Help prevent Freedom of speech being taken away

I know the topic of the HR 1955 bill in congress has been posted a few times which has been passed in the house and is waiting to be voted on in the senate.

www.govtrack.us...

There is another bill that has been introduced called S.1959 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention act of 2007, which is related to HR 1955.

www.govtrack.us...
and Senator Susan Collins' introduction and details of the bill here
Senator Collins' intro
you can watch a you tube video on this topic here
Freedom of Speech and H.R. 1955

I am urging people to contact their state senator to tell them to vote no on this bill
I used an adopted version of a letter someone sent to their Senator
S 1959 ~ Letter to My Senators

and you can find your Senators contact info here
U.S. Senate

I know this was introduced late last year and most of you probably have heard about it by now, but it's not to late to contact your representative about it if you haven't already.

Thanks for all the information!

It's an outrage to think that this is going on behind the scenes!

Are you going to hear about this on mainstream media sources?

Hell no!

I am refreshed to see someone that is actually passionate about what is being done to our country.

I hope people understand that YOU WILL GO TO JAIL if you say anything the government doesn't like, or start any sort of trouble whatsoever regarding politics and the way the government is run.

GOODBYE Constitution it was nice knowing you!

Im going back into my hole now *shakes head*

Welcome to ATS my friend, Excellent first thread!!!

Wow,

I guess nobody cares about their freedom of speech.

DO YOU NOT REALIZE that this site is directly effected by this new bill?

We cant express ourselves anywhere after this is passed.

You will be labeled a terrorist and sent off for torture or death!

Does NAZI Germany ring any bells to anyone?

CRAZY!!!!

1. I care.
2. I followed your link under "There is another bill..." and read the entire text of the bill.
3. Where does it say anything about us not being able to speak our minds or critique our government? How about hauling us off to jail?
3. In reference to the other poster's comment, "Goodbye constitution" or hauling us off to jail, whatever it was......here are direct quotes that oppose what you say from the bill for your reference:

S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
www.govtrack.us...

FULL TEXT: www.govtrack.us...

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

And another...

`SEC. 899E. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

`(a) In General- In carrying out this subtitle, the Secretary shall ensure that the efforts of the Department to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described in this subtitle do not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

So where is the information YOU'RE reffering to?

Basically to sum it up....

And they dressed it up quite nicely with words like "Liberty" hahhah seriously?

And words like "Civil rights" your kidding me right?

So if the government deems you a terrorist for whatever reason they come up with.........

WHAT DO THEY DO WITH YOU?

WHERE DO YOU GO?

WHAT CAN STOP THEM?

So they want to protect our rights by taking them away?

HMM...

Any minute now, the batillion of guys who have "The Second protects the First" bumper stickers on their trucks will charge forth to defend ourt freedom so valiantly.

Any minute now.

Really, any minute.

*Checks watch*

Should be just about... NOW!

...No? Is hee-haw on or something?

Oh well.

You know of late it seems Congress is churning out these Acts of Congress at an accelerated pace, Patriot Act, Clean Water Act, ect. Perhaps the best thing to do is actually look at the definition of “Act of Congress”. After reading the rather limited nature of “Acts of Congress” it leaves a lingering question. Why are people charged with violating some provision of a said Act in one of the fifty states(small “s”)? Well this is how the game is played. The defendant doesn’t challenge jurisdiction hires an attorney (an agent of the court) granting jurisdiction to the court, looses the case, and now we have case law, an end run around the Constitution.


"Act of Congress"

28 USC Rule 54c, Application of Terms,

"As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings. 'Act of Congress' includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession."

It is the Law

28 USC is the "Rules of Courts" and was written and approved by the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in writing 28 USC has already ruled upon this issue. It is the Law.


(Comment) after this information was discovered, the wording “Act of congress was changed to federal statue, around 1990 reproduced below for clarity. Can you say obfuscation?

www.law.cornell.edu...

