Slashdot Mirror


Subversive Groups Must Now Register In South Carolina

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.'"

139 of 849 comments (clear)

  1. not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    slashdot requires all first posters to register.

  2. Too bad by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 5, Funny

    No one thought to do this pre 9/11.

    --
    I am not left-handed, either!
    1. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too bad England didn't think of this pre-1775. Jjust think we could all be speaking in smashing British accents like James Bond right now...

    2. Re:Too bad by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oddly enough North Carolina had a right to revolution written into their constitution. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/article1.html (section 3D).

      Their neighbors to the south, not so much.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Too bad by Mistakill · · Score: 2

      now they can point the finger at people, go, 'OMG Terrorist', and make money from it...

      and before you dismiss this idea, think about what'd happen if you got arrested just for talking to someone discussing a fictional situation 'what if someone shot the president, what do you think would happen Bob?' (as from what i understand of the US First Amendment, youre allowed to ponder such an event, except maybe within an airport or aircraft)

    4. Re:Too bad by ZosX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh...so revolution is legal down there huh? You just gotta register before you do it? Makes total sense to me!

    5. Re:Too bad by nine-times · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Too bad by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed. The text of the law says it should not be construed to authorize censorship or infringe upon freedom of speech but I just don't see how you can do that.

      This law is a ace up the sleeve for selective prosecution, nothing else.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    7. Re:Too bad by lul_wat · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's it. I'm moving the trailor over state lines to the north.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    8. Re:Too bad by EricWright · · Score: 4, Informative

      In case you didn't notice ... registration is required in South Carolina; the right to revolt is written in the North Carolina State Constitution. North != South.

    9. Re:Too bad by Grimbleton · · Score: 2, Informative

      The first amendment doesn't end in the air.

    10. Re:Too bad by shoemilk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ironic that this is passed by the state that STARTED THE CIVIL WAR!

    11. Re:Too bad by mysidia · · 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.

    12. Re:Too bad by mysidia · · 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.

    13. Re:Too bad by SnapShot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can you imagine the intelligence of the voter to which this law was intended to pander? I can just imagine the debate during the next election cycle.

      Mah opponent beeleeves that the Subversive Ahctevities Registration Ahct is unconstitutional. Ah beeleeve Ah speak for the GREAT people of South Carolina when Ah ask: 'Why do yoo support the terrorists?'

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    14. Re:Too bad by Third+Position · · 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.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    15. Re:Too bad by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Funny

      Debate and oration is very 1950s. This is the age of marketing checklist:
      - Tough on terror [CHECK!]

        Vote against it? you aren't tough on terror! The commercial will sound like
      "Senator Foghorn Leghorn voted AGAINST the Subversive Activities Registration Act, which would have enabled law enforcement to quickly round up terrorists.
        Senator Foghorn Leghorn voted AGAINST America.
        Vote for America, Vote Elmer Fudd.

      Paid for by the people for Elmer Fudd foundation."

    16. Re:Too bad by QRDeNameland · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    17. Re:Too bad by Montezumaa · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a big issue with this portion:

      Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.

      Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.

      That is not legal, as no person or other entity has the constitutional right to force anything to claim allegiance to any person or entity(within the United States, of course). Since I doubt North Carolina would have the balls to do any of that today(as most of the first half on that document came out of Reconstruction), I doubt anyone will try to challenge it in court.

      As a "F.Y.I." moment, did you know that Texas has it written in their Constitution(sort of) the right to secession from the Union? Lincoln did believe that secession never occurred, because it was not covered in the Constitution, but since entrance into the Union was and still is voluntary and really any state could secede. The problem is that most states have written an allegiance to the Constitution and the U.S Government, whereas Texas only swears allegiance to the Constitution alone.

      Now, go forth and impress your history teacher/professor.

    18. Re:Too bad by sictransitgloriacfa · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Well, the law does say it has to be "by force or violence or other unlawful means". However, I see a problem here. Suppose a group wants some kind of change in government, and holds a peaceful protest, and it turns out they've broken some law against protesting without a permit or such? Bingo. They're advocating controlling the government, and they're doing it by unlawful means. And here come the guys with the riot sticks.

      Obviously such an abuse would not hold up in a court for a moment, but it could sure as hell be used to intimidate people until it's struck down.

