Just read it if you give a damn about your way of life.

[bigboxofpunkroc]

The House of Representatives passed the SAFE act, which requires all providers of open wifi to report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings. The fine for those who get caught is $300,000. If you know how to/have the time and or have the income to pay someone to review every thing that everybody looks at/downloads on your free

Comments

[voidterror]

The SAFE Act, or Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of 2007 says that: anyone who "obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances" of illicit use must report it. In other words, it is not your responsibility to go out of your way to find this info, but if you do find out that someone is using your connection to view child pornography or other illegal visuals, you must report it. If you had no previous knowledge, it does not affect you.

HR 1955 does not destroy freedom of speech at all. It prevents the "use or planned use of force and/or violence" when spreading one's ideologies. The key criticism of this bill is what I underlined. Planned use. Essentially, they are saying that is not legal to think certain things. Essentially this means, if I remarked (in a serious enough manner) that I think we should blow up congress for Allah, or for Jesus, or whathaveyou, I can be charged with a crime, even if I had no way or intention of carrying out the crime.

The bill has a whole section dedicated to preserving existing civil rights and protections. The scope of the bill is surprisingly small, but significant. I don't necessarily support the bill, because I don't agree with thoughtcrime legislation, but it's also not as extreme as you claim.

[lsmeade]

from wikipedia:

Representative Harman (who sponsored the bill) replied by letter to criticisms from the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's legislative office. Caroline Fredrickson asserted "the bill should read 'intentionally aiding and abetting' violent radicalization, 'because otherwise you’re really looking at what someone’s thought processes are, what their ideology is, and not what they’re doing.'" Representative Harman defended the resolution, saying: “HR 1955 is not about interfering with speech or belief. The hearing record makes that abundantly clear. Radical speech, as I have said repeatedly, is protected under our Constitution.”

the article directly: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=hsnews-000002633756

i wonder what the gray area is on this, whether as you say, all one has to do to say that you are going to blow up the whitehouse, or whether you have to plan it as well, and how "planning" is defined.

the bill does not condone thoughtcrime prosecution per se, but its not very explicit, so who knows how it could/will be interpreted.

*shudder*

[pirateswin]

i don't know who you are, but here are my two cents:
fascism doesn't come wrapped in a swastika. it's not obvious. it comes in things like the patriot act, in rampant, mindless nationalism, and in corporate control of resources and labor in an already corrupt and fucked system.
it happens in steps, and if you think the 1955 bill is "not as extreme" as it could be, then you're probably going to wake up one day in a police state and wonder what the hell happened.