Comments on: Congress' "anti-extremist" bill targets online thoughtcrime

Warning that the Internet "aids" in promoting extremism and radicalization, the House has voted to create a commission to prepare a classified report on the topic. This may not turn out well.

[SnidleyWhiplash]

Oh Declan, there you go again...

I got an email forward about this silly story, and it's only barely above a Snopes entry. The bill is to create a commission to study how violent ideologies translate into actual violence, and to create a "Center of Excellence" at some university to further academic study of this topic. I'm less worried about the study of violent ideologies than I am about those who are purposely obtuse in order to create hyperbolic news articles. The email I got decried "H.R. 1955 says it is a crime 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." If you can't push your political agenda without "intimidation" or "coercion" (as those are well-defined in law) you're clearly not putting much stock in the power of your logic.

[declan00]

Well...

I was skeptical as well. I think I got the same email message -- and, as you say, it's quite inaccurate.

But I think it's worth asking about where a commission charged in part with investigating Internet "extremism" is going to go. Just because one email message wrongly criticized the legislation does not mean that all criticisms are wrong.

[bdplaid]

Does this include "hate crimes?"

If this is as you say, then I agree it's another step toward thoughtcrime that was started with the "hate crime" designation.

I have problems with calling something a hate crime. It implies too much about a person's motivation in their own head, and that government can somehow read minds to know what it was. The motivation really doesn't matter, only that a person did indeed willfully commit a violent illegal act.

"Hate crimes" are wrong on many levels. For example, isn't it double jeopardy to prosecute someone for the assault of a gay, and then prosecute them again for the hate crime associated with that? wasn't there only one act? I thought our Constitution dealt with one crime, one prosecution. This way, counts for a single illegal act could pile up - unconstitutionally.

Further, it's discriminatory. If I'm attacked by the same person who attacked the gay, and I am not homosexual, then why is there an additional crime levied for the same act committed againt the gay? We're both in the hospital, but why is he treated differently by the law? I object to that.

Here we're dealing with how to combat and prosecute belief. G#ddamm, this is a slippery slope. If we're not free to like or dislike someone for whatever reason we choose (I'm not talking about justification of violent attacks like assault, battery, and murder, please note; they are violent crimes in and of themselves, committed for an infinite number of reasons), then why should we have any freedom in our thoughts and beliefs at all?

Even though this seems pretty darned right-wing, it all comes from the left, brought to you by American liberals and the Democratic party.

[DarkHawke]

Y'all took the thoughts right out my head!

Beat me to the punch, bd. Well said and bravo!

[DarkHawke]

'Cept for one point...

...there's nothing "right-wing" about thoughtcrime. Sure there are some Christian Conservatives that get far more invasive than is justifiable, but a true Conservative believes in limited government and would NEVER support anything that increases the power of the government over the liberties of the people. Note that the topic to which we're talking back is sponsored by and receiving whole-hearted support from the Democrats (not that there appear to be many Republican hold-outs, but Republican doesn't always equal Conservative).

[John W. Cowan]

Motivation matters

It's precisely motivation that allows us to discriminate between murder, manslaughter, death by misadventure, and self-defense. If the law didn't get into people's heads -- as judged by the rest of their outward behavior, not some magic mind-reading -- we'd treat all killing the same. We don't and never have.

[Dango517]

I seem to find myself in the former Soviet Union

As a child and a young man I was taught that the Soviets were the ones that invaded countries to impose there rule, Once in place the soviets would harshly suppress any and all opposition by limiting free speech and the movement of the suppressed peoples. These captives would then be subject to a limited government imposed view presented by the totalitarian government, called propaganda. Dissidents were silenced by the government by imprisonment or they simply disappeared to Siberia or worse. This domination was primarily by the KGB the government secret security forces. It was there job to suppress opposition and channel the flow of distorted information to control the population.

Each passing day I find myself in Moscow (circa 1960) more and more and less and less in the United States.

[Wookiee-1138]

You've got to be kidding.

It makes me want to go home to Derry and shoot a few RUC men.

[muzakaz]

I gotta laugh

Michael Savage was correct. Oops... saying that name is a hate crime. Cair can go back to their fabulous desert.

[Lsavagejt]

VRAHTPA

Is VRAHTPA a fascist tool? If not, could someone please define fascism for me other than the way Webster's defines it, and still make it say what it really means?

Lsavagejt

[inachu]

This might be a good thing!

Then AIPAC,AEI,PNAC would be deemed Illegal as well.

America would start the healing process and na.f.t.a. and H1B,L1 tranfers would be banned.

Because hollowing out the middle class is VERY extreme.

[No Man]

The only part about this that worries me...

The vast majority of this bill is hot air. Line after line is about investigating, studying, reporting, etc. Basically spending a lot of money to write analyses that no one will read. However, tucked in at the very end, there is one section that concerns me:

"899E. PREVENTING VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM THROUGH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE EFFORTS.

(a) International effort.?The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Department of State, the Attorney General, and other Federal Government entities, as appropriate, conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in their respective nations.

(b) Implementation.?To the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution, the Secretary shall use the results of the survey as an aid in developing, in consultation with the Attorney General, a national policy in the United States on addressing radicalization and homegrown terrorism."

This basically gives this new commission the ability to write new U.S. policy using a warped definition of "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism" and the techniques of countries that may or may not have any respect for civil rights, so long as they can find a way to make it Constitutional. That's frightening.

[Stating]

What's Criminal Is $22 Million

****, how do I get a gravy train Federal contract for $22 million? Let's say it costs $1 million to buy stationary, phones, staplers, pencils, and rent some office space. With the other $21 million I can pay me and my cronies a million dollars a year salary, sit back in my Aeron chair and dream up scenarios.

[MasterRanger]

Learn to read

Jezz, man I'm about as anti-government and anti-big brother as they come, but nowhere in the reading of the Act did I find cause for you to write this drivel.

Do us a favor and stop distracting us from the real problems. Save the paranoia for when the crap really DOES hit the fan. This isn't the disaster you are looking for. Move along