Why isn’t Scoble against ‘thought crimes bill?’

How is it that you have such a great and yet such a weird and scary country…

I hope there is good intent in this law, and bad composition. The use of violence “or force” is worrisome indeed. Force is all the people have. That cannot just be suppressed.

Take care.

How is it that you have such a great and yet such a weird and scary country…

I hope there is good intent in this law, and bad composition. The use of violence “or force” is worrisome indeed. Force is all the people have. That cannot just be suppressed.

Take care.

knock-knock
> whose there?
it’s the thought police, open up!
> why, what did I do?
You know exactly what you did
> what do you mean?
now your doing it again!
> etc, etc…

(Could be piece by Harold Pinter)

FYI: I’m not supporting the bill – certainly not as written – too vague and open-ended.

My only problem with the BetterBadNews video is that it is far less about information and more about well-positioned soundbites – making it feel like a Michael Moore documentary.

They should, if it is their cause, present a case, not a bunch of fragmented clips with ominous music playing in the background. It makes me immediately wary of their message – as though THEY are hiding something.

FYI: I’m not saying or insuating that – I’m just saying the method for conveying their message is more like the worst of politician campaign ads – dark and sinister visions of their opponents rather than true information.

FYI: I’m not supporting the bill – certainly not as written – too vague and open-ended.

My only problem with the BetterBadNews video is that it is far less about information and more about well-positioned soundbites – making it feel like a Michael Moore documentary.

They should, if it is their cause, present a case, not a bunch of fragmented clips with ominous music playing in the background. It makes me immediately wary of their message – as though THEY are hiding something.

FYI: I’m not saying or insuating that – I’m just saying the method for conveying their message is more like the worst of politician campaign ads – dark and sinister visions of their opponents rather than true information.

Guess I’m missing something, and it’s reading a lot into a bill which to my untrained eye, but there seems to be a lot of huff for a bill that doesn’t have any bite into it.

It’s for forming a committee which looks into the methods of groups that promote (ok, this part is admittedly and disturbingly vague) “violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence” use the internet and other tools to organize. Once the commission is done, then a report is going to be generated with some recommendations. There are no arrests that can occur, there are no special powers they can exert (other than probably subpoenas).

While on the surface, this rings heavily of “McCarthyism,” there seems to be a lot of reaching to get to the point of arresting those that speak out against the Bush administration.

What am I missing?

Matt, it’s good to see someone focusing on the important aspects of things like this: like visual presentation, colors, background-music, interpunctuation and other important things, but most importantly to totally disregard the message of the content.

Matt, it’s good to see someone focusing on the important aspects of things like this: like visual presentation, colors, background-music, interpunctuation and other important things, but most importantly to totally disregard the message of the content.

Really weird
http://www.spymac.com/details/?2321924

Uhhh….

Could someone with a legal background please provide some cogent analysis of this bill rather than simply ranting about what it might mean if you read between the lines?

As far as I can tell the bill establishes a commission to study homegrown terrorism and make recommendations on how to handle it. Most of the objections seem to be based on the assumption that the recommendations will both be undesirable and be enacted.

Combating terrorism within the framework of the constitution has proven quite difficult…I’ll leave it to others to debate the degree to which constitutional rights have been violated by existing strategies.

But if you start with the assumptions that (1) fighting terrorism is necessary, (2) our constitutional rights must be upheld, and (3) efforts so far have been questionable at best in terms of both 1 and 2; then I’m not sure how you can argue against studying the problem.

There are two very real problems here that need to be addressed: The threat of terrorism and the steady reduction in civil liberties that has taken place to fight it. We need a way to fight terrorism without reducing our civil liberties, and I simply do not see a magical solution appearing out of thin air.

I think the detractors should be more constructive and suggest solutions to their objections rather than engaging in hyperbolic conspiracy theory.

Uhhh….

Could someone with a legal background please provide some cogent analysis of this bill rather than simply ranting about what it might mean if you read between the lines?

