Politicians and Election, Vote in Freedom, Actively Participate in Democracy, Vote for Change, Online referendum
Internet Censorship Controversy

H.R. 1955 - "Homegrown Terrorism Act" vs. Internet freedom

Internet Censorship Controversy, support 16%

button ElectionsMeter.com

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

 

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. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com. 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...")

...

 

"Homegrown Terrorism Act" vs. Internet freedom

 

Has changed the argument your opinion on Internet Censorship Controversy ? ube.com/v/X-TepAJWk_s">    

 

sources: www.naturalnews.comwww.youtube.com

2009-06-22


alexasa -
Flag it!no spam

ElectionsMeter is not responsible for the content of the text. Please refer always to the author. Every text published on ElectionsMeter should include original name of the author and reference to the original source. Users are obliged to follow notice of copyright infringement. Please read carefully policy of the site.

 
load menu