    19. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ironic that this is passed by the state that STARTED THE CIVIL WAR!

      Down here it's called the War of Northern Aggression.

    20. Re:Too bad by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, I insightfully fart in your general direction.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    21. Re:Too bad by ChipMonk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

    22. Re:Too bad by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 4, 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.

    23. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is South Carolina. It's being passed to set these groups up for state grants, not to get them arrested.

    24. Re:Too bad by vrmlguy · · Score: 4, 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

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    25. Re:Too bad by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't funny. This is sad. This is how political offices are won in America, especially conservative seats. /Is libertarian

    26. Re:Too bad by captjc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is sad when you actually have to cite a reference to a Loony Tunes character.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    27. Re:Too bad by torkus · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    28. Re:Too bad by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 2, Informative

      Impress them with what? Your gullibility? You are quite misinformed and would do well to educate yourself before speaking urban legend as fact.

      http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8425/can-texas-secede-from-the-union-no

      Or this fine piece of Secessionist literature.

      http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

      Notice in the first answer it takes special pains to emphasize "note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...".

      All that is well and good, but the gret secessionist geniuses down in Texas seem to forget the fact the Constitution of the United States does in deed outline our form of *guberment*, in particular the President, Congress, and the rights of States. That means they are getting exactly what they signed up for.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    29. Re:Too bad by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dissuade

      • To deter (a person) from a course of action or a purpose by persuasion or exhortation.

      Disuede

      • To insult a leather jacket, or other leather apparel, having a particular napped finish.
      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    30. Re:Too bad by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, disuede is two tone leather apparel having a particular napped finish. What you want is dissuede.

    31. Re:Too bad by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      Says the guy advertising a neo-nazi political group in his sig.

      (Seriously, go on and look up the traditional definition of the "third position," and read through the A3P's political positions. I'm not calling them Nazis simply for the sake of being hyperbolic. They're one of the few groups that actually makes the law being discussed in TFA seem like a good idea.)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    32. Re:Too bad by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 2, Informative
      Insightful? I think not. And here's why! "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is in the first amendment, yes.

      But, then you wrote this;

      And it's exactly that ammendment which this law is blatantly contrary too...

      Except for the fact that if you read the law, you would see there is no contradiction at all. For the law explicitly states that this applies to groups who advocate violence to their grievances.

      So, you see, this law does not violate the first amendment. It only violates the version you have constructed in your imagination, based on the summary which leaves out that rather important detail.

    33. Re:Too bad by steelfood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OMG! This Lincoln guys needs to register!

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    34. Re:Too bad by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    35. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Senator Foghorn Leghorn voted AGAINST the Subversive Activities Registration Act, which would have enabled law enforcement to quickly round up terrorists.
      Senator Foghorn Leghorn voted AGAINST America.

      It is sad when you actually have to cite a reference to a Loon[e]y Tunes character.

      It's even sadder when you realize he was probably closer to the truth than he knew. Foghorn Leghorn is a parody of Senator Claghorn, who, while also fictional, was a radio show's parody of the stereotypical Southern Senator in the 40s.

      If I may dig another reference out of America's cartoon cultural archives, We have met the enemy, and he is us. (Pogo, 1970)

      (Any journalist can tell you the news. It takes a comedian to tell you the truth.)

    36. Re:Too bad by Kjella · · 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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    37. Re:Too bad by snowgirl · · Score: 3, 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."

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    38. Re:Too bad by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The American Revolution was not complete until 1865."

      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?

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    39. Re:Too bad by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know whether to laugh or to cry...

      --
      Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    40. Re:Too bad by fluffman86 · · Score: 2, 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.

  3. Can I mail it in or what? by honestmonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, I don't want to have to drive all the way to South Carolina if I can avoid it. Especially with gas prices the way they are now, and subversive equipment costs going through the roof.

    --
    Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    1. Re:Can I mail it in or what? by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do I have to register individually, or am I covered by the slashdot site licence?

    2. Re:Can I mail it in or what? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anachronistic religious motives for the ban clearly being unconstitutional as per the legal tradition of separation of church and state

      It's high time the Sunday Alcohol bans got challenged in a court of law.

      Can't there be some commerce clause spin on this? Given that much of Alcohol is produced out of state, there's interstate commerce involved here.

