on the subject of hr 1955

[garrettwombat]

first this bill doesn't nullify anything.

It is a frigging study of how folks get radicalized and its primary function is to write a report. It does nothing else.

Infact its purpose is to report its findings to the Congress. If it were anything to worry about, it would report its finding to the president.

is he right or do i need to respond and how should i respond?

[apc3161]

I would respond by saying, something along the lines of "the original Iraqi war resolution only gave the president the authorization to go to war only once all other options had been exhausted."

Bottom line, when you give the government an inch, they take a mile.

Bottom line, this bill specifically mentions the internet.

`(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.

This is the first step in government regulation of the internet. The question then becomes, who is the government to decide what is appropriate and whats not? Are they going to start taking down websites that leak information for reasons of "national security"? You can obviously see why people are scared.

Just as a little note I would add this. When you read the Chinese constitution, freedom of speech is on there, but it is conditioned to national security, and we all know what happens in China. When you search for "Tienanmen Massacre", "Democracy", "Taiwan independence", "Occupied Tibet" the results are blocked out. Hell, those guys don't even have access to Youtube or Wikipedia all in the name of national security. So again, when freedom of speech is tied to "national security" the result might be a regulated internet ala China, where pretty anything that is anti-government is claimed to be a threat to national security and blocked. HR 1955 is the first step in that direction.

Could you imagine blogging about how our foreign policy motivates terrorists only to have a few FBI agents on your doorstep? Scary stuff.

[LynnB]

Bump.
When you look at the way this bill is worded, and then look at what the analysts say, you are literally left with the impression that this is a precursor to internet and free speech regulation. It's easy to google, so many people have found it a deplorable attack on civil liberty.
Devvy Kidd is a RP supporter, and can explain very thoroughly many of his ideas on the IRS, etc.
This article (http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd318.htm) analyzes 1955 as it affects Ron Paul supporters and links to a couple of other good articles as well.

As one person summed it up, 'one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist' It's all in how it is interpreted.