It looks obvious

Earlier this week the congress passed, in overwhelming majority, a bill name the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Reading the proposed Bill made me rather confused and worried.

The definitions sections defines Violent Radicalization as:

The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

Since many of the processes of adopting certain ideologies are internal (i.e. through thinking) and develop gradually I can only wonder, or mostly frightened from the implications of, how the legislator suggest to prevent these processes.   

Another interesting definition is the one of Ideology Based Violence:

The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

Any law, by definition, contain the "use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence" - otherwise it will have no effect. By omitting the term "legal force" the legislator defined any political advocacy as Ideology Based Violence. I’m careful from suggesting that what the congress aimed to prevent any political advocacy, but the definition is so vague that future act can.    

The  fact is that the legislature face a serious problem dealing with groups that taking advantage of the freedom of expression and tolerance to promote ideologies that aim at destroying the same liberties that protect them. But preventing these liberties, or setting bars for which ideology is permitted and which isn’t is obviously not an appropriate approach. After all we already have enough legal framework that handled with the fine line between freedom of speech and advocacy for violent, why do we need another one?