    3. Re:Can I mail it in or what? by deniable · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can see a bunch of humorous registrations. Show them how stupid the law is. Someone should register 'Anonymous.'

  4. subversive? by SoupGuru · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, if they did that then they wouldn't be subversive now, would they?

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    1. Re:subversive? by nine-times · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmmm... I wonder if that's a defense. Like, "I was about to register as a subversive group, at which time I realized I was no longer subversive and so I didn't have to register. I again became subversive, but when I decided to register, I again ceased to be subversive. Since I couldn't be subversive and register at the same time, I was never able to register."

  5. Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine dissent by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, 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.

  6. Awwwww crap! by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought my evil master plan for overthrowing the government was PERFECT! Nobody could have known what I was up to!

    And now I have to tell them myself?

    Oh well...

    1. Re:Awwwww crap! by EricWright · · Score: 4, Funny

      FTFA:

      By "subversive organization," the law means "every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons

      You'll be just fine if you keep it to yourself.

    2. Re:Awwwww crap! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, 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.

    3. Re:Awwwww crap! by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Peaceably assemble... with intent to overthrow the government.

      Although there's kind of a Catch 22 opportunity there.

    4. Re:Awwwww crap! by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How so?
      Ghandi got the brits out peaceably.

    5. Re:Awwwww crap! by WinterSolstice · · Score: 2

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

      Hmmmmm

      But I still think this is a joke.

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    6. Re:Awwwww crap! by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just too add this would also violate the 5th, admitting one wished to break a law is incriminating himself.

    7. Re:Awwwww crap! by SharpFang · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  7. Well... by thinkpol · · Score: 3, Funny

    The story also states that it only costs $5 to register. At least it's not expensive to get on such an exclusive list!

  8. But if they outlaw secretly being a Terrorist by dmomo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Only criminals will secretly be Terrorists. :( ...

    PANIC!

  9. That seems a bit Unconstitutional..... by tinkerghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Freedom of association and the right to espouse political views anonymously have been upheld frequently by the highest courts, so this is just a matter of paper politics.

  10. Murderers, bank robbers, and rapists too. by syousef · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you intend to do anything illegal you must register. If you litter and have not registered your intention to litter we're going to come down hard on you! Planning to kill your spouse? Register now, and get 20% off your sentence! Planning to rob a bank? Registration before Feb 15th gives you 10% off your sentence. Planning a terrorist act? Just call 1-900-TERR-RIST, and we'll go easy on you if you don't make it right away to your chosen form of heaven.

    Seriously, what kind of bass awkwards government scheme is this? If your penalties for commiting a crime are too lax, tighten them. Otherwise expecting people to register their intention of breaking the law (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) is pure nonsense.

    The muppets coming up with this should be....oh wait I'd have to register to say that....

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Murderers, bank robbers, and rapists too. by Urza9814 · · 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.

  11. Uh oh by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 4, 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.

  12. No difference to them by neghvar1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    To the US government, there is no difference between a terrorist and a constitutional patriot. Any opposition to the present-day government is to be supressed, silenced, destroyed and/or killed.

  13. Re:Republican Party... by bit9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're not planning to overthrow the government. They already have. Don't be fooled just because there's a Democrat in the White House. Democrats vs. Republicans is just a puppet show they put on to keep us all distracted and divided. Meanwhile, Obama and Bush have more interests in common with each other than either of them do with The People.

  14. So, do we get immunity? by BitterOak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this mean if my group registers with the state and we state our intentions to commit terrorist acts that we will be immune from prosecution when we carry out our intentions?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  15. Like paying an illegal drug tax by istartedi · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is just like those "marijuana tax stamp" acts. Laws like that typicly just end up being used to tack on extra years when you get convicted, and/or to assist the prosecutors since the more laws you break the easier it is to convict. IMHO, it's a waste of time since any serious act (ie, assault, murder) comitted by such a group is going to get them life or worse (does SC have the death penalty?)

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Like paying an illegal drug tax by swb · · Score: 2, 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).

  16. Ironic by dustman81 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I seem to remember from school that a historically significant event happened in South Carolina that started a war....oh, right. The Battle of Fort Sumter which started the American Civil War.

