Are we losing some of our freedom of speech?

[helwen]

A frightening and thought-provoking video on H.R. 1955. A bill that has currently passed in the House, 404 to 6, and which at least one congressman has admitted to voting on without even knowing what he was voting for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM

I highly recommend watching the video. The argument, by this person from Brasscheck.com and others, centers around the definitions used for the word "force", as opposed to the word "violence". Yes, in this bill they are two separate things.

More info here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955

The companion bill (the one to be discussed in the Senate, is 1959)


Watch the video, draw your own conclusions. Contact your reps and senators now. Oh, and at the moment, Obama is _undecided_ on the bill.


The bill sounds on the surface like it's a good idea, to do something about terrorism at home. But it is including making it illegal to discuss or write about _ideas_. It opens the way to interpretation of what kinds of thoughts and ideas are considered "all right" or "terroristic". This whole thing reminds of how some people have taken to using the words "patriotic" and "unpatriotic" to promote personal agendas or shut down other people's arguments and discussions.

Oh, and for the people who think only the Republicans could come up with something like this, it was sponsored and introduced to the House of Reps by a Democrat, Re. Jane Harmon, D-CA. Co-sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. Senate introduction is by a Republican.

***
A perhaps more easily readable page on H.R. 1955:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_House_Resolution_1955

It lists and discusses the points of criticism of the bill. It also lists the rebuttals to the criticisms.
***

One of my own thoughts on Harman's rebuttal that the meaning of the wording in the bill is made clear in the hearing discussions, is that the hearing discussions are not a part of the bill. They're discussions. I'm not an expert in legal matters by any means, but it seems to me that if the wording is not explicitly clear in its interpretation, then there's a problem.

Comments

[estela-dufrayse.livejournal.com]

I would be looking seriously at a lot of things right now if I were you...if memory serves me, I think your president suspended habus corpus not too long ago, which means alot of things will be different for you regarding rights and freedoms.

I must say, it's been kinda scarey and facinating at the same time to watch this from the outside.

[helwen.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, there are a lot of problems, this is only one of them.

[druidharper.livejournal.com]

Yep, Habeas Corpus can be suspended, technically only under certain conditions, but really on pretty much a whim of the authorities.

I've been watching the bill under discussion for a while now, and griping at our congress critters about it.

It dovetails nicely with the bill that allows the military to be used in civil functions under emergency or terrorist situations. And the wording is just as fuzzy.

Just another step along the road, yep. Tyranny can happen here too...in part because people don't care enough to pay attention or act. And people think I'm paranoid. O-o

There is precedent

[bytchearse.livejournal.com]

McCain-Feingold was a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, IMO, so nothing Congress does or attempts suprises me.
THX for pointing out how this was an across-the-aisle effort as well. Too many are too busy blaming Bush & Republicans for everything wrong that they fail to see that it's both parties.

Re: There is precedent

[helwen.livejournal.com]

It does feel like a losing battle, writing against these things, whether here or to the reps and senators. Of course I won't stop writing them, despite that. Once in a while it seems to make a small difference.

The bi-partisan part of this was interesting, and I think a good thing for everyone to see. As you say, too many blaming Bush and the Republicans, leaving them blind to what the Dems are doing.

Oy. Not a lot of good today.... been reading more about ethanol/biofuels vs. food. Mind you, we have a local guy who makes biodiesel, but he makes it from _used_ cooking oil.

You _can_ also use food scraps and such, but the smart farmer saves most of that for feeding livestock or compost/fertilizer for the food crops. Ah well... I should probably save some energy and turn off the PC again for a while...

[bunnyjadwiga.livejournal.com]

Oh, I've looked at this.
It's pork, pure and simple, which is why it's going through.

*sigh* I continue to wonder why we can get this upset about definitions given for a specific educational commission, but not be spending a lot of time pestering our reps about stuff that is in the laws specifically enabled for ENFORCEMENT.

I suspect this is a red herring.

[freya46.livejournal.com]

I hate to be proven right sometimes. This is one of them. What most of the American people don't realize yet, is that your bill of rights isn't worth any more than a shopping bag now. Actually, not even that much. It's too old to hold anything substantial at this point.

[helwen.livejournal.com]

Oh, I pester them about everything that concerns me, like my more recent post about Massachusett's proposed Green Communities Act, but I don't post about everything I respond on.

As for it being a commission, all the more reason to pay attention -- in order to submit people's thoughts on what laws they might wish to write up for enforcement.

Red herring for what?

red herring

[bunnyjadwiga.livejournal.com]

I suspect that the more time people spend worrying about this commission, the less time and energy they will have to look for and protest more direct threats to their freedom.

Re: red herring

[helwen.livejournal.com]

True, there are a lot of threats to our freedoms, and many of them are already curtailed. I don't understand most of the bills and legislation under consideration. I was keeping up through a couple of lobby groups, but it all just takes so much time, and I have to decide where to best spend my time.

I may have to re-join the email newsletter for PFAW...