This may be 'ideological violence'
Once again I warn you to be careful what you write in your blog.
U.S. House Resolution 1955 seems to blame the internet for some peoples' thoughts and actions, whereas the real blame lies with…peoples' actual thoughts and actions.
But are newspapers, books or other media specifically covered in this H.R.? Of course not.
The problem seems to be the public's access to competing sources of information, instead of their sticking to the usual homogeneous cable news shows towing the party line.
(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
Constant streams? Don't they think anyone ever stops off for a quick LOLcat or 4-chan every now and then?
Another newly defined term is:
(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
The new definitions of 'ideologically based violence' and 'violent radicalisation' may upset a certain VP candidate. You may remember Sarah Palin's refusal to classify the bombers of abortion clinics as terrorists–and McCain stayed silent.
But is violence for a reason really worse or even separate to crimes of passion or crimes for financial gain? If I get shot in the face (Cheney!!) it hardly matters why.
It reminds me of the drive to classify certain actions as 'hate crimes,' which is condescending to the people it seeks to protect, and which establishes a two-tier system of law.
Assault on minority groups becomes assault plus a hate crime, whereas assault on a regular Joe is just assault, no matter how much the guy who beat you up hates you.