  17. One state down, 49 more to go.... by ZosX · · Score: 4, 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!

    1. Re:One state down, 49 more to go.... by galego · · Score: 2, Insightful
      OK ... let's break this down ..

      "(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 - lobbyists, right?
      • conducting - lobbyists and defense contractors
      • seizing - either party in an election year, year before an election year ... or these days, the day after the election we just had.
      • overthrowing the government of the United States - what the hell does that mean!?!?!?!?

      ...

      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.

      --

      Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas

      [May God give you double that which you wish for me]

  18. What's wrong with this picture? by bit9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    By "subversive organization," the law 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 [or] of this State."

    Is it just me, or does that definition necessarily include all U.S. citizens of voting age? What ever happened to "for the People, by the People" ??? Silly me, I was under the impression that it is every citizen's civic duty to control the government. It's called voting.

    1. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by insufflate10mg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you retarded? Did you not read the last few words explaining that it must be done in a violent manner? Is voting violent? Idiot. And yes, I mean idiot, because only an idiot would read 49 words of a sentence and forgot the final 8.

  19. It does seem funny til you learn how law is used by cybereal · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
  20. New laws by jmv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it just me or is there an increase in the number of new laws (not just in the US) that basically state that it's illegal to do illegal stuff? I'm trying to find the rational explanation for that, but so far I've failed.

    1. Re:New laws by EdelFactor19 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      except this law is saying its illegal to do legal things

      --
      "Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
      EdelFactor
    2. Re:New laws by sincewhen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, in the same way that "old idea + internet = patent" we seem to be getting a lot of "existing crime + computer = new crime".
      Perhaps the future is to have a whole set of different laws which are applicable to different situations: crime + netbook; crime + laptop; crime + multi-processor desktop machine with at leat 1GB video card memory; or even crime + beowulf cluster.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  21. Lobbyist Groups? by GrubLord · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From TFA - this is any group that "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".

    Lobbyist groups are all about controlling the government (via substantial bribes). Does this mean they need to register?

  22. Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...it wouldn't hold up in court anyway. try again.

    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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  23. Re:Republican Party... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More specifically, both the Republican and Democrat parties aim to control the government of the USA, which, according to TFS, means that you must register as a member of a subversive group if you are a member of either in South Carolina. What's to betting that none of the people who voted for this bill have registered? Round them up, fine them, and throw them in prison for 10 years.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  24. You mean you can become a subversive for only $5? by voss · · Score: 2, Funny

    How awesome is that! Lets all go register!

    It used to be you have to have a following buy guns or spend years spewing wacky ideas
    Now you can just fill out a form and pay $5.

  25. Just a wee bit unconstitutional by bit9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like an end-run around the First Amendment. The legislators probably realized that an outright ban on such groups would amount to prior restraint of free speech, so they figured they could achieve essentially the same effect by attempting to regulate your right to free speech, knowing that no sane person (or group) would willingly put themselves under the government's microscope. This is straight out of the playbook of J. Edgar Hoover. I am not a lawyer.

  26. Re:Republican Party... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...is currently planning on overthrowing the existing government of the United States. Have they registered?

    Hahaha. If you bothered to read the statute, there is a useful clarification (emphasis added):

    "(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;"

  27. We aren't going to take this! by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anarchists, unite!

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  28. No Joke by Capsaicin · · 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.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    1. Re:No Joke by Gerzel · · Score: 4, 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?

    2. Re:No Joke by Capsaicin · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    3. Re:No Joke by captjc · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    4. Re:No Joke by potat0man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Changes in government following lawful elections very clearly do not amount to an overthrow of the state.

      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.

    5. Re:No Joke by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Shortly after the US took over Iraq, I went through a background check for some work I was doing for the DHS. One of the questions I was asked was, "Are you, or have you ever been a member of an organization which would consider the use of violence to overthrow government?"

      Given the context of Iraq, I was intrigued by the lack of a definite article. "This" or "our" or even "the" would have been different. But the question seemed so general. But the FBI guy giving me the interview clearly didn't have a sense of humor. So while it took all the self control I could muster, I stifled the urge to say, "Well, I am a citizen of the US..."

      He must have seen me smirk or something, though, because since then I've been on the "turn your head and cough" list every time I try to board a plane. All for a three-day contract.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    6. Re:No Joke by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He must have seen me smirk or something, though, because since then I've been on the "turn your head and cough" list every time I try to board a plane. All for a three-day contract.

      Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. (Yes, I consider DHS a criminal organization. Come get me.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  29. What about Confederates? by srobert · · Score: 3, 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?

  30. Re:You mean you can become a subversive for only $ by eaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's make it $10 and a T.shirt for me please.

  31. Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Informative

    "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 [or] of this State."

    If you advocate the propriety of the people to control their government in a democratic country, you fall under this law. It definitely covers more than planning to take actual action - it also covers advocating, advising or teaching.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  32. Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss by LordLucless · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  33. Was i really the only one who thought "Subversion" by cnkurzke · · Score: 2, Funny

    first thought: who's still using Subversion when we have GIT-Hub??

  34. Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 3, 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.

  35. Re:It does seem funny til you learn how law is use by EdelFactor19 · · Score: 2, 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...

    --
    "Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
    EdelFactor
  36. Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss by tom.zombie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is mostly likely unconstitutional. In Leary v The United States The Marihuana Tax Act (yes that is the "correct" spelling) was found to be in violation of the Fifth Amendment. I wish I could fire the people who come up with this stuff. It's like they don't even both to think. "Dur Hur, Lets make it illegal not to tell us you're a potential criminal." It scares me that we put these people in power.

  37. It's time by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems to me that right about the time a government passes such a ridiculous law it's time for it to be overthrown.

  38. Lets make the act of committing crimes illegal too by Therilith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's just another stupid law among many that they throw at people to make sure something sticks, like making it illegal not to report stolen property when doing your taxes. Why not just increase the maximum penalty of every crime to life in prison then? Because that's where we'll be soon.

  39. 15 Years... by malaprohibita · · Score: 2, Informative

    since I left South Carolina, and I've never looked back. Charleston, while a beautiful city in many ways, was hellish: the overt racism and classism I experienced still disgust me.

  40. I For One ... by Compulawyer · · Score: 2, Funny
    ... welcome our new registration overlords. I feel safer already.

    Why didn't the federal government think of this? We could have already had a beowulf cluster of airport security checkpoint imaging machines matching pre-flight body scans with names from the registration list.

    --

    Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

  41. Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting. So when Jefferson said “Every generation needs a new revolution” and “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive”, he would have easily been facing 10 years and a $25K fine for advising the [duty|necessity] of overthrowing the government

    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.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  42. Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trouble with things like this is, they written broadly and we're assured they only want to fight "terrorists".... and then they go on to use it against political enemies, because verbal assurances that they'll follow intent are only worth the paper they're printed on. In law, the wording is all that matters. If it lets them jail someone for saying "fuck the police! Fuck the legislature! Fuck Congress! You all need to be run out of town!", then sooner or later an angry little pissant cracker DA with an axe to grind against the speaker is going to use it simply because he can.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  43. First and Last solution? by headkase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about something like this (feel free to democratically suggest improvements or point out issues): When a law finally makes it's way through all the courts and the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional how about putting *every single last bastard* who voted for it on trial for treason? The Supreme Court could decide if it was an obvious case which would make it more difficult to get out of, an hysteria case which would allow reparations to more easily flow, or a subtle case which a voter could get out of with a slap on the wrist simply by admitting their stupidity. Seriously, a little bit of responsibility? I know politicians hate that word when applied to *them*, but come on: throwing insult after insult at the wall knowing that a few of them will stick is the antithesis of what I thought the USA was. It you are going to, as a politician, betray the blood spilled by countless of your ancestors for the freedom you enjoy, well, I'd like to see yours spilled in return.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:First and Last solution? by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From what I've read and remember, in ancient Greece, a legislator who sponsored a law which was struck down by the court (??) was fined.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:First and Last solution? by Teancum · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would prefer a constitutional amendment that goes something like this:

      Any law which isn't enforced and has no public record of ever having been enforced for a certain period of time, say 20 years or perhaps less, that the law in question simply is null and void.

      A constitutional provision is one thing, such as procedures for impeachment or something that is rarely invoked for a good reason, but for laws that impact ordinary citizens, a failure to even enforce these laws (such as the anti-sodomy laws and co-habitation/fornication laws) ought to be simply declared obsolete due to lack of enforcement.

      A token enforcement merely to keep the law on the books would not be considered acceptable. A pattern of widespread enforcement of such a law would have to be demonstrated for it to be considered valid under such a provision.