Rule 1(b) is composed of material currently located in Rule 54(c), with several exceptions. First, the reference to an "Act of Congress" has been deleted from the restyled rules; instead the rules use the self-explanatory term "federal statute." Second, the language concerning demurrers, pleas in abatement, etc., has been deleted as being anachronistic. Third, the definitions of "civil action" and "district court" have been deleted. Fourth, the term "attorney for the government" has been expanded to include reference to those attorneys who may serve as special or independent counsel under applicable federal statutes. The term "attorney for the government" contemplates an attorney of record in the case.

: CON0www.law.cornell.edu...://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule1.htm


www.law.cornell.edu...
(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to these rules:
(9) "State'' includes the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Comment) don’t get thrown by the “term” includes. In writing law its always restrictive rather than expansive limited to the examples stated

ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL
144. Act of Nov. 29, 1990 (Pub. L. 101-647, §1702), 104 Stat. 4844, 18
U.S.C. §922q.
The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, which makes it a crimi-
nal offense to knowingly possess a firearm within a school zone, ex-
ceeds congressional power under the Commerce Clause. It is ‘‘a crimi-
nal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with ‘commerce’ or any
sort of economic enterprise.’’ Possession of a gun at or near a school
‘‘is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition
elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.’’
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
Justices concurring: Rehnquist, C.J., O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas.
Justices dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg.

i just wrote emails to my two senators/.. i spend about an hour a week signing petitions. and hopefully i do make a difference---i do recieve about 3 response letters from my state reps evry week.. however it disaapoints me because it's just a bulk response letter and my gripes are probably only read by a staff member or intern,,, but hopefully they get the drift.

for anyone interested---i found this sight great and quick and easy to use ---it contains a lot of political stuff as well as animal rights, oil drilling, enviroment protection etc etc
check it out---some petitions reach 200,000 or more names and can make a difference
www.thepetitionsite.com...

reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN


Show me where it says any of that.

Definitions of terms at the beginning of most legal documents are there for a reason.

Believe me, I'm 100% with you against any freedoms we have being taken away. ANY. But I just can't find anything in this particular wording or bill that says anything about that. I'm not going to get all excitable about something if it's nothing. I agree that the govt is passing bills under us like crazy, but also think it's important that we choose our battles, so if this one is negligible compared to others we really should be worry about, let's not get so excited.

karlkar, you seem to have a knowledge of law, especially legal wording, as your post shows, but didn't really say much about this actual bill, what's your take on the wording?

I'd really like an attorney to tell us what it means. In lay terms.
(I'm NOT paying mine just to read this, lol.)




[edit on 13-2-2008 by Area_X]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Any minute now, the batillion of guys who have "The Second protects the First" bumper stickers on their trucks will charge forth to defend ourt freedom so valiantly.

Any minute now.

Really, any minute.

*Checks watch*

Should be just about... NOW!

...No? Is hee-haw on or something?

Oh well.

Heheh...I love it! You are GREEAAT! - as Tony the TIger would say...

J.

Sorry for not being clear. In the definitions of the bill it says
"The term `homegrown terrorism' means 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 possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".
As I see it the use of the word force could be things like an overwhelming flow of emails, phone calls, and mail to our representatives. Or things like civil disobediance.

"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".

The word force is so vague at this point it. If they just used the word violence it would be more clear, and I would agree to stop violence.
I believe this bill is unnecessary and would just open the door for more bills that would slowly erode at our constitutional rights.
Even The Center for Constitutional Rights is opposed to this bill. But, it's your choice. If you agree with the bill then that's your decision, and I respect that.
If you don't agree then I hope you would take action.

why bother
edited to remove entire post.


[edit on 14-2-2008 by WhiteWash]

I agree that bills with subjective wording, open to the convenient interpretation of the govt, are being passed without enough scrutiny. As you say, the word "force" could be interpreted several ways. And you're right, that's how they're eroding our rights. With wording in bills that can be interpreted either way, but when it suits them, you'd better believe they'll define it in their favor.

absolutely, that's why it is so important to get more people active about this. These Bills they are passing as law are extremely hypocritical. What they define as a threat to them is exactly what they are doing to people in other countries that they use violence against. The laws only apply to us so they can keep doing what they do unchallenged.