Thought crimes are now federal

[Quantum Windbag]

Thought crimes have officially come to the US

The government’s case against Mr. Mehanna, however, did not rest on proving that his translations were done in coordination with Al Qaeda. Citing no explicit coordination with or direction by a foreign terrorist organization, the government’s case rested primarily on Mr. Mehanna’s intent in saying the things he said — his political and religious thoughts, feelings and viewpoints. The prosecution’s strategy, a far cry from Justice Roberts’s statement that “independent advocacy” of a terror group’s ideology, aims or methods is not a crime, produced many ominous ideas. For example, in his opening statement to the jury one prosecutor suggested that “it’s not illegal to watch something on the television. It is illegal, however, to watch something in order to cultivate your desire, your ideology.” In other words, viewing perfectly legal material can become a crime with nothing other than a change of heart. When it comes to prosecuting speech as support for terrorism, it’s the thought that counts.
That is all troubling enough, but it gets worse. Not only has the government prosecuted a citizen for “independent advocacy” of a terror group, but it has prosecuted a citizen who actively argued against much of what most Americans mean when they talk about terrorism.
On a Web site that the government made central to the conspiracy charge, Mr. Mehanna angrily contested the common jihadi argument that American civilians are legitimate targets because they democratically endorse their government’s wars and pay taxes that support these wars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/o...ion&adxnnlx=1335110418-Xd BxzgseT5EyZIqiOmC5g

 

[George Costanza]

it was called "Advocating the violent overthrow of the government," and it was a federal crime (the Smith Act) that came into law in 1940.

The law was held unconstitutional in 1957:

"The indictments and trials ended in 1957 as the result of a series of Supreme Court decisions. Yates v. United States ruled unconstitutional the convictions of numerous party leaders in a ruling that distinguished between advocacy of an idea for incitement and the teaching of an idea as a concept. The Court ruled 6-1 in Watkins v. United States that defendants could use the First Amendment as a defense against "abuses of the legislative process."Template:354 U.S. 178 (1957)

On June 5, 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld by 5-4 the conviction of Junius Scales under the "membership clause" of the Smith Act. Scales began serving a six-year sentence on October 2, 1961. He was released after serving fifteen months when President John F. Kennedy commuted his sentence in 1962."

Read all about it. Most interesting:

Smith Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[George Costanza]

“it’s not illegal to watch something on the television. It is illegal, however, to watch something in order to cultivate your desire, your ideology.”

This, by the way, makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

“it’s not illegal to watch something on the television. It is illegal, however, to watch something in order to cultivate your desire, your ideology.”

This, by the way, makes absolutely no sense to me.

You are not a federal prosecutor.

Come to think of it, neither am I, and it makes no sense to me either.

 

[George Costanza]

“it’s not illegal to watch something on the television. It is illegal, however, to watch something in order to cultivate your desire, your ideology.”

This, by the way, makes absolutely no sense to me.

You are not a federal prosecutor.

Come to think of it, neither am I, and it makes no sense to me either.

"Illegal to watch something that cultivates . . . . your ideology."

Damn! Guess I'm going to have to stop watching the Crystal Cathedral on Sunday mornings. But then, of course, Republicans are also going to have to stop watching Fox News.