Bill could interfere with First Amendment

By: Kristi Relaz

Posted: 3/5/08

Freedom of speech is something America prides itself on and something many passionate people use to their advantage.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ensures that "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In relation to our inherent civil liberties as Americans, the House of Representatives passed a bill on Oct. 23, 2007, that would ultimately threaten our freedom of expression. The bill is titled H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Its central goal is summarized "to prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes" (www.govtrack.us), which gives the impression of a valid attempt to protect the American people from terrorist attacks plotted here in the U.S.

The bill 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."

In order to interpret such a long definition, it is imperative to understand how the government can classify all of these words, such as "force," to understand what actions the government will legally be able to investigate and/or punish.

BrassCheckTV.com spells out the government's definition of homegrown terrorism in layman's terms. First of all, the narrator of a video grouped in the section Attack on Civil Liberties recognizes that the words "force" and "violence" are separated, indicating that the government would not have to associate force with an act of violence in the event of punishing someone for violating this potential federal law.

The narrator used an online dictionary to define "force" - I looked it up the old-fashioned way, and found the same alarming definitions. According to the Webster's Universal College Dictionary, "force" has more than 32 different meanings. Among these definitions included the "power to influence," "persuasive power; power to convince" and, but not limited to, "any body of persons combined for joint action."

Consistent with these definitions, activists protesting the war could be considered terrorists. Any individual or group of people (writers, teachers, Oprah Winfrey) that has the "power to influence" could be considered terrorists - a horrible, frightening thing that has already been witnessed without this bill yet becoming law.

The first example that comes to mind is the University of Florida student who got tazered for questioning John Kerry at a campaign speech - an explicit punishment for exercising freedom of speech.

Nonetheless, Dr. Richard Hardy, professor and head of the political science department at Western, said, "You'd have to be crazy to not believe there are people here in the U.S. conspiring against us. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of where and when."

He said, in relation to passing any bill attempting to keep a tight rein on homegrown terrorism, we need to find some medium or blend that will protect us without completely violating our civil liberties.

I agree with Hardy, but I do not believe the H.R. 1955 is the bill providing a happy medium in defending the country against homegrown terrorism while simultaneously protecting our right to freedom of speech.

If we remain silent and do not speak out against the progression on this bill, H.R. 1955 could "become law, then soon your silence may not be your consent, but your only choice. And keep in mind, once you have no voice, you cannot object to anything" (BrassCheckTV.com). If you believe there is little chance H.R. 1955 will become a law, be aware that 404 out of 435 representatives voted to pass this bill.

If this bill passes through the Senate and the president approves it, the government will have the power to end one of America's most cherished civil liberties. And for the innocent people punished for exercising their freedoms preserved in the Bill of Rights, America will no longer reflect freedom, but oppression.