a white protestant".

I would also say that Sec 899F (a) protects citizens from abuse due to any loose wording in the bill. It's reiterating that the bill "shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties". I would imagine that your conspiracy theory video posted on youtube is still safe as long as you aren't threatening the use of violence.

This is what I got out of reading the bill; I'm not too big on following politics or scrutinizing wordings, so please point out any errors in my statements or something I might have overlooked in the wording of this bill.

 

[diamond]

Thank you so much for posting this.. Everyone seems to think.. sorry I'm using the term everyone very lightly.. that everything is ok and that our gov. has our best intrest in mind.. but what they have in mind is shutting us up.. They want to do things how they see fit, with no concern for our constitution or our bill of rights. Now those documents are no longer held in highest reguard..but merely just some crazy thoughts of outdated fore fathers. It saddens and enrages me that these people in office would acctually think about going through with this. But alas I'm sure that most of them never even read it. Thats how lil things get passed and people are like omg how did this bill get passed.. not only is the gov sneaky, but the senate and the congress people rarely read the bill that are infront of them in thier entirety.. That again angers me. They are supposed to be there to be our voice. But alas it seems that its easier to just go along with things and not read or question them because you know golf or fishing or duckhunting or what ever it is that they do with our tax dollars when they are not in session, is painfully more important than the problems at hand. For a long time freedom of speech has been attacked, now if you speak your mind.. your a terrorist.. I ask you.. who is the real terrorist here?

 

[chinis]

This is any different from things now how? They held like 1k peaceful protesters at the RNC and DNC back with cops, guns, tear gas, and pepper spray. Oh, they had cages for them too. So debating moving to Canada, they have mooses.

 

[Carste]

Thank you so much for posting this.. Everyone seems to think.. sorry I'm using the term everyone very lightly.. that everything is ok and that our gov. has our best intrest in mind.. but what they have in mind is shutting us up.. They want to do things how they see fit, with no concern for our constitution or our bill of rights. Now those documents are no longer held in highest reguard..but merely just some crazy thoughts of outdated fore fathers. It saddens and enrages me that these people in office would acctually think about going through with this. But alas I'm sure that most of them never even read it. Thats how lil things get passed and people are like omg how did this bill get passed.. not only is the gov sneaky, but the senate and the congress people rarely read the bill that are infront of them in thier entirety.. That again angers me. They are supposed to be there to be our voice. But alas it seems that its easier to just go along with things and not read or question them because you know golf or fishing or duckhunting or what ever it is that they do with our tax dollars when they are not in session, is painfully more important than the problems at hand. For a long time freedom of speech has been attacked, now if you speak your mind.. your a terrorist.. I ask you.. who is the real terrorist here?

I agree our government is shady at best, but can you please point out where in the bill it is denying or has the potential to deny our freedom of speech (or any rights for that matter)?

Also, did you even read the bill or are you just as bad as the congressman who passes something without even reading it?

Just playing devil's advocate here, I don't have any views set on this bill yet since I don't believe it gives anyone power to do something they weren't already able to do.

 

[Dejavu]

You mean like this?

 

[Dejavu]

Well i was going to wait til you watched the video cause it would save me some typing but i will give you the readers digest version...

if you watch the video it will bring up an interesting point about the difference between the use of the word force and violence

In the bill it says force or violence... why or? well violence has a very definite definition and when most people think about force they think physical force. But then why the distinction.

