Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

Promoting and protecting nonprofit advocacy for a stronger democracy

Home :  Nonprofit Issues :  Advocacy Blog : 
Advocacy Blog:     

Advocacy Blog


Friday, November 30, 2007

The "Commission" Will Determine Radicalism

Last week an editorial appeared in the Balitmore Sun titled "Here come the thought police," which outlines the many reasons some privacy and civil liberties groups oppose Representative Jane Harman's (D-CA) Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (HR1995). At first glance, the bill overwhelmingly approved by the House in October appears safe, but many fear that it could lead to the criminalization of beliefs, racial or religious profiling, and unconstitutional restrictions on speech. The bill would create a national commission to examine the causes of violent radicalization, domestic terrorism and ideologically based violence in the U.S., and to make legislative recommendations. The editorial states:

Any social or economic reform is fair game. Have a march of 100 or 100,000 people to demand a reform - amnesty for illegal immigrants or overturning Roe v. Wade - and someone can perceive that to be a use of force to intimidate the people, courts or government. The bill defines "violent radicalization" as promoting an "extremist belief system." But American governments, state and national, have a long history of interpreting radical "belief systems" as inevitably leading to violence to facilitate change.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has come out in opposition, out of concern that the bill could end up stifling dissent. Many consider the bill's language to be too broad and could even lead to censoring the Internet. The ACLU issued a press release stating; "As an organization dedicated to the principles of freedom of speech, we cannot in good conscience support this or any measure that might lead to censorship and persecution based solely on one's personal beliefs." In response, Harman sent a letter to the director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative office. Meanwhile, Susan Collins (R-ME), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking has a introduced companion measure to the House bill.



Posted by Amanda Adams



Entries by Theme

All Themes

Faith-Based Initiative

Elections and Issue Advocacy

Church Electioneering

Nonprofit Accountability

Charitable Giving

Speech and Lobbying Rights

Grants Streamlining

Charities and Security

General

Nonprofit Voter Mobilization

Most Recent Entries for Advocacy Blog

Court Rules in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Case

Colorado Priests Not Allowed to Make Donations to Candidates

SpeechNow.org Denied Preliminary Injunction

Forms and Instructions for LD-203 Released

TIGTA Releases Audit of Political Activities Compliance Initiative (PACI)

Senate Holds Off on FISA

Internet Evangelist Ready to Challenge IRS Investigation

Voter ID Lawsuits Filed in Indiana

Nonprofits See Election Year Opportunity

All FEC Nominees Finally Confirmed

Archived Entries for Charities and Security

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

July, 2006

June, 2006

May, 2006

April, 2006

March, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

May, 2005