Once a group is labeled a “domestic terrorist organization,” the bill would prohibit the gathering of group members in certain situations, enable the attorney general to pre-emptively stop the group from committing certain actions, and criminalize the provision of “material support” to the group.
Violence prompted by the hatred of a certain group of individuals is abhorrent, and acts of terror or violence directed at people by virtue of who they are should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
[clip]
But even people sympathetic with this goal have pointed out the significant problems posed by the bill’s broad language, and the authority it gives the government to label groups “domestic terrorist organizations” based largely on their beliefs or speech.
The first problem stems from H.B. 1601’s definition of “domestic terrorism.”
The federal definition, found in 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), covers lethal acts meant to terrorize any civilian population or to affect government policy. H.B. 1601, however, would consider even nonviolent and minimally violent actions to be “domestic terrorism,” but only if committed on the basis of a small subset of personal characteristics (race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and disability) or for the purpose of restraining a person’s exercise of his or her constitutional rights.
Notably, this proposed definition would exclude groups like Antifa, which seeks to intimidate and harass on the basis of political ideology, and Black Lives Matter, which has often resorted to violence and destruction in order to affect government policy.
http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/02/white-supremacy-bad-bill-criminalize-not-answer/
Violence prompted by the hatred of a certain group of individuals is abhorrent, and acts of terror or violence directed at people by virtue of who they are should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
[clip]
But even people sympathetic with this goal have pointed out the significant problems posed by the bill’s broad language, and the authority it gives the government to label groups “domestic terrorist organizations” based largely on their beliefs or speech.
The first problem stems from H.B. 1601’s definition of “domestic terrorism.”
The federal definition, found in 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), covers lethal acts meant to terrorize any civilian population or to affect government policy. H.B. 1601, however, would consider even nonviolent and minimally violent actions to be “domestic terrorism,” but only if committed on the basis of a small subset of personal characteristics (race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and disability) or for the purpose of restraining a person’s exercise of his or her constitutional rights.
Notably, this proposed definition would exclude groups like Antifa, which seeks to intimidate and harass on the basis of political ideology, and Black Lives Matter, which has often resorted to violence and destruction in order to affect government policy.
http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/02/white-supremacy-bad-bill-criminalize-not-answer/