HR 1955, how bad is it really?
Oct. 27th, 2007 02:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nancylebovI'm sorry, I posted in haste, and hadn't read the whole bill, let alone thought about it.
It does just establish a Commission to study domestic terrorism. It doesn't define crimes and punishments, and it's my impression that commissions usually get ignored anyway.
On the other hand, it's got this: (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., which strikes me as unnervingly vague--it's not saying beliefs that advocate violence, it's saying adopting a belief that facilitates violence, which leaves an awful lot of room for saying that a belief facilitates violence whether its promoters want violence or whether any violence occurs.
This isn't even about thought crime. This is about whether someone in power is guessing that some thoughts might be intended to lead towards crime.
Sloppy wording? A move towards total tyranny?
So I suppose that, at worst, the bill represents thought crime on the part of the government, and there are more important things to oppose.
It does just establish a Commission to study domestic terrorism. It doesn't define crimes and punishments, and it's my impression that commissions usually get ignored anyway.
On the other hand, it's got this: (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., which strikes me as unnervingly vague--it's not saying beliefs that advocate violence, it's saying adopting a belief that facilitates violence, which leaves an awful lot of room for saying that a belief facilitates violence whether its promoters want violence or whether any violence occurs.
This isn't even about thought crime. This is about whether someone in power is guessing that some thoughts might be intended to lead towards crime.
Sloppy wording? A move towards total tyranny?
So I suppose that, at worst, the bill represents thought crime on the part of the government, and there are more important things to oppose.
