Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

In addition to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), who introduced the bill to the House, it had 15 co-sponsors as of October 24, 2007:[5]

1. Rep. Christopher Carney (D-PA)
2. Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI)
3. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
4. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA)
5. Rep. Norman Dicks (D-WA)
6. Rep. Al Green (D-TX)
7. Rep. James Langevin (D-RI)
8. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
9. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY)
10. Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-CA)
11. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)
12. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
13. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA)
14. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS)

In addition to Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who introduced the bill to the Senate, it had one co-sponsor as of December 26, 2007:[7]

1. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)

This bill was passed in the House on October 23, 2007 with a vote of 404 to 6.[13] Twenty-two representatives missed the vote. The only six representatives who voted against the bill [14] were:

• Jeff Flake, R-Arizona
• Dana Rohrabacher, R-California
• Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii
• Jerry Costello, D-Illinois
• Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio
• John Duncan, R-Tennessee

Representative Ron Paul (R - TX), who was not present at the time of the vote, subsequently rose on the House floor to express his opposition to the bill.[15]

The bill was introduced to the Senate on August 2, 2007, as Senate Bill 1959, and has been referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.[7] The Bill was introduced by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and has been co-sponsored by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN).

The Senate bill was reported dead by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and CQ Politics. [16] A staffer to Sen. Joe Lieberman, indicated that the bill was not dead.[17]

• Introduced: April 19, 2007[5]
• Scheduled for Debate: August 1, 2007[5]
• Passed House [details]: October 23, 2007[5]

• Introduced: August 2, 2007[7]
• Scheduled for Debate: -
• Voted on in Senate: -
• Signed by President: -

The bill has provoked controversy on several fronts.

One is the definitions of "force", "home grown terrorism" and "violent radicalization" (section 899A) that some perceive as overly broad or vague. Critics charge that the vagueness in these definitions would permit the government to classify many types of venerated American political activity, such as civil disobedience, as terrorism. Critics frequently cite Section 899A, which reads, in part: "The use, planned use, or threatened use, of force ...to coerce the ..government, (or) civilian population ..in furtherance of political or social objectives",[18] as particularly problematic. They argue that major societal reforms, which are now accepted but were perceived at the time as threatening to the government, such as civil rights, suffrage, and others, would be classified as terrorism.[19][20][21][22]

Then-presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said he believed the bill to be "unconstitutional" and has referred to the bill as a "thought crime bill".[23]

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX),[24][25] addressed the bill in the House on Dec. 5, 2007 saying:

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system.

In North Carolina, Republican Congressional candidate BJ Lawson has made the bill a theme in his campaign against Democrat David Price, who voted in favor of the bill.[26][27]

The Baltimore Sun published an opinion article by Professor Emeritus Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson, titled "Here come the thought police."[28][29]

The Pioneer Press published an article by Professor Peter Erlinder, pointing out disturbing parallels to the House Un-American Activities Committee.[30]

In an interview aired on Democracy Now, academic and author Ward Churchill said: "HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech...."[13]

Kamau Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights said that the bill "concentrates on the internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming across into the United States and to American citizens."[31]

The Hartford Advocate, noting that all of Connecticut's Representatives had voted for the bill, sought to interview one of them, but reported that none of them would comment on the record, personally or through a spokesperson, about their reasons for voting in favor. The Advocate concluded that the problem with the bill was "not that the bill threatens anything specific, but that it's far too vague."[32]

An op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, discussed HR 1955 in the context of the Homeland Security concept of Endgame. The article garnered several hundred readers comments when it was originally published. "HR 1955 is an important topic that continues to be largely absent from mainstream media as of Nov 23, 2008. President elect Obama, served on Lieberman's Homeland Security committee in the US Senate wherein the Senate bill version Titled: S-1959 continues to be discussed, absent mainstream scrutiny, but has garnered widespread internet-web scrutiny." (accessed on Nov 23, 2008) "[33]

The New York Times editorialized that "The Internet is simply a means of communication, like the telephone, but that has not prevented attempts to demonize it — the latest being the ludicrous claim that the Internet promotes terrorism." (accessed on Jan 2, 2009). "[34]

The internet, if considered to be "new media" includes this offering by OpenCongress.org, a project of the Sunlight Foundation and PDF. All 26 comments about S. 1959 dating from 2008. "[35]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement saying: "Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme."[36]

The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers issued a joint statement opposing the Bill: "The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly urge the Senate to refuse to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007."

The Center for Constitutional Rights opposes the bill.[37]

The John Birch Society wrote in an Action Alert: "the legislation could attack First Amendment rights by mandating the government to clamp down on free speech online, among other things."[38]

Harman 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.'" 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."[39]

Harman chaired a November 6, 2007 hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment on "Using the Web as a Weapon: the Internet as a Tool for Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism."[40] In her statement before the hearing Harman tied its subject to Resolution 1955.[41]

In December 2007 the United States House Committee on Homeland Security released a "fact sheet" entitled "Understanding HR 1955: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007"[42] which elaborates on the rationale and purpose of the bill and includes a "Myth vs. Fact" section offering rebuttals to the perception that the bill would "criminalize constitutionally-protected behavior" or "lead to Internet censorship".