Subversive Groups Must Now Register In South Carolina 849
Hugh Pickens writes "The Raw Story reports that terrorists who want to overthrow the United States government must now register with South Carolina's Secretary of State and declare their intentions — or face a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. The 'Subversive Activities Registration Act' passed last year in South Carolina and now officially on the books states that 'every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States ... shall register with the Secretary of State.'"
Republican Party... (Score:1, Insightful)
Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't like someone badmouthing the government? Require them to register. Then when they (obviously) don't do it, stick 'em in jail and take their money.
Enjoy your democracy, guys.
That seems a bit Unconstitutional..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh oh (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm $5 charge..... What do you want to bet the Republican and Democratic parties, Tea Party, Police Departments, Exxon, Greenpeace, Chase Bank, Hillary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Goldman Sachs, everyone's ex's and pretty much everyone else anyone dislikes all find 'helpful' people registering on their behalf? If this list feeds to the no fly list there's going to be hell to pay.
Re:Awwwww crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically this is in violation of our right to peaceably assemble. That's only the first amendment, easy to see how they could miss that.
Re:Republican Party... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad (Score:1, Insightful)
And if it's meant as "well they could have nabbed them sooner", then A) incomeptence prevented it from being stopped, this law wouldn't help and B) how far reaching this law is scares me. The gov't doesn't like someone and they can declair their actions are "anti-state"...</tinfoilhat>
Re:Awwwww crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Peaceably assemble... with intent to overthrow the government.
Although there's kind of a Catch 22 opportunity there.
One state down, 49 more to go.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see other states passing laws such as this. I would think that if you were planning on overthrowing the government, doing so "legally" by registering your intent probably wouldn't seem like the brightest idea. This is akin to requiring bank robbers to register before they go rob a bank. Who in their right mind would do anything? Also notice that it says on the clause:
"(1) "Subversive organization" means every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means;
"advocate"........."advise".......... These words are the result of sharing your opinion. You "advocate" or you "advise" somebody on a matter. This basically makes thought and speech crimes if you do not register to speak your opinion. If we share opinions then we need to register. I honestly cannot fathom what crime this useless law is meant to deter from, nor see how it will protect anyone from anything. Any sort of restrictions on free speech and the right to assembly (also attacked here) are movements towards taking power and freedoms away from people. My oh my how utterly un-american we have so become........the sad part is that the people that vote these laws into action consider themselves patriots (notice how patriotism is explicitly exempt from this law, which opens up all sorts of avenues......militias are patriotic too........) I hope they gave George and Tom lots of space to roll in their coffins......................
America.....pure irony at its best!
Re:Awwwww crap! (Score:4, Insightful)
How so?
Ghandi got the brits out peaceably.
It does seem funny til you learn how law is used (Score:5, Insightful)
These sort of laws always seem so ridiculous until you learn how criminal law comes into application in real practice. Laws like this one enable police organizations to expand their scope of suspicions to an area of law that is less scrutinized that violent crimes. This type of law is also used to enhance punishments during investigations for the cases where say, the police are pretty sure these guys were planning to do some terrorizing but couldn't prove it but with this law they can show the far more vague notion of being a group with desires for overthrowing gov't. (Wouldn't many republicans count? hehe, anyway...) so they can put them in jail or otherwise limit their freedom of movement and privacy while continuing to investigate and try to prove more malicious actions or intent.
So the law might seem ridiculous but it's exactly this kind of law that is constantly misused and abused in our legal/police system every day, both for good and bad.
On a related note, many traffic codes and laws are created for the purpose of enhancing fines and punishments allowable to people who cause accidents. Consider any traffic law that seems impossible to catch a person breaking, then realize that when that person crashes or causes a crash, any number of such laws can be applied, merely with witness testimony, to enhance fines and so on. For example, many states have had laws for years that require you use your hands for nothing besides driving. This is classically used to assert fault on, say, a woman doing her make-up while driving or a driver distracted by children. They just need an eye witness to corroborate for determination of fault.
Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss (Score:4, Insightful)
From jail, with lots of money, paying a team of very good (and very expensive) lawyers, over years, while the matter proceeds through court after court? With no certainty that the SCOTUS, which has approved many an unconstitutional matter, will see things the constitutional way?
Tell you what. You try again. I'll just quietly think my thoughts without involving the whole broken system.
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Republican Party... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Murderers, bank robbers, and rapists too. (Score:5, Insightful)
(and inciting the overthrow of the government isn't just simple free speech folks. If you think it is maybe you're so messed up this law will work on you)
_inciting_ the overthrow isn't free speech, no. But _advocating_ it certainly is. And that's one of the things this law requires registering. And "subversive" is a quite vague word - by some definitions simply saying "Obama is a terrible president" could be considered subversive.
Reminds me of the many sedition acts we've had here in the U.S. - all of which were eventually ruled unconstitutional.
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's exactly that ammendment which this law is blatantly contrary too...
The legislature who passed this might have good intentions, but I hope the courts strike this one down post haste.
No Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a joke. I highly doubt a group of people willing to kill themselves by crashing planes into buildings would be disueded by the threat of jail time and a fine.
And that, of course, is the entire point of this legislation. The idea is that "subversives" won't register. That way you get to fine and imprison people for belonging to organisations, all the time pretending that you are not infringing on their rights of speech or assembly.
Cute.
Re:Like paying an illegal drug tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, "tax stamps" was exactly what I was thinking. Ironically, Mississippi used the same system for alcohol when it was still a "dry" state.
When they began "issuing" and requiring them in Minnesota, they actually sold a couple of dozen of them. They made a big point of being able to buy them anonymously but glossed over the fact they were sold in a government building which was easily monitored by law enforcement. I don't remember any prosecutions making the news but I'm sure from time to time they beat somebody up with it or use it as leverage even if they don't ultimately convict them.
Now if they would just wise up and legalize AND sell the tax stamps they could make real money (although I think the tax stamp prices would have to be re-aligned with the real world cost of the product versus some artificially high number).
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. It doesn't impact terrorists. It impacts citizens who hold some radical views.
They want to form an organization that supports overthrowing the government (without any intention of resorting to terrorism, violence, or other illegal acts) -- voting, or getting people elected to state legislatures to initiate an Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States to call a Convention for proposing Amendments, is a way of overthrowing the government too (peacefully)...
Now suddenly they must register as "terrorists" or face jail.
What about Confederates? (Score:4, Insightful)
I drove through South Carolina not long ago. You see lots of rebel flags flying, especially in the rural areas. Is that subversive? Is the state going to go after them?
Re:New laws (Score:4, Insightful)
except this law is saying its illegal to do legal things
Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are a pedo and want to bang a little child, check the box that says "yes", otherwise check "no".
Actually, it's more like saying that, with a footnote: Pedo to be defined as any person who has ever had a thought that could be described as sexual in nature involving any individual under the age of consent, not excluding the thinker, and regardless of the age of the thinker at the time the thought occurred.
Read their definition of subversive. It includes advocating, advising and teaching. So yes, saying you think the government sucks and needs to be taken down would put you afoul of this law, technically. It would seem that quoting certain of the founding fathers now requires registration in SC.
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhere, there's an irony in this being passed by the state that was first to secede from the Union and instigate the Civil War.
Re:No Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also a good law to invoke whenever you want to arrest someone.
Want to put a new party into power and replace the old Washington regime? That sounds like overthrowing to me. What about putting in place a new Jerusalem? Or Kingdom of God?
Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to say the same thing, except I've come to realize it's all semantics, and the constitution never meant a damn thing, not since its ratification, not now, not ever.
Re:It does seem funny til you learn how law is use (Score:3, Insightful)
Or in other words give them rights to snoop where they have no right to be snooping. When the person breaks the law, punish them suitably for it. end of story. Being a group who desires to overthrow the government is legal. Deal with it. You do remember how this country was founded right?
