RUN WHILE YOU CAN!
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/south-carolinas-subversive-activities-registration-act-force/
(you do live in South Carolina, right, or am I horribly confused?)
ohmygod that is epic fail
This seems incredibly dangerous actually... the definition is loose enough that almost any political group would qualify. so if somebody political pisses the DA off, he can not only arrest them with this law, but also all of their friends.
Unless they register!
"Hello, yes, I would like to register the Al-Qaeda in South Carolina Group for Jihad and Preaching. Can I pay in opium?"
interestingly, the law makes exception for 'patriotic organization...whose objectives and aims do not contemplate the overthrow of the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means.'
of course, as a 'patriotic organization', you would think they are obligated to contemplate such founding principles as the fact that sometimes 'in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them'
Quote from: Iptuous on February 08, 2010, 02:03:43 PM
interestingly, the law makes exception for 'patriotic organization...
Interestingly enough, this would not have covered Patrick Henry or Samuel Adams.
Interesting comment there:
Quote from: Michael BiblerThe real question here--and this is where I'd like to see the legal test case--is whether a member of "an organization subject to foreign control," like SHELL or TEXACO or ANY MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION, should have to register, too. If those corporations donate money to any political campaign, as the Supreme Court now says they can, aren't they interested in "controlling" the United States?
isn't the US govt interested in controlling the US?
Recent events suggest not.
:lulz:
Wow. Luckily due to the "sticking apart" clause in our Super-Official Religious Texts, this doesn't apply to Discordians.
Call me crazy but doesn't this go against the first amendment right of free speech and the right to assemble peaceably (and maybe the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances)? It smells like political theater to make the state government look like they are tough on terrorism. It's a stupid and pointless law that will probably never need to be enforced. Besides, who would want to take over South Carolina these days?
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on February 08, 2010, 09:16:21 PM
Call me crazy but doesn't this go against the first amendment right of free speech and the right to assemble peaceably (and maybe the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances)? It smells like political theater to make the state government look like they are tough on crime. It's a stupid and pointless law that will probably never need to be enforced.
Optimist. It will be enforced plenty, on people with the wrong values.
And that constitution thing only works if The People believe in it.
They don't.
Ok, correction: It will be used like "and causing a nuisance" laws to add 20 years on the end of a 170 year sentence OR they will be used like current tax/RICO/Patriot Act laws to lock up people when they can't get any other charges to stick. It still sounds unconstitutional to me. But I hope that some smartass DA uses it on the local Tea Party. :lulz:
Quote from: Father Kurt Christ on February 08, 2010, 06:12:13 AM
RUN WHILE YOU CAN!
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/south-carolinas-subversive-activities-registration-act-force/
(you do live in South Carolina, right, or am I horribly confused?)
at first I was like :x
but then I :lulz:
This sounds like it has some trolling potential.
I wonder if you can register online :lol:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on February 08, 2010, 09:16:21 PM
Call me crazy but doesn't this go against the first amendment right of free speech and the right to assemble peaceably (and maybe the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances)?
According to the bill, the bill does not violate free speech. It is self-proclaimed First Amendment-friendly:
QuoteSECTION 23-29-30. Effect on freedom of press or speech.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize, require or establish censorship or to limit in any way or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect.
I guess some legislator was like, "Doesn't this violate every standard of democracy?" and the others were all "Whoops - you might be right. Let me write 'does not mess up amendment rights on it' and then everyone will know that the parts that explicitly say we're making a law to regulate speech won't count for people who like their rights."
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on February 08, 2010, 10:56:33 PM
Ok, correction: It will be used like "and causing a nuisance" laws to add 20 years on the end of a 170 year sentence OR they will be used like current tax/RICO/Patriot Act laws to lock up people when they can't get any other charges to stick. It still sounds unconstitutional to me. But I hope that some smartass DA uses it on the local Tea Party. :lulz:
"Patriotic" groups have been excluded.
Quote from: Rumckle on February 09, 2010, 12:11:39 AM
This sounds like it has some trolling potential.
I wonder if you can register online :lol:
I wonder if there's an honorary list for out of state people.
Quote from: Satzanfang on February 09, 2010, 01:14:38 AM
According to the bill, the bill does not violate free speech. It is self-proclaimed First Amendment-friendly:
QuoteSECTION 23-29-30. Effect on freedom of press or speech.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize, require or establish censorship or to limit in any way or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect.
I guess some legislator was like, "Doesn't this violate every standard of democracy?" and the others were all "Whoops - you might be right. Let me write 'does not mess up amendment rights on it' and then everyone will know that the parts that explicitly say we're making a law to regulate speech won't count for people who like their rights."
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 09, 2010, 01:18:44 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on February 08, 2010, 10:56:33 PM
Ok, correction: It will be used like "and causing a nuisance" laws to add 20 years on the end of a 170 year sentence OR they will be used like current tax/RICO/Patriot Act laws to lock up people when they can't get any other charges to stick. It still sounds unconstitutional to me. But I hope that some smartass DA uses it on the local Tea Party. :lulz:
"Patriotic" groups have been excluded.
I will now revert back to my previous position that this is political theater to make the state government look like they are tough on terrorism. Any group can quote Jefferson a couple of times before saying that all government employees should be hung from a tree. That's "patriotic", right?
Kai-
Do you want to start up a subversive organization just so we can send in for registration?
Insurrectionally yours,
Risus
It means whatever the prosecutor and his corrupt judge pals want it to mean.
Though going to jail on technicalities because you pissed off the DA is hardly new.
Quote from: Risus on February 09, 2010, 02:33:35 AM
Kai-
Do you want to start up a subversive organization just so we can send in for registration?
Insurrectionally yours,
Risus
That would pretty much kill Kai's career.
But I am now considering moving to SC, as my state isn't nearly this funny.
I wonder what happens if you apply but refuse to send in five dollars to the government you're planning on toppling.
i wonder what happens if you send the five dollars but refuse to give your information to the 'false government'
See, this is why I love this country and want to die here.