| RavenBlog |
|
| Comments on Tuesday 20 May 2003: |
| Before writing to your senators when people ask you to, please read and understand the supplied evidence. I've encountered this sort of thing fairly often; someone grossly misinterpreting a bill and calling for complaints. It's no wonder senators mostly don't listen to their constituents - I certainly wouldn't, after the thirtieth form letter filled with misapprehension for any given day. The article linked up there would have us believe that "Oregon's Senate Bill 742, section 19, chapter 666 defines the "unlawful labelling of a sound recording" as terrorism." In fact, the bill doesn't speak at all to any of the minor crimes listed within it (of which there are many); only one change is made to the section listing crimes, and that is the addition of "(132) Terrorism, as defined in section 1 of this 2003 Act". Where the bill relates to terrorism is to define it only as knowingly planning, participating in, or carrying out any act that is intended to disrupt free and orderly assembly, commerce, transportation, or educational or governmental institutions, and to set a harsh penalty for such acts. A quite reasonable and well thought out definition, all told. Bit of a bugger for potential false accusations, but that's the case for all crimes. The person who cited the bill evidently missed that only boldfaced and italic parts of the bill would amend anything (ie. none of the crimes listed were being added anywhere, since they were all in plain font). They also missed "the crimes to which section 1 (11)(b) applies are:" - section 1 (11)(b) is not present in the bill, and hence, presumably, has nothing to do with the terrorism section which, if my understanding is correct, creates a new provision which runs from section 1 (1) to section 1 (4). If you are unable to follow this argument, even though it has been broken down to a simple description of pertinent points, you shouldn't be writing to your senator at all, ever, unless you get someone reliable to verify that you're writing about something real first. If I've made a mistake in my interpretation and you have recognised it, then run for senator and I'll probably vote for you. [11:24] |
| Tom |
| Yes we do. |
| Eps |
| No Tom he's talking about "That" type of senator. *Points to the one being given <i>perks</i> by lobby groups…* (Sorry, had too.) Any way, it's America. Need I say more? (Well I will say more, American's are frikken idiot’s! Jesus only in a country that has no fucking idea can they sign their own amendment (4th) that gives them their rights away. And it only gets worse!) Eps - Pfft! |
| Eps |
| ^ Hmm remind me to post when I am awake next time. Well I will say more, American's are frikken idiots! Jesus only in a country that has no fucking idea can they sign their own amendment (4th) into non-existence. That's the one that gives them their rights!!! And it only gets worse! (I think that's what I meant to say?) Eps - Hehehe... |
| Sense |
| I have no idea what you _meant_ to say, but what you _did_ say was pretty much crap. Please explain to me exactly how Americans "sign away" their rights preventing search and seizure without a warrant. |
| RavenBlack |
| I imagine Eps was referring to the USA PATRIOT Act, and referring misleadingly to the politicians who voted to pass that as "Americans signing" it. If America were the democracy it so often claims to be, it would actually require the people to do that, of course, but, representative republic that it more officially claims to be, the people are barely involved. |