H.R. 1955 "Thought Crime bill"

[Cumulonimbus]

Here's the bill, check it out. It's not in effect yet, but it did pass the House with only 6 nays! The piece that concerns most people is the part concerning IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE; this is the 'thought crime' part of the bill:


[ QUOTE ]
..(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term ..ideologically-based violence' means 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

As defined in the bill anything you say or feel can be ideologically based violence. It stems from the definition itself due to the word "force".

Force: coerce: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means.

So if you intellectually "force" your government to change a policy, then is that ideologically based violence? Bah.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

..(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term ..ideologically-based violence' means 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this include bombing a country to bring Democracy to them?

sounds good to me.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
It stems from the definition itself due to the word "force".

Force: coerce: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means.

So if you intellectually "force" your government to change a policy, then is that ideologically based violence? Bah.

[/ QUOTE ]

And driving your car necessitates the use of Newtonian forces on the pedals and the steering wheel. ZOMG, this bill will outlaw driving!

[Cumulonimbus]

eh? I'm not sure what you're saying. if my logic's wrong just correct me, I'm still drunk/hungover from last night.

[PLOlover]

isn't it already against the law to use violence or threaten to use violence? as for planning, conspiracy laws?

since there's already laws in place there really can't be a good reason for this law.

[Jamougha]

That definition of force is really [censored] up. There should be a specific provision to invalidate laws with such ill-defined criteria that they become a stick to beat whoever the government chooses. We are seeing some of that crap here in the UK too.

[Cumulonimbus]

you're missin the point though, it says "force OR violence" not just violence. force! that is a very big umbrella.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
eh? I'm not sure what you're saying. if my logic's wrong just correct me, I'm still drunk/hungover from last night.

[/ QUOTE ]

The definition you're using for force is ridiculous. First of all, it's the definition of the verb not the noun, and second, it's a ludicrously broad interpretation. (Indeed, no court would ever use your interpretation because your interpretation would render the law unconstitutional.) A fairer reading would read "force" as "strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence: to use force to open the window; to use force on a person."

Also, what does this law even do? The quote is just a definition.

[plzleenowhammy]

`(3) 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.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
you're missin the point though, it says "force OR violence" not just violence. force! that is a very big umbrella.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh I see.

what they're doing of course is expanding commie stuff like domestic violence laws to everything.

what I mean is that many state domestic violence laws define d.v. as when, say, a woman is "in fear of " violence from man, which can include a raised voice or a "look" or anything really, the point being that the man (could be reversed or any domestic relationship including dating or roommates in some states) is guilty depending entirely upon the woman's state of mind.