portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation | human & civil rights

Get This News; End of Free Speech On Internet Headed For U.S. Senate Vote

Fears that government could define "Internet radicalization" and criticism as terrorism mount, violent comments left on messageboards by trolls could be exploited to entrap peaceful 9/11 truthers.
 This man would come in handy right about now.
This man would come in handy right about now.
Thought Crime Bill" Could Ensnare Peaceful Activists
Fears that government could define "Internet radicalization" and criticism as terrorism mount, violent comments left on messageboards by trolls could be exploited to entrap peaceful 9/11 truthers.

A new bill that recently passed the House and is headed for Senate approval has online activists worried that the vague definitions used for defining the Internet's contribution to radicalization of potential terrorists could lead to a government crackdown on talk radio, free speech and the 9/11 truth movement.

The bill is H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 and passed Congress after a bipartisan vote on October 23rd.

Ostensibly, the bill targets United States citizens because of its constant reference to basic Constitutional protections, but this has led some to fear that it is intended to shut down free speech on the Internet and stifle patriot and alternative talk radio networks.

The bill defines "violent radicalization" as "The process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."

It further defines "homegrown terrorism" as "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."

The term "planned use" has caused concerns that "thinking about violence," ie thought crime, could be considered a terrorist act. But since to plan violence must involve some form of planning, whether that be drawing up bomb diagrams or making violent statements, the real threat seems to have been overlooked.

A disturbing trend in recent months has been the proliferation of violent postings on messageboards of websites affiliated with peaceful 9/11 truth organizations.

These messages are being posted by shameless trolls, COINTELPRO operatives and their stooges in a clear effort to discredit the 9/11 truth movement by making us all appear to be crazy nutcases who plan to commit terrorist acts.

Establishment media hacks like Glenn Beck have then seized upon the idea to spew propaganda about how the next Timothy McVeigh will come from the truth movement, despite the fact that the leadership of the truth movement have practiced what they preach all along, by engaging in completely peaceful protests and other forms of non-violent educational activism.

The bill's reference to how "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," is shocking.

Remember, the bill is not aimed at "Al-Qaeda" websites or arabic forums that post alleged Bin Laden video tapes, it is aimed at American citizens using American based websites, like the very one you're reading now.

The opportunity for the state to seize upon violent posts left by trolls and use them to entrap peaceful 9/11 truthers under the guise that they "promoted violence" should be a major concern for us all.

Our message is simply this - don't even try it.

We have preached a doctrine of absolute non-violence from the very beginning and we will continue to do so. Anyone who calls for violence in a messageboard post is either a Fed, a Mom's basement dwelling troll who spends their entire day attempting to debunk the 9/11 truth movement, or a completely deluded moron who is unrepresentative of the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement.

Those individuals who advocate violence should be sought out and investigated individually. Any plans to try and entrap prominent 9/11 truth movement figures using guilt by association should be abandoned immediately and we will ceaselessly emphasize this point until this current wave of propaganda subsides.

Probably not 911 related 28.Oct.2007 11:36


Realistically it is probably aimed at environmentalists and animal rights activists as they have been really effective and gaining massive amounts of support. ELF and ALF have served to radicalize and inspire many, many people. What the government has been doing to environmentalists and animal rights activists would make what has happened to 911 people (if anything) look like microscopic potatoes. This empire is propped up on the exploitation of natural resources and animals; they'll defend that exploitation by any means necessary and it shows. That is not to say that this couldn't be used later against 911 people if they ever got their shit together and got effective enough.

Interesting that they're passing this off as new legislation. Basically, it is making stuff illegal that is already illegal. Like conspiracy, inciting to violence, politically motivated property damage, etc. Political activists have been going to jail for thought crime with crazy high sentences for decades now. More recent examples would be folks(the SHAC 7) who operated the SHAC website(Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty an educational site) and Sherman Austin who enabled the Raise The Fist website(an indymedia type news site). It doesn't even look like they're trying to make the punishments harsher. It seems like they are doing this to draw attention to and whip up hysteria around the "domestic terror threat".

Does anyone know what, if any, part of this legislation is new or worse? Genuinely interested...