As far as I can tell the bill establishes a commission to study homegrown terrorism and make recommendations on how to handle it. Most of the objections seem to be based on the assumption that the recommendations will both be undesirable and be enacted.

Combating terrorism within the framework of the constitution has proven quite difficult…I’ll leave it to others to debate the degree to which constitutional rights have been violated by existing strategies.

But if you start with the assumptions that (1) fighting terrorism is necessary, (2) our constitutional rights must be upheld, and (3) efforts so far have been questionable at best in terms of both 1 and 2; then I’m not sure how you can argue against studying the problem.

There are two very real problems here that need to be addressed: The threat of terrorism and the steady reduction in civil liberties that has taken place to fight it. We need a way to fight terrorism without reducing our civil liberties, and I simply do not see a magical solution appearing out of thin air.

I think the detractors should be more constructive and suggest solutions to their objections rather than engaging in hyperbolic conspiracy theory.

Wow, they’re trying to pass a law here in Utah requiring that the Declaration of Independence be displayed prominently in all classrooms K-8. I wonder if that would qualify as ideological violence for political change??

The language is indeed overbroad and would punish speech (it’s not about “thought”). The test for advocating violence is pretty lenient in the U.S. — it’s not endlessly open-ended, but you’d have to prove that the speech was about “incitement to imminent violence”.

This bill would be unlikely to pass, given past Supreme Court decisions defining the First Amendment to the Constitution. So let’s get a grip here, all you American haters and conspiracy freaks, it’s just a bill.

The more relevant and moral point about all this is: what is YOUR plan for stopping violent radicalization? That is, the spread of radical ideologies that sanction and promote violence? You’re saying violence is “ok” and this is “all the people have”? Huh? What, I’m poor, I get to blow up a building? What, I don’t like America’s support of Israel, I get to massacre hundreds? Huh?

You don’t want to suppress speech. So..what *are* you offering them to address this very real problem of hateful and violent intolerance? Violent intolerance that would start *with you* if it were in power?

The language is indeed overbroad and would punish speech (it’s not about “thought”). The test for advocating violence is pretty lenient in the U.S. — it’s not endlessly open-ended, but you’d have to prove that the speech was about “incitement to imminent violence”.

This bill would be unlikely to pass, given past Supreme Court decisions defining the First Amendment to the Constitution. So let’s get a grip here, all you American haters and conspiracy freaks, it’s just a bill.

The more relevant and moral point about all this is: what is YOUR plan for stopping violent radicalization? That is, the spread of radical ideologies that sanction and promote violence? You’re saying violence is “ok” and this is “all the people have”? Huh? What, I’m poor, I get to blow up a building? What, I don’t like America’s support of Israel, I get to massacre hundreds? Huh?

You don’t want to suppress speech. So..what *are* you offering them to address this very real problem of hateful and violent intolerance? Violent intolerance that would start *with you* if it were in power?

IANAL but I’m not seeing anything in the bill that actually has any teeth. Seems to just establish a commission.

I’m not for the language of this bill, but there’s no enforcement provisions here. Basically, this funds study of the problem. I don’t like the way this is worded at all, especially regarding religious groups and ideological groups because it does sound a lot like thought policing.
But this bill doesn’t make a thought police force.
Having a Center of Excellence to study this is a good idea, as I’ve seen the work that several centers have done, and it has value.

I’m not for the language of this bill, but there’s no enforcement provisions here. Basically, this funds study of the problem. I don’t like the way this is worded at all, especially regarding religious groups and ideological groups because it does sound a lot like thought policing.
But this bill doesn’t make a thought police force.
Having a Center of Excellence to study this is a good idea, as I’ve seen the work that several centers have done, and it has value.

I tried to read your Justanothercoverup link and gave up after a couple of paragraphs. That blog reads just like a crazy ranting lunatic foaming at the mouth – and with about as much skill at putting words into a sentence. I still have no idea wtf the bill is even about.

