A First Amendment Issue

4 Responses to “A First Amendment Issue”

1. Mickey writes
   July 29th, 2008 8:12 am

   more

   Thought Crimes.
   This bill (H.R. 1955), known as the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,” could more aptly be titled the “Thought Crimes Act.” The bill would establish a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism and establish a grant program to prevent radicalization in the United States. However, critics charge that the bill is a thinly disguised attempt to criminalize dissent, based on the bill’s vague and open-ended language that could be used to trample basic rights to free speech and assembly, and turn legitimate dissent into thought crimes. For instance, the bill defines “violent radicalization” as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” The bill does not define either “extremist belief system” or “facilitating ideologically based violence.” The bill also states that “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.” The House passed H.R. 1955 by a vote of 404-6 (Roll Call 993) on October 23, 2007. The bill threatens legitimate dissent.
   Marsha Blackburn voted FOR this bill.
   (Source: The New American – December 10, 2007)

2. katie allison granju writes
   July 29th, 2008 8:28 am

   I think we should punish people for their acts.

   When violent criminal acts interfere with the free exercise of religion - as with this weekend’s church shooting in Knoxville - they put our liberty at danger, along with our lives.

3. B Cravens writes
   July 29th, 2008 9:33 am

   There are still people who are victimized more than others, hence hate crime legislation. Sad, but true. I guess liberals should start packing heat.

4. Kleinheider writes
   July 29th, 2008 10:54 am

   Well, I don’t understand your position then, Katie. A “hate” crime is worse than a regular crime, but it shouldn’t be punished any worse?

   I’m not saying the “why” is not important or instructive. It is on many levels. But using the word “hate” crime seems to legitimize the concept that the thought or bias is something additionally criminal along with the act.

   I personally don’t think you can do much more violence to the First Amendment than perpetuate the idea of “hate” crime.

   Shooting someone because they subscribe to a liberal theology and shooting someone because you just don’t like the look on their face, one of these is more hateful? One of these is a crime more heinous, more “special”?