here is the definition of force

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.
6. persuasive power; power to convince: They felt the force of his arguments.
7. mental or moral strength: force of character.
8. might, as of a ruler or realm; strength for war.
9. Often, forces. the military or fighting strength, esp. of a nation.
10. any body of persons combined for joint action: a sales force.
11. intensity or strength of effect: the force of her acting.
12. Physics.
a. an influence on a body or system, producing or tending to produce a change in movement or in shape or other effects.
b. the intensity of such an influence. Symbol: F, f
13. any influence or agency analogous to physical force: social forces.
14. binding power, as of a contract.
15. Baseball. force play.
16. value; significance; meaning.
17. Billiards. a stroke in which the cue ball is forcibly struck directly below the center in such a manner as to cause it to stop abruptly, bound back, or roll off to one side after hitting the object ball.
–verb (used with object)
18. to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: to force a suspect to confess.
19. to drive or propel against resistance: He forced his way through the crowd. They forced air into his lungs.
20. to bring about or effect by force.
21. to bring about of necessity or as a necessary result: to force a smile.
22. to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person: to force one's opinions on others.
23. to compel by force; overcome the resistance of: to force acceptance of something.
24. to obtain or draw forth by or as if by force; extort: to force a confession.
25. to enter or take by force; overpower: They forced the town after a long siege.
26. to break open (a door, lock, etc.).
27. to cause (plants, fruits, etc.) to grow or mature at an increased rate by artificial means.
28. to press, urge, or exert (an animal, person, etc.) to violent effort or to the utmost.
29. to use force upon.

1-3 basically the same as violence and dont really make that much sense...
4... power to influence
6... persuasive power

There seems to be 2 major categories of force which is physical and the power to influence or persuade.

Ok now lets rewrite the bill with the new wording.

IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of persuasive power or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

The point is that the wording on the bill is extremely vague and open to loose interpretations... and as of late this is the last thing that we need.

As most of you know i am very political and i love youtube and 6 of the channels that i subscribe to were banned yesterday due in part to changes in policy due to this new bill since a lot of the groups i pay attention to advocate action rather than apathy.
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_YouT...With_New_Anti_Terrorism_Guidelines_24367.html

 

[Carste]

Sorry to make you type that, only 30 more minutes until I watch the videos though. I did take force to mean physical force. But, I was reading the statement in section 899F as stating that the definitions defined in the bill would not redefine the constitutional rights. Concerning freedom of speech, loosely defined we can say or do whatever we want however we want as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others. So is this section of the bill guaranteeing that we can express our views the same way we always have without fear that the definitions in the bill will supersede how freedom of speech is currently defined?

 

[Dejavu]

`SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

`(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 shallinclude the results ofaudits under such mechanism include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:

Im not sure what section that you are talking about that it says that it will not redefine constitutional rights. It only says that it cannot violate them.

Truthfully to me this bill sounds depressingly close to the wording that was within the Smith act which made McCarthyism and the socialism trials of the 1960s possible.

this is the wording in the smith act...

knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.

Btw... all of the convictions under this act were later overthrown because they were found to be unconstitutional.

And now for your reading pleasure here is the smith act...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html
To bad they dont write bills like this anymore ... you know somewhat easy to read although still extremely long winded and intentionally vague.

The only real difference is the motivation has changed from communists to jihadists... Its funny how we are doomed to repeat history no matter how useless it is.

 

[diamond]

Yes I did read that bill and i have to say that I agree it is very vague.. Most of it is spent talking about inane booshwa in my opinion..wich they went in to more detail about then they did with what they will actually be doing. Now personally this is my opinion, if you are peacefully protesting something, for instance, and the police come out and get violent with you, and then you in turn in defense of your self get violent back then are you not going to fall in to the catagory of thier "Homegrown Terrorist" group? I'm just saying.. not everything is black and white.. and I always especially when it concerns the govornment.. read into it more.. I guess I'm just waiting for them to come out and say "Hey, we think that democracy is no longer needed.. for the protection of the United states" and they may never do it. But i think it will all come crashing down on them.

 

[Trippyhippy]

This generation needs a Bobby Kennedy.

 

[Rorschach]

Saddly, the problem is people know what happens to those who try to act like Bobby or John Kennedy or MLK or Malcom X or anyone who tries to change things for the betterment of a group of people. We need people in power who have the stones to do what these men did. And I honestly dont see it. I mean hell only now has someone brought up charges to impeach bush. Not 7 years ago when the information to go into iraq was fabricated, but 7 years after so many of our troops and iraqi citizens have been either wounded beyond all belief or killed. ...on a side note, why cant I make 2 seperate paragraphs? Everything ends up being a wall of text...