Since I’m all about our freedoms, particularly speech, I imagine I would oppose this bill – but since there doesn’t seem to be a coherent analysis anywhere in sight, it makes it difficult.

Why does everyone feel like going overboard and screaming at the top of their lungs unintelligibly will rally people to help fight a cause? All it does is hurt. A rational, reasoned approach by even a semi-intelligent person would go a long way, methinks.

You’re more fun than a wind-up toy (and apparently just as simple to manipulate)…

You’re more fun than a wind-up toy (and apparently just as simple to manipulate)…

Scoble, using GovTrack is totally Luddite. OpenCongress has a totally awesome Congress 2.0 site.

I’m leading the campaign to get you geeked about OpenCongress over on my blog.

Robert, did you read the actual bill, or are you just regurgitating what others are saying? Read the bill then tell us what YOUR opinions are. Don’t point us to what others think. Have an original thought.

@9. What’s unconstitutional about:

“Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 – Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to: (1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; (2) survey methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent such radicalization and terrorism; and (3) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal.
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal government homeland security officials in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to ensure that activities to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism do not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.”

I don’t see ANYTHING in that bill that will prevent people from talking about blowing up buildings, overthrowing the US Govt, or planning a coup, or interpreting their religious tomes in a way that justifies killing people in the name of their God.. NOTHING in this bill prohibits freedom of speech. Please point out text where it does. Freedom of speech doesn’t exempt people from the potential consequences. Nor does it seem to infringe on the 4th Amendment, as there doesn’t seem to be “unreasonable” to study the potential effects of groups bent on terrorism

What the bill proposes ways to study and PREVENT terrorists acts from being carried out.

Robert, did you read the actual bill, or are you just regurgitating what others are saying? Read the bill then tell us what YOUR opinions are. Don’t point us to what others think. Have an original thought.

@9. What’s unconstitutional about:

“Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 – Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to: (1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; (2) survey methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent such radicalization and terrorism; and (3) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal.
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal government homeland security officials in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to ensure that activities to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism do not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.”

I don’t see ANYTHING in that bill that will prevent people from talking about blowing up buildings, overthrowing the US Govt, or planning a coup, or interpreting their religious tomes in a way that justifies killing people in the name of their God.. NOTHING in this bill prohibits freedom of speech. Please point out text where it does. Freedom of speech doesn’t exempt people from the potential consequences. Nor does it seem to infringe on the 4th Amendment, as there doesn’t seem to be “unreasonable” to study the potential effects of groups bent on terrorism

What the bill proposes ways to study and PREVENT terrorists acts from being carried out.

Yes Robert, I think you got co-opted into someone else’s agenda (like the juxtaposition of a “24″ episode with the prospect that internship camps are being built all over the US).

The Bill is designed to set up a study and a Center for the study of how radicalization to violent means is done. It doesn’t make anything illegal and it certainly has nothing to do with “thought crimes.”

Now, you did get me to read all of it (and from the official government site, just to be safe), check its legislative history (it has been consigned to a committee and it is not clear when or whether it will be addressed by that committee), and make sure that it is actually before the current Congress and is not another one of those bogus E-mail tax things.

The outcome of the implementation of this bill is a report on the nature of such activities, how they come about, and what other (democratic) countries with experience in domestic terrorism have learned about it and about their efforts to contain/prevent it.

This, I think, is a great demonstration of the willingness of advocacy groups to lie, exaggerate, and speculate without bound in the name of their particular just cause. You know, the “extremism for the sake of freedom is no vice” kind of thing. (I don’t know about the exact wording, but a Republican Senator said that.)

In this time of facing into a major electoral season in the United States, one that may shape the direction of the nation for years to come, we should have our bullshit and unsupported claims detectors turned to high. Let’s cool it on the screaming meemies.

Robert, have you read this legislation. It sets up a commission. It doesn’t even ban anything.

I don’t understand why people are freaking out over this…