They seem ridiculous because they are. They admit how faulty our system is to need such things. There is no way to abuse something for good. If you abuse the law you are doing something ethically wrong. Because by so doing, you lay groundwork for others to circumvent vent it. If the law is wrong, change it.
How is it any more possible for a witness to see the driver doing her makeup than for the police man to do so himself? Frankly I'm surprised they don't put a cop on foot at traffic lights in cities, walk around take down the plates of hundreds of drivers using cell phones w/o headsets and have them all pulled over several blocks away...
And how many laws got repealed last year? (Score:1, Insightful)
Was it Frank Herbert that wrote about a society where the only way to establish one new law was to repeal two in it's place?
At some point in human history, an individual could know all of the laws that pertained to them. Now we have laws that need to be published in multiple volumes, and set of laws for the year have to be wheeled around.
Could we at least require a one for one replacement, so useless or obsolete laws get removed from the books? (I realize this would stay on the books for 20 years even with the removal law.)
On a humorous note, what would the penalty be for falsely filling out the form with the names of the governor, and all of the house and senate members of South Carolina? (other then $5 and postage)
Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironic that this is passed by the state that STARTED THE CIVIL WAR!
Good point. By the same logic of this law, maybe folks should have to register all those Confederate flags they're so fond of down there.
It's time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with this picture? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No Joke (Score:4, Insightful)
It is also a good law to invoke whenever you want to arrest someone.
Isn't that what I meant? And note you don't actually have to do anything that isn't protected by the First. You just have to be a member of an organisation (peaceful assembly), and the organisation has to say (freedom of speech), and nothing more than say, "we should have a revolution and get rid the the US Constitution and especially the First Amendment!" Perhaps there's some poetic justice there. Nonetheless, this act is a try on, which should not survive a constitutional challenge.
Want to put a new party into power and replace the old Washington regime? That sounds like overthrowing to me.
Only if you skip the constitutional requirements for putting a new party into power. If you do so with arms rather than votes, then yes. Changes in government following lawful elections very clearly do not amount to an overthrow of the state.
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can I mail it in or what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps they need a law that requires registration of fuckwit legislators, so when they pass laws like this we can send them to Gitmo or something.
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
England did think of it, and they tried to stop the colonists from meeting up, which is precisely why "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" was put into the first amendment.
And the fact, that it worked, is precisely why they want to take that from us now.
Re:Uh oh (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually that's a really good idea. Not only does it cause headaches for the Rush Limbaugh, Goldman Sachs et al, it also fills the database with false positives, rendering it useless. Sounds like a good deal for five bucks!
Re:One state down, 49 more to go.... (Score:3, Insightful)
"(1) "Subversive organization" means every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of ...
But in the end ... I think this (bolded) is the important part:
... of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means
So .. in the end, it's just a virtual turing stupidity test; An easy way to round up the bottom feeder idiot anarchists/communists/whatever-ists.
The feds beat SC to it a long time ago..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The feds beat them to it a long time ago..... but they will probably just throw you in prison for 20 years. Amazing that I can be jailed for this longer than I can be jailed for attempted murder. Just for ADVOCATING revolution. This is disgusting. I feel a storm brewing.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > 2385
2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
Did they just outlaw civics teachers? (Score:4, Insightful)
'every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States ... shall register with the Secretary of State.'
Do they ever even consider running these things past a high school English teacher or equivalent before they put them to a vote?
Did the TV stations and parties register already? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean what is the definition of “subversive”? “Does not conform to party lines, like in China”?
By my definition, all TV stations and political parties are subversive and perverse. Now what?
Political parties (Score:4, Insightful)
" every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government"
Political parties certainly advocate and advise the controlling and conducting of the government. I hope all those politicians are registering.
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the law does say it has to be "by force or violence or other unlawful means".
