New law allows US to police thoughts

Post Reply New Topic

HR 1955: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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 i guess we best stop our terrorist attacks against god.

Well it looks like I am totally f**ked . . . more.
It starts with terrorism, but that ain't where its gonna end.

Who's authoring and supporting this bill?

You didn't even post the bill, you just posted a few definitions contained within the bill. That doesn't prove the bill permits the regulation of thought at all.

Try harder next time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCF460eTEv0

I hope not.

Just proves all along about what most people think about the American government, and that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum. It's not just we outsiders who think that everything is going pear-shaped over in the US; lots of Americans themselves have become dissatisfied with the amount of regulation the government is trying to get over everyone. Some of it is necessary, but when they try to rule over what people can and can't say or think, then they may as well be using 1984 as a handbook, and all the Winston Smiths about the place have a right to be worried. And let's face it, the only way to curb this nonsense is to rise up and vote them out. Revolutions won't work - they have too much going as far as armed force. Arming yourselves in case of government crack-downs and round-ups gets you killed. Voting at least gives you the chance to pick who you want (even if it is the battle between a douchebag and a turd sandwich). The one really unfortunate thing, though, is that some deranged idiot in power can actually come up with a bill of utter nonsense AND get it passed into legislation.... It happens everywhere, and as long as it keeps happening, people are going to get pissed off. It just seems to happen a lot more in America...

What if they rig the votes? Bush did, he stole the election. Those with money and power decide who THEY want to be our president, our vote is nothing but an illusion. I support the 2nd amendment as a last ditch effort to defend our rights, a last ditch effort.... Meaning when all else fails, we're not just gonna give up our freedom and let them have what they want, theyr gonna have to take it from us, over our dead bodies. But that is a last resort, but one which might end up being necessary. Reality is not pretty, and reality is not synonymous with some one-sided left wing delusionalist who wants to think the world is all sunshine and lolly pops, or right wing theocrat who thinks that by forcibly converting the rest of the world to their proven lies (religion) that somehow it will fix everything.

It isn't just the government that wants to police our thoughts. PETA and the other animal rights lunatics, the food nanies, the obseity freaks, the tree huggers, the greedy corporate pigs, the so called "egalitirians", and many other groups are out to force their ways on us. Either way we are being hemmed in.

Some pretty scary stuff, but nothing really new. How do they define "extremist?" Isn't such a term dependent on the social context? Modern mainstream liberals would have been considered all-out Communists a hundred years ago. And the prohibition against using violence to attain political objecctives? They won't let us vote, so what else are we to do? I suppose Washington was a bad terrorist who should have been put to death. Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers would never have wanted anything like these regulations, they always, through their deeds and their writing, affirmed the right of the people to rebel against lousy leaders.