ACLU Opposes Bill to Designate White Supremacy as Terrorism

[DaisyDay]

ACLU criticizes bill criminalizing domestic terrorism

Because, of course, it would also apply to other groups and it puts the First Amendment at risk.

Only foreign groups can be labeled terrorist organizations. McCord and Schiff both oppose designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations because that could threaten First Amendment rights such as freedom of expression.

The ACLU said law enforcement agencies already have all the authorities they need to address white supremacist violence. The letter was signed by Ronald Newman, the group’s national political director, and Manar Waheed, senior legislative and advocacy counsel.

 

[Ricky M]

ACLU criticizes bill criminalizing domestic terrorism

Because, of course, it would also apply to other groups and it puts the First Amendment at risk.

No, the courts have ruled that only white males can be racist

 

[Desk trauma]

No, the courts have ruled that only white males can be racist

Citation needed.

 

[Albion]

Keep working at this and it will be possible to completely eliminate the word terror as meaning anything in particular, certainly as anything resembling the real meaning. The same thing happened with bashing.

That word once referred to real assaults, but the word was used by so many people to mean so many other things, usually much less important ones than what the word had previously meant, that now it is common to have people accuse others of bashing someone or something if they are critical in any way.

 

[durangodawood]

ACLU criticizes bill criminalizing domestic terrorism....

Who could possibly be against criminalizing domestic terrorism?

 

[Albion]

Who could possibly be against criminalizing domestic terrorism?

If we put that label on groups or even ideas that are not actually terroristic, what do you think will be the inevitable consequence?

 

[durangodawood]

If we put that label on groups or even ideas that are not actually terroristic, what do you think will be the inevitable consequence?

Well thats a different situation than what I quoted.

 

[rambot]

If white supremecists call for the deaths of minorities, THAT is terrorism in my mind. Simply being supremecists is stupid and, in my mind, immmoral but not illegal./

 

[Albion]

Well thats a different situation than what I quoted.

I don't think that it is. That's why I raised the point for consideration.

If the label is applied to politically unpopular movements or ideas which are not actually engaged in any terrorism, it makes a mockery of the effort to control real terrorism.

Here's another example...a liberal West Coast city has apparently just voted to name the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization, which it obviously is not. When everyone gets into this act, what do you think the consequences will be? Not control of terrorism, I can assure you of that.

 

[Albion]

If white supremecists call for the deaths of minorities, THAT is terrorism in my mind.

IF. If. Yet it intends to criminalize people who might (in the opinion of some legislators). And it apparently makes a guess about the motives of shooters who have been said to hold certain views that allegedly are the same as some organizations which, however, the shooter did not belong to.
Any reasonable person can see the slippery slope here.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think that it is. That's why I raised the point for consideration.

If the label is applied to politically unpopular movements or ideas which are not actually engaged in any terrorism, it makes a mockery of the effort to control real terrorism.

Here's another example...a liberal West Coast city has apparently just voted to name the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization, which it obviously is not. When everyone gets into this act, what do you think the consequences will be? Not control of terrorism, I can assure you of that.

Is terrorism even "a thing"?

If so, then this foreign/domestic distinction about defining "terrorist" makes no sense at all. Its like saying a person can only be a "chef" if they are from another country.

Of course its dumb to label non-terrorist groups as terrorist.

 

[Albion]

Is terrorism even "a thing"?

Oh, I would say so.

Then this foreign/domestic distinction about defining "terrorist" makes no sense at all.

I don't recall making any point about foreign vs. domestic terrorism.

Of course its dumb to label non-terrorist groups as terrorist.

Agreed, but it's beginning. In the war of words between Left and Right, the search is constantly on for the most stinging, most defamatory, term that can be used on the opposite group. Right now, "white supremacist" is the main one that a certain faction has decided to go with.

 

[durangodawood]

....I don't recall making any point about foreign vs. domestic terrorism.

The topic is a bill that says we can apply the designation "terrorist" to not just foreign terrorists, but domestic ones.

I guess I'd ask you, leaving aside this particular bill for a moment, do you think its valid to use that designation for both foreign and domestic actors in principle?

 

[Albion]

The topic is a bill that says we can apply the designation "terrorist" to not just foreign terrorists, but domestic ones.

That's all you meant by saying "If so, then this foreign/domestic distinction...?" It sounded like a suggestion that foreign terrorism is identified as X while domestic terrorism is different.

I guess I'd ask you, leaving aside this particular bill for a moment, do you think its valid to use that designation for both foreign and domestic actors in principle?

Sure, if we are dealing with actual terrorists.

 

[rambot]

IF. If. Yet it intends to criminalize people who might (in the opinion of some legislators). And it apparently makes a guess about the motives of shooters who have been said to hold certain views that allegedly are the same as some organizations which, however, the shooter did not belong to.
Any reasonable person can see the slippery slope here.

I don't really think it does. If a white supremicist posts on line that black people need to be whiped off the face of the earth....DING. That's terrorism.
I don't think there is a slippery slope from:
I really hate black people.
to
All black people need to die.



I don't see that as a slippery slope at all. The moment there is a desire for death, a line is crossed I think. Simply hating or thinking "you are better" should not be illegal (as abhorrant as it is); but htinking the others should die? That's a crossed line IMHO.

 

[Ricky M]

In a related note, the city of San Francisco California just made the NRA a domestic terrorist group.

 

[DaisyDay]

No, the courts have ruled that only white males can be racist

Give it up.

 

[-Sasha-]

ACLU criticizes bill criminalizing domestic terrorism

Because, of course, it would also apply to other groups and it puts the First Amendment at risk.

The ACLU has been opposed to the concept of "domestic terrorism" (as the statutes are written) since the term was added into the Patriot Act legislation. Their reasoning then was the same as it is now, and they oppose this proposed change for the same reason they oppose groups like Greenpeace being subject to terrorism statutes. Simply put, the definitions are too broad. If US-based groups are subject to such, an environmentalist activist group could be labled as (and charged as) terrorists for engaging in acts of civil disobedience which aim to change government policy via coercion (such as staging a sit-in, boycotting, lobbying, etc.).

From the beginning, thr ACLU had stated that if the definitions were less broad, they would not oppose it.

 

[miggles]

calling someone a white supremacist just because they are white is racist in itself i think.

 

[Ana the Ist]

ACLU criticizes bill criminalizing domestic terrorism

Because, of course, it would also apply to other groups and it puts the First Amendment at risk.

A rare return to good sense for them.