"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't funny. This is sad. This is how political offices are won in America, especially conservative seats. /Is libertarian
Re:Too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
It is sad when you actually have to cite a reference to a Loony Tunes character.
Re:Too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be perfectly honest. With the number of completely stupid, contradictory, and vague laws on the books...you and I both are probably breaking some law or another RIGHT NOW.
I wouldn't hesitate to say that a cop would find some violation or another and then bang you for this law. It's like walking up to a totally peaceful person and arresting him/her. Of COURSE they're going to question it when they legitimately haven't done anything wrong...except now they're resisting and the cop has a valid charge.
I don't doubt this law will be thrown out as unconstitutional but I have great sympathy for the poor schlep that gets dragged through the mud and has his life turned upside-down in the process.
Re:First and Last solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
One reason to be against your proposal is that criminalizing political actions would result in horrible unintended consequences. The threat of criminal prosecution and jail time could become the result of losing a political battle. So if you are an honest politician (yes they actually exist) and you are trying to fight a stupid or corrupt political machine (like the entire state of South Carolina), just how hard are you willing to fight the system? Most reasonable people would simply walk away from politics and go back to running their profitable businesses if losing meant jail time. The only people that would be left are those who will cow-tail to the existing system or those who are ruthless enough to think they can overthrow the system and hang onto it with an iron fist.
There is, in fact, an accountability mechanism called elections. Whether the voters in South Carolina are smart enough to use it to boot the idiots out of office is an open question. Regardless of whether they are or not, throwing people in jail because the voters are irresponsible is not the best solution. At a certain point, voters are entitled to elect irresponsible idiots and live with the results of that (see New Orleans). It sucks, but that is the nature of democracy.
Re:First and Last solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is possible to get laws like this preemptively declared unconstitutional (not the right legal term, I know). A party that could be affected could go to the Supreme Court and say that this is threatening their first amendment rights without waiting to be prosecuted. The ACLU will be all over this so it really wouldn't cost the party anything. The Supreme Court is very sensitive to first amendment restrictions so the case would likely be heard. It would probably have to work its way through some lower courts first, though.
There is a more interesting way to fight this in the short term. Everyone in South Carolina who hates this could register on the grounds that they will vote against the douchebags that came up with this law. That effectively amounts to a government overthrow, so you want to be safe. This could result in millions of registrations. It is hard to imagine that they are prepared for that kind of response.
Re:First and Last solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
OMG! This Lincoln guys needs to register!
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhere, there's an irony in this being passed by the state that was first to secede from the Union and instigate the Civil War.
No, there is zero irony. It simply highlights the absurdity of the claim that the Confederate states were fighting for freedom. They seceded in an attempt to keep aristocratic rule alive when the rest of the country was turning against it; and even among the slave states, S.C. was always distinguished by the degree to which it worshiped the aristocratic ideal. The American Revolution was not complete until 1865.
Re:No Joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Changes in government following lawful elections very clearly do not amount to an overthrow of the state.
Tell that to Fox News and many of the more uneducated people who watch them to get their "news". I occasionally watch Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly for a good laugh and the occasional bout of rage because they make Jon Stewart look like Walter Cronkite. Their opinions border on fascism and their evidence is laughable. Glenn Beck is clearly delusional and probably "bat-shit crazy". Ever since the presidential election, the sentiment I have received from Fox News was that their country was stolen from them and the government was overthrown in some sort of Red Dawn scenario as if the "Commie Terrorists" had entered the White House and Congress, shot the patriots, and declared The USA to now be the "People's Soviet Union of Amerika".
What about the sentiment of the people? I can only give the beliefs of my own family. My Catholic Aunt is convinced that Obama is the Anti-Christ and expects the end of the world sometime in the next few years. My great-grandma is convinced that Obama wants to kill all the old people and that anytime she cannot get her pills or an appointment with a doctor she blames it on Obama for "abolishing Medicare to get rid of the old people". My mom will believe almost anything she hears. If she hears it from her coworkers or if it is on Good Morning America, Doctor Oz, or any of the other morning talk shows then it must be true. Evey day seems to have something new, "Obama wants to do this evil thing" or "Obama wants to kill that broad group of citizens".
