Thought crimes put freedom in danger

Our civil liberties are under attack again – the House
of Representatives passed the Prevention of Violent Radicalization
and Homegrown Terrorism Bill on Oct. 23.

The bill has been criticized heavily because many find
it is a threat to our privacy and freedom of speech.

The bill is meant to establish a commission that
investigates suspects of domestic terror. The commission
will have 18 months upon formation to turn in a report
of its findings.

This sounds like a great idea at first, but reading the
actual bill will make you think otherwise.

Three crucial terms are defined in the first section of
the bill. The first term is “violent radicalization,” defined 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.”
It’s easy to see how vague this definition is, considering
the definition of an extremist belief isn’t mentioned.

Next, the bill defines “homegrown terrorism” as “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 to intimidate or coerce
the United States government . in furtherance of political
or social objectives.” Once again, vague language, such
as “force, coerce, and political or social objectives,” is
used. Anyone who openly promotes socialistic programs
or speaks out against the administration could be seen as
using force to enact political or social change.

And the last term to be defined is “ideologically based
violence.”

This term refers to “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.”

It’s also a very clear definition of the U.S. war on
terror, which has attempted to establish democracies in
countries that formerly harbored terrorists. The United
States is using force to spread its political system to others
around the world.

Many critics are saying this bill will establish “thought
crimes” – crimes committed not by action, but by simple
expression.

Some examples of modern thought crimes are
blasphemy, which is still in the law books in the United
Kingdom, and apostasy, the act of changing your religion,
which is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. With a
commission that has the permission to invade the lives of
those it thinks are revolutionary, law enforcement could
be provided a list of “thought criminals” if these crimes
do become statutes.

Some even think the bill has subtle statements that
might contain hidden agendas for some legislators.
The bill states that the Internet feeds propaganda, such
as communism and terrorist ideals, into the minds of
American citizens.

This leads many to believe the government plans to
censor content on the Internet. That would then justify
the CIA’s attempt to change content on Wikipedia.com
in favor of the administration.

Religious discrimination also has been addressed
when criticizing the bill. One of the qualifications for
being a member of the newly established commission is
an extensive knowledge of Islam. Considering Islam is
the only religion to be called out in this document, it’s
easy to understand that the government has its targets
already scoped out.

The real tragedy behind this bill is the opposition it
faced in the House. The bill was passed with 404 voting
in favor, and only six voting against it. Luckily for the
American people, one member of the opposition was
presidential nominee Dennis Kucinich.

All we can hope is that senators, such as Sen. Hillary
Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, will understand the
threat this bill presents to our First Amendment rights
and vote against it in the Senate.