I found this on a blog I read.
Evidently this bill, H.R. 1955, is yet another badly misguided attempt to fight terrorism. (More about this bill here. ) In a nutshell, what this bill would IDEALLY do is shut down mini terror cells operating in the States. HOWEVER - given the current mindset of the present assministration and its repeated fuckups, the REALITY is that this bill would effectively criminalize free speech and thought in America, especially on the Internet. It's worded just cleverly enough that it could be turned against people who engage in activities like:
- organizing peaceful protests
- the *discussion* of organizing said peaceful protests
- letter-writers protesting ANY government agency's actions
- email campaigns that clog government servers (not spam, honest-to-goodness citizen complaints)
- News sources like online blogs and the people who run them
And so on - because "force" could be interpreted in so many ways, and frankly, I wouldn't trust the idiots behind this kind of crap to have any more common sense than that of a rock.
Mind you, the latter link does have a biased plug to it (for a candidate I won't even vote for, but that's another story), so the fearmongering factor may be inflated to make themselves look good. According to various sources, it may or may not have already been voted on in at least the House. However, this bill NEEDS to be squashed *now*, before it shows up on He Who Shall Not Be Named's desk - because he WILL sign it, no questions asked.
Here are some other related links:
The entry for the Library of Congress
A non-govt.-related site that tracks bills
Evidently this bill, H.R. 1955, is yet another badly misguided attempt to fight terrorism. (More about this bill here. ) In a nutshell, what this bill would IDEALLY do is shut down mini terror cells operating in the States. HOWEVER - given the current mindset of the present assministration and its repeated fuckups, the REALITY is that this bill would effectively criminalize free speech and thought in America, especially on the Internet. It's worded just cleverly enough that it could be turned against people who engage in activities like:
- organizing peaceful protests
- the *discussion* of organizing said peaceful protests
- letter-writers protesting ANY government agency's actions
- email campaigns that clog government servers (not spam, honest-to-goodness citizen complaints)
- News sources like online blogs and the people who run them
And so on - because "force" could be interpreted in so many ways, and frankly, I wouldn't trust the idiots behind this kind of crap to have any more common sense than that of a rock.
Mind you, the latter link does have a biased plug to it (for a candidate I won't even vote for, but that's another story), so the fearmongering factor may be inflated to make themselves look good. According to various sources, it may or may not have already been voted on in at least the House. However, this bill NEEDS to be squashed *now*, before it shows up on He Who Shall Not Be Named's desk - because he WILL sign it, no questions asked.
Here are some other related links:
The entry for the Library of Congress
A non-govt.-related site that tracks bills
Comment