RSS
DoublePlusUngood Legislation?
from the thoughtcrimes-or-boondoggles? dept
After a cursory read of the bill itself, I tend toward the former interpretation: The law, which would establish a commission to study the causes of "ideologically based violence," evokes MiniLuv less readily than it does Tom Chapin's satirical folk song "A Study's About to Begin." And, indeed, the government has already conducted ample research [PDF] on the psychology and sociology of terrorism. Still, it's not hard to see why civil libertarians get uneasy when the bill's sponsor, California Democrat Jane Harman, is prone to talk about formulating plans "to intervene before a person crosses that line separating radical views from violent behavior," which, presumably, means "intervening" while the person is still only holding radical views. Nor is it especially comforting to reflect on the bill's "finding" that "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States," which suggests a mandate to focus on offensive online speech. Precisely because the bill is redundant, it seems more useful to worry about the actual steps law enforcement agencies take in service of "prevention." Depending on the composition of any commission convened under the law, there's a fair chance it will produce, if not a boot stamping on a human face forever, then at least a generous helping of national security FUD.
I have an idea...
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
I’m looking for research...
Innovate More. Code Less: Optimizing Open-Source Utilization
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
I’m looking for policy...
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Application Developers Alliance Applauds Schumer Plan To Introduce Patent Legislation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
COTUS
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
The way I see it, this is a bill to nab people like me, who hold complex viewpoints that can't be summed up easily, and so are lumped with people who hold simple viewpoints that are extreme that are easier to understand. This tends to happen to both middle-of-the-road Christians that are lumped with bastard Christians (no insult to the good ones, but there ARE some out there) and with atheists like myself who some automatically assume are plotting to destroy all religion (Not on the agenda. Believe what you want. I respect your views even if I don't share them).
And since the angry Christians as opposed to the angry atheists are the ones with the current say it's the atheists, and not the Christians, who will be discriminated against...
I think I'm screwed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
p.s engineer's are a little bit more special then the rest of us.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wow
Then again, probably not any worse then National Security Presidential Directive 51.
Any piece of law type material where they won't even disclose the entire law for 'national security' is probably not good.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Don't we have Law Enforcement?
Sounds like a bunch of academia who want to create a new "field" of entitlements that allow them to "seemingly" steer policy without the responsibility of having to enforce it or to be subjected to the risks and tragedy of their learned consultation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Meh
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment