The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)[1][2][3] in the 110th United States Congress.
[7] The bill defines some terms including "violent radicalization," "homegrown terrorism," and "ideologically based violence,"[8] which have provoked controversy from some quarters.
[17] Critics frequently cite Section 899A, which reads, in part: "The use, planned use, or threatened use, of force ...to coerce the ..government, (or) civilian population ..in furtherance of political or social objectives",[18] as particularly problematic.
They argue that major societal reforms, which are now accepted but were perceived at the time as threatening to the government, such as civil rights, suffrage, and others, would be classified as terrorism.
[26][27] The Baltimore Sun published an opinion article by professor emeritus Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson, titled "Here come the thought police.
"[28][29] The Pioneer Press published an article by Professor Peter Erlinder, pointing out disturbing parallels to the House Un-American Activities Committee.
[30] In an interview aired on Democracy Now, academic and author Ward Churchill said: "HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech...."[13] Kamau Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights said that the bill "concentrates on the internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming across into the United States and to American citizens.
[37] The John Birch Society wrote in an Action Alert: "the legislation could attack First Amendment rights by mandating the government to clamp down on free speech online, among other things.
[41] In December 2007 the United States House Committee on Homeland Security released a "fact sheet" entitled "Understanding HR 1955: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007"[42] which elaborates on the rationale and purpose of the bill and includes a "Myth vs.