Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congress' "anti-extremist" bill targets online thoughtcrime

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:21 PM
Original message
Congress' "anti-extremist" bill targets online thoughtcrime
(Excerpt from the Alabama Department of Homeland Security's
definition of antigovernment groups.)




Congress is about to approve the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This is not necessarily a good thing for Internet users.

I say that because VRAHTPA establishes a new federal commission tasked with investigating Americans with "extremist belief systems" and those who may engage in "ideologically based violence." This effort is expected to cost $22 million.

Excerpt from the Alabama Department of Homeland Security's definition of antigovernment groups.
It's possible, of course, that nothing will come of VRAHTPA. Technically no new laws are being proposed except those creating the so-called National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

But creating a homeland security commission staffed primarily by Washington types with security clearances, which will be run by Washington antiterror types, which meets mostly in secret, and which will present a classified report to the president about "extremist belief systems"--well, that has the potential to turn ugly.

Here's an actual example of censorial mission creep from Alabama's Department of Homeland Security, which believes domestic terrorists are those Americans who say the "U.S. government is infringing on their individual rights, and/or that the government's policies are criminal and immoral."

I guess that would make Al Gore a domestic terrorist, especially after his speech last year saying "the executive branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue." Presidential candidate Ron Paul, of course, is even guiltier, as are those pesky ACLUers, EFFers, and libertarians.

You can get a feel for where this commission is heading in this excerpt from the legislation to create it, which has already cleared by the House of Representatives by a 404-6 vote and is now headed to the Senate:

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.


http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9825287-38.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. The internet will be the canary.
When it's regulated for political discourse to control dissent, its a good idea to leave Germany before its too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dukkha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. I guess it needs to be said yet again
NO ONE OWNS THE INTERNET!!!
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undergroundpanther Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. They wanna kill the canary

Radicalizing myself

by Underground Panther in the Sky, Unknown News Oct. 23, 2006

Why are these elitists scared of "disaffected" people radicalizing themselves?

Well, lets look at this. First, what does it mean to be "disaffected"?

One definition of disaffected is this:
(adj) disaffected, ill-affected, malcontent, rebellious (discontented as toward authority)

Another,is this:
A person who is alienated or estranged from those in authority or lacks loyalty to the government; a state of mind.

Basically it means a person who's "disaffected" cannot cope with being dominated by these authoritarian personalities, whether they're in the White House or in your house.

The elitists are having a paranoid temper-tantrum. They fear we will stop serving them, stop playing by their rules, stop doing everything we do as they want it done. They are terrified of losing.

So, what is the best way to keep people tame, non-threatening and obedient, enthralled to the empty sound of authority and fearing its stolen power?

One way is to forbid the people 'disaffected' expression and commiseration about their own disaffection towards the authoritarians oppressing them. Shut up the truth about abuse, bigotry, and war. Silence the will inside the people to be free of abuse. Forbid solidarity, limit human networks, shred the social safety net, and stop the spread of human empathy. Make people afraid to share, sever kin ties, interfere with friendships and social support...



http://www.unknownnews.org/061023a-Panther.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. How about those Senators who said " Bill Clinton is not my president."
I'm sure with all the changes in civil liberties, they can go back and retroactively charge people under this. Let's get cracking DoJ.

K*R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 01st 2014, 04:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC