Jane Harman's War on the First Amendment (thought crime bill)

http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10252007.html


The Politics of Paranoia

By Col. DAN SMITH

Congresswoman Jane Harman has introduced legislation--H.R. 1955: "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism"--that is expected to be referred to the House Rules Committee for assignment of floor time for debate by the House. This is a bill that is unneeded, unwise, and unfortunately will pass and be signed into law as it purports to be part of the response to 9/11 and the global war on terror.

At base, Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights. No where is this more clear than in the third introductory paragraph (the "where as" section) that provides the context for the action desired. Specifically, this legislation aims at the unregulated nature of the Internet:

"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."

Moreover, Harman is telling the American public, citizens and permanent residents, that they are too dumb to recognize hate speech, demonizing rhetoric, and propaganda, and are so morally immature that they are not capable of knowing when to "blow off" terrorists and their messages designed to incite large scale insurrection.

*edited for copyright*

VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- 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 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 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.

:-(

Thank God your vote for "purity" didn't cost us a Dem seat in a purple district.

She now holds townhalls. She actually opened her voice about the FISA lie.

The fact that Harman has changed her ways even somewhat (due to the outcry and Primary challenge) is way better than having the empty suit that has been holding that seat in Congress all that time.

And yeah, if Winograd had won the primary and went on to lose to a GOP'er in the general election, then so be it. I'd be giving that GOP'er the same hell I'd reserve for a bow-down-to-Bush & Co-prone, keepin-that-powder-dry-forever Dem.

so why bother?

Only a moron would judge the bill without reading it. Here's the Thomas link to the full text:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110X8tyba::

Anyone who says this bill runs afoul of the First Amendment is simply blowing smoke up your ass.
I can refer you specifically to the point of the bill -- i.e., to STUDY "homegrown terrorism." God forbid the knee-jerks would actually READ the legislation they are criticizing.

"SEC. 899C. GRANT PROGRAM TO PREVENT IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.

`(a) Establishment- Subject to the requirements of this section, the Secretary shall establish a grant program to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States.

`(b) Grants Authorized- The Secretary may award grants to States to enhance homeland security by preventing radicalization and homegrown terrorism in at-risk populations, as determined by the Secretary.

`(c) Purpose- The purpose of the grant program is to prevent, disrupt, and mitigate the effects of radicalization and prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States.

`(d) Grant Eligibility- Any State shall be eligible to apply for a grant under the program referred to in paragraph (a).

`(e) Use of Funds- Grants awarded under this section shall be used by the States to award to agencies and organizations, including but not limited to, social services agencies, community-based groups, educational institutions and non-governmental organizations as sub-grantees to address radicalization and homegrown terrorism by--

`(1) developing best practices, standards and protocols to conduct outreach to various populations that are at-risk for radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

`(2) assisting with educational outreach, social services, and integration into society;

`(3) program planning and management and strategy formulation and strategic planning;

`(4) promote civic engagement and community outreach programs;

`(5) any other uses determined by the Secretary to be necessary to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

`(f) Prohibited Uses- Funds provided as a grant may not be used--

`(1) for law enforcement activities, except for programs that include outreach activities;

`(2) to supplant State or local funds;

`(3) to construct buildings or other physical facilities;

`(4) to acquire land; or

`(5) for any State or local government cost-sharing contribution.

many on this site can be accused of internal terrorism since we have been radicalized against the war.

How bout them apples?

I do not find the bill particularly unclear. It provides that Congress CAN fund state programs to study homegrown terrorism.

Then, reading English is not difficult for me.

cute

You DLC?

There's nothing in the bill that threatens free speech. If you think there is, just quote it to me and I'll read the bill again.

A basic principle of First Amendment law is the speech/act distinction. Speech is protected. Acts are not. Since conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and terrorist threats are all federal criminal offenses, it's pretty clear that plotting a crime IS a crime -- even though it's only "thoughts."

I'm not flaming you particularly -- it's just that Harman (my MC) is a regular target for Marcy Winograd's supporters -- who still fantasize about taking down a Democratic member of Congress who has held her seat in California 36 by as little as 200 votes. The district is marginally bluer now than then, but it's an aerospace-heavy, Republican-heavy district, and Harman has held it since it was created in 1992 (except for one election when she ran unsuccessfully for Governor of California).

Is it "selling out to DLC" to think it's better to keep Dem's in purple districts, than for the Dem's to be a minority in Congress, with a complete lunatic in the White House? If it weren't for Dem's holding marginal districts in 2006, the United States Army would be occupying Tehran by now.

A compromise on my part? Yes. Part of being a grown-up, I guess.

what you are seeing as not protected speech, is exactly where the mud is.

Saying that Bush is an idiot, in the right circumstances, can be defined as radicalized speech

If you have not seen this happen thorughout history, I can't help you

And yes, flame...

What can I say? I almost expect them now

The only person who has ever sat on the Supreme Court, who thought the First Amendment was "absolute," was Justice Harlan (who was a Klan member in his youth, interestingly).

Since the Brandenburg decision in 1919, the Court has always distinguished between "speech" and "acts." I've given you three examples (conspiracy, aiding & abetting, and terrorist threats) of SPEECH which are federal crimes.

On the other hand, there are numerous categories of unprotected speech, under modern First Amendment Supreme Court decisions. For example: pornography; conspiracy; solicitation of murder (or any other felony); tax fraud; speech in furtherance of the commission of a crime. Many other examples.

On edit: Another extremely-obvious example of a "thought crime," committed only with words: TREASON.

Harman's bill does not have a SINGLE word in it that criminalizes thoughts. It purports to FUND STUDIES. Ad hominem aside, I just don't think the people on this particular thread can show me anything in the bill that invades the First Amendment.

and how we are moving into a police state

This is one more step

I've given you Supreme Court decisions. History AND law.

oh never mind... after all I could also recommend Naomi Wolf for you to watch... or read

As you said, applesauce...

This is a grant to states to fund programs and vigilante organizations that "disrupt" domestic on-line "terrorism", as loosley defined as those terms are. Sounds to me like more federal money for private pro-Israeli groups that try to hack, deny service and shutdown sites supporting Palestinian Hamas and Hezbollah.

Simple as that.

anybody who pushes for the restoration of the Constution

No AIPAC needed here... you and I are dangerous...

Can't happen here. Never, this is America.

. . . spy on union organizing sessions, anti-war organization meetings or any other entity deemed radical.

justified by ideological themes.

Indeed violence itself has never been "free speech".

This bill would give the Federal government the ability to grant funds to local groups who want to spy on Democrats or unions or college classes or mosques. Harman is performing the part of the useful idiot. Under the cover of "study" and service, this will be used to intimidate dissenters.

I think we have plenty of laws against terrorism in this country. I am not against funding a study on "homegrown terrorism" but the language in this bill gives me the creeps.