 

[Halifirien]

I wouldn't worry. As the Bush conservatives told us so many times, you have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

 

[smalls]

that was some of the dumbest shit i have ever seen. first the guy purposefully misinterprets the word force then even admits it would be ridiculous to interpret the word in this way. then he goes on to purposefully misinterpret what o'rielly and beck said. then somehow equates what the media is saying to what the government will do.

i know all you hippies are concerned that they will take away your favorite past time. but rest assured the government knows your protests are meaningless and wouldnt waste their time making a bill that would take away your right to say stupid things.

 

[Strid]

that was some of the dumbest shit i have ever seen. first the guy purposefully misinterprets the word force then even admits it would be ridiculous to interpret the word in this way. then he goes on to purposefully misinterpret what o'rielly and beck said. then somehow equates what the media is saying to what the government will do.

i know all you hippies are concerned that they will take away your favorite past time. but rest assured the government knows your protests are meaningless and wouldnt waste their time making a bill that would take away your right to say stupid things.

I'll drink to that.

 

[Trippyhippy]

that was some of the dumbest shit i have ever seen. first the guy purposefully misinterprets the word force then even admits it would be ridiculous to interpret the word in this way. then he goes on to purposefully misinterpret what o'rielly and beck said. then somehow equates what the media is saying to what the government will do.

i know all you hippies are concerned that they will take away your favorite past time. but rest assured the government knows your protests are meaningless and wouldnt waste their time making a bill that would take away your right to say stupid things.

Fascists like you will be the downfall of the free world.

 

[Strid]

That goes both ways. However, the hippy endin' is more dangerous, imo.

 

[diamond]

Why does it always go back to this, no one is afraid of losing something petty. But you know what its people like smalls that make the rest of us look bad. Im sorry but its my right as an american to question the methods of my gov. I refuse to sit by blindly just accepting the bullshit they keep feeding us.

 

[Firestreak]

There is so much anti-government paranoia in general these days, that I find it hard to get in any sort of uproar over anything unless I independantly come to my own conclusion that the government is overstepping its bounds. Yes, sometimes individuals within the government act badly, and sometimes they get away with it, just like people not in the government sometimes act badly and sometimes get away with it.

The problem is when people try and antagonize authority figures out of protest, and in the process, cross lines which really DO break the law.

I will give you an example.

I am for gun rights. I believe in the right to own a gun. If I decided that protesting was somehow not a waste of my time, and that it was a cause I felt strongly enough to protest over, I would not take a gun to the protest. I would not point a gun at some politician walking by who wanted to ban guns. I have a right to protest, but that doesn't mean while protesting I am allowed to break the law.

What if I went ahead and waved a gun at Obama, because I interpreted him as a threat to my right to own a gun? I am protesting sure, but I'm also breaking the law by pointing the gun at him. If I went ahead and did this, and one of my friends taped just me getting arrested, and didn't show the crime I committed, and put it on the internet, some idiots might think I was not a dumbass who deserved to get arrested.

Are we starting to understand what I'm getting at? Take idea further. We have hundreds of these things all over the place, with individual corrupt people abusing their power, and with protesters breaking the law and whining over getting punished - and then we have these paranoid schizophreniacs with webcams interpreting law badly, because they are college dropouts who never got a political science degree or went to law school, and then you have even more misinformed people getting their news from them.

It makes me very apathetic, and I don't wanna be that guy who says, "I trust my government blindly."

But there's a difference between being a blind follower and a paranoid idiot. I'll decide when to freak out myself, thank you very much.

But these threads aren't about logical conclusions. If they were, they wouldn't be titled, "Free of speech... over soon?" Because someone not already seriously paranoid isn't going to take that particularly seriously. To me, I read it like a beacon, "COME HERE PARANOID LOONEYS, LET'S GOSSIP!" And if someone were to come across said thread and call them out on their bullshit, they just might be labeled a nazi or something, cause disagreeing is tatamount to genocide.