Letters to the Editor
-
Speech & The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
I'm hoping that this discussion of speech laws in Canada lays the groundwork for a broader discussion by Glenn on on HR 1955, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, which is a broad assault on speech within the United States under the guise of terrorism prevention. In following these threads, I also noticed that Salon participants Associative Individualist and DonMidwest have raised this bill in a similar context. The speech component of this law is directly relevant to the topic Glenn raises.
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 1955 and S-1959) is designed to combat "homegrown terrorism" and "ideologically based violence", including "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force ...to coerce the ..government, (or) civilian population ..in furtherance of political or social objectives." This act seeks to widen the definition of terrorism to criminalize political activity and protest.
"Violent radicalization" in the act is defined as "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change."
The language also puts "Homegrown terrorism" into the context of "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 (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives."
The bill passed the House 404-6 under a suspension of the rules on Oct 23, 2007, and was introduced to the Senate on August 2, 2007 as S-1959. Dennis Kucinich has described HR 1955 as a "thought crime" bill and said: "If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest." Ron Paul asserts that non-violent anti-war protest groups may be among the very first singled out for scrutiny by the government under such a law. Bruce Fein wrote in the Washington Post: "The Act will inexorably culminate in a government listing of homegrown terrorists or terrorist organizations without due process; a complementary listing of books, videos, or ideas that ostensibly further 'violent radicalization' and a blacklisting of persons who have intersected with either list. Political discourse will be chilled and needed challenges to conventional wisdom will flag."
I urge those that are not familiar with the bill to evaluate it, and I would welcome Glenn's comments on this act, including how an assertive executive branch might interpret and implement such a law.