My main problem is it's lack of a defining boundary between violence and force, and basically it is a bill against thought crime because they define "force" as basically using your intellect to bring forward a logical argument against a policy or policies against the state. It's horsesh*t.
==============
Don't bother with trying to define the "boundary between violence and force"
because the government, the "homeland security" secret police and
the kangaroo judicial mafia will do it for you and they won't be asking
you for your input into the definition.
Just read the wording they use to write these police state laws and
see for yourself what the intent of the legislation is:
You go on the net or make a speech someplace and say for example:
"the US should be forced out out of Iraq" or something like "the gov.
lied to the public about 911 and should be forced to reveal the truth."
&
that is what crosses their "defining boundary"
as "violent radicalism" precisely of the "disenfranchisement" criteria
I pointed out in my original post.
So worrying about what kind of dissident speech will be targeted is
a mute point and irrelevant because ALL dissident speech & writings
are criminalized under these proposed laws!
