/ Columns

An Assault on the 1st Amendment

Thought crime to be voted on in the senate

By Andrew Meyer

First they passed the PATRIOT Act which jeopardizes the 4th Amendment. Then the Military Commissions Act eliminated habeus corpus, a summons that demands a prisoner be brought before the court together with proof of authority, so that the court can determine whether the government has lawful authority to hold that person or not. The government and the media have been clouding your minds with non-issues while they silently erase your freedoms. Now, the coup de grace.

On October 23rd the House of Representatives passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

The first warning bell that should be going off in your head is that most of you have never heard of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act before. Go ahead and do a Google search of the Act right now. Oddly (or appropriately, if you’ve been paying attention) there is not a single mainstream media outlet with any story on the Act.

There are however, plenty of citizens on the internet very concerned about the Act’s contents.

One post on WashingtonWatch.com reads “This is among the worst, most repressive, fascistic bills I’ve ever seen. Using Fear, it takes away practically every remaining right you have, enabling ‘thought crimes’ worse than anything Soviet Russia offered. It gives almost unlimited freedom to designate anyone a terrorist, saying there are torrents of terrorist propaganda on the Net.”

The third finding of the Act states: “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.”

So who’s read 1984? Seen V For Vendetta? Get ready for life imitating art.

The Act creates a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism. It then defines ideologically based violence as “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.”

A student protest occupying the streets can easily be construed as a use of force for political or social beliefs. Disagree with the government? Think the Constitution should reign supreme and want to voice your beliefs? You, my friend, could be named a “homegrown terrorist”.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 now needs only a ‘Yes’ vote by the Senate to become law. I have a feeling President Bush isn’t busting out the veto for this one. If this Act passes, our Congress will spend hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when our budget is already wildly out of control to essentially criminalize Free Speech.

“If you understand what this bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest,” Dennis Kucinich said. “This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.”

You now have less than two weeks to register to vote in the Florida primary. The future of freedom in America, your freedom, depends on your actions. Register to vote.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

3 Commments

  1. We don’t have “camps” yet, but step by step works, too. Example: people not allowed to return to their homes or even collect their belongings after being evacuated during a natural disaster. Check out youtube for HANO in NOLA.

  2. “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.”

    Protesting peacefully is not a use of force. It is a use of intelligence and a collective desire to make a positive change. If a protest group is behaving forefully or radically, it no longer maintains the rights to function as a peaceful protest.

    While I understand that your obvious fear that people like you might not be able to write about your, “conspiracy theories” and, “de-democratization” of America, keep in mind that the rules of every game ultimately change.

    Freedom of speech and of the press is all fine and well, if people are honest, caring, sensitive, and humanitarian. The issue is that far too many people in the modern world are not that way any longer. We live in a MUCH more complex society than our founding fathers, and for that we too must revise the rules.

    Ultimately, the purpose of this type of legislature is aimed at stopping the malevolant malcontents of society that wish to do harm to innocent people. How can you possibly defend the governmental right to protect innocents?

Leave a Reply