Now this is a roundabout way of saying that, while I agree with you, there is a vocal group of sore losers who would disagree. These people have positions where they can tell the large, ignorant, angry, politically apathetic mob that their country has been overthrown by 'terrorists' and that these terrorists are the reason that they are out of work, can't afford medical care, and that our country is set to be annexed by China. The problem is that opinions hold more water in the minds of the people than facts. Then again, who doesn't love a good tabloid headline.
Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to be planning to overthrow the government by violent or unlawful means.
Okay... So you want to overthrow the government by non-violent and lawful means. Therefore, you need to register, because not registering means you are doing so through unlawful means.
Re:Republican Party... (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd say rigging elections qualifies. There should be plenty of documented cases of that in both parties.
Re:No Joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that makes sense to me. But ah wundah if the people of the grate state of sowth cah-oh-lina might find it to be a bit hinkey.
What about a group naming themselves after an event that helped spark a revolution? That sounds a little fishy to me, like maybe some people want to start a new revolution. Those tea partiers best register themselves up right quick, lest they face prosecution.
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point. By the same logic of this law, maybe folks should have to register all those Confederate flags they're so fond of down there.
Wow, I think you're on to the best campaign against this law. Find the application form and start filling it out:
Organization: The Confederacy
Founded: 1861
Members: We don't keep membership records. However, we have our own flags, confederate seal, lots of supporters, we regularly do military training missions under the guise of reenactments and most of all, we're tried it once already. You should probably get all our members to register to risk 10 years in jail.
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
Yeah, but the IRS forms have a blank for "Illegal Income" and that has somehow passed constitutional scrutiny. A conviction of the income producing crime is not required.
Criminalizing the failure to disclose criminal activity should be a clear violation of self incrimination protections. The courts let it through by insisting that the failure to incriminate yourself isn't the crime, failure to pay the taxes is. This ignores, of course, the fact that paying a tax on illegal income is by definition an admission of guilt.
This same sort of reasoning could somehow be applied to this law as well.
Not really. In the case of income tax on illegal gains there is no actual statement about how and why those gains were made. Say, I sell weed. I can declare on my taxes that I made $5,000 in illegal income, but I don't have to declare WHAT I did to make that income.
It's up to the police in this case to find out what what I made the money on. It's not actually an admission of guilt to report illegal income, because there is no specific information about what the crime was.
If the police come to your door and ask you what you did to collect the income that you reported, then you just say, "I don't have to answer your questions."
Re:First and Last solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, when we established by violence that the government does not "derive its just powers from the consent of the governed", and people do not have the right to separate their state/colony from a larger empire?
Re:Awwwww crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Note peacefully but not lawfully. They peacefully opposed the law, and intentionally violated it taking full burden of consequences. The crimes were non-violent crimes against tax laws and public order, but they were crimes. That is, they would fall both under constitutional law to peacefully assemble and this abomination to register, because of criminal intent.
Of course knowing them, they would register by millions, overriding the office with registration papers.
Re:Too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Thomas Jefferson? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
If he was alive today, and this would be true of the majority of the USA's founding fathers, if they happened to visit the state of South Carolina, they would certainly be subject to this law. And, our founding father's would describe it as "tyranny".
Every law maker that voted for this law should be sent to remedial classes on A) the founding of this country and B) the U.S. Constitution.
Hello (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello My name is Thomas Jefferson I'm here to register.
Re:Too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. From a legal perspective, SC and the CSA had a better legal argument for leaving the USA than the Colonies had for leaving England.
Legally, colonies aren't allowed to secede from a mother country. But SC had freely entered into a contract with the other states, and should have been freely allowed to leave.
Re:No Joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. (Yes, I consider DHS a criminal organization. Come get me.)