      In this particular case with the terrorist registration law, I have my doubts that such a law would ever be proven to be enforced and its only purpose is to expand and exaggerate sentences in an effort to stifle free speech. Simply asking a state officer to testify in court about how many people actually engaged in registration would be sufficient in this case to show non-enforcement of such a law.

      Too bad that such a provision or legal concept is not typically a part of common law.

    3. Re:First and Last solution? by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Funny

      It sounds like you might need to register with the SC Secretary of State... let me get the form for you...

    4. Re:First and Last solution? by siloko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I read that in Britain they pass on average a law a day

      This is because once you have established the bureaucratic machinery required to debate, amend, pass, enact and enforce laws the people that constitute this administrative mass must do something to justify their wages. This is the same problem we have with the current Health and Safety obsession, the original motivation was good i.e. to reduce the amount of work place injuries, but once the machine was in place it's difficult to remove hence the absurdity now of SOP's and Risk Assessments for using a hole punch.

      This seems to be a common, but understandable problem. Marx predicted the withering away of the Dictatorship by the Proletariat once the evils of capitalism had been redressed, but this never happened - Turkey's don't vote for Christmas. And what's the answer? As always with a radical problem one needs a radical solution: to periodically take back power through whatever means necessary. I'd like to reiterate that Turkey's don't vote for Christmas - if you expect the problem of stupid laws which increase the power and influence of one group (politicians) at the expense of the freedom of another (us) to just go away on it's own then you're whistling in the wind . . .

    5. Re:First and Last solution? by cetialphav · · Score: 2, 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.

    6. Re:First and Last solution? by DaleSwanson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd rather just place a time limit on all laws after which they would need to be renewed or become null and void. The period would range between 2-25 laws based on what majority (which ever house was less) it passed with (say 50-60 = 5, 60-70 = 10, 70-80 = 20, 80+ = 25). All new laws would be 5 year regardless of the majority (to prevent panic laws like Patriot Act from starting with 25 years). All existing laws would start with whatever period they should have based on the scale (exempt from 5 year mandatory first period). A law could only be renewed in the year it was due for renewal (to avoid parties from passing pet laws when they had control).

    7. Re:First and Last solution? by cetialphav · · Score: 2, 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.

    8. Re:First and Last solution? by poena.dare · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Any law which isn't enforced and has no public record of ever having been enforced for a certain period of time, say 20 years or perhaps less, that the law in question simply is null and void."

      Deputy Bubba: You wanted to see me, Sheriff?

      Sheriff Leroy: Yep, Bubba, I just got a call from the state legerslature. It seems our anti-sodomy law is up for renewal.

      Deputy Bubba: 'Bout damn time!

      Sheriff Leroy: You betcha bygolly! We need to get crackin' on this. We only have a month.

      Deputy Bubba: I'll tell the men to be on the lookout for sodomistic behavior.

      Sheriff Leroy: Hop to it son. And tell the undercover sting teams to start greasin' up their backsides.

    9. Re:First and Last solution? by headkase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't intend it to be for criminalizing actions in the day to day. What I'm hoping for is that: bad law passed, many years later Supreme Court affirms that, then accountability is begun for those that made it happen in the first place. Elections are fine and dandy but there is rarely any actual accountability because at worst its sometimes just a different face on the same party lines people vote with anyway..

      --
      Shh.
    10. Re:First and Last solution? by steelfood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or, it could be a great defense.

      "Your honor, I didn't register as a member of a subversive group, therefore the purpose of my group could not have been to overthrow the government of the United States."

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    11. Re:First and Last solution? by robot256 · · Score: 5, Funny

      As always with a radical problem one needs a radical solution: to periodically take back power through whatever means necessary.

      Hey wait a second, did you just advocate rebellion against the government? If you live in South Carolina, you better get your paperwork in order.

    12. Re:First and Last solution? by Protoslo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, the Patriot Act did have a sunset provision, and it was renewed anyway with quite a bit of bipartisan vigor, if not the near-unanimity of the first round. I don't think automatic expiration is quite going to cut it. It seems like it wouldn't hurt...but consider this: if there were a deluge of laws coming up for renewal constantly, it is possible that the legislature would spend even less time reading legislation than it already does. That said, perhaps if the restrictions only applied to certain classes of laws, that disadvantage could be avoided.

    13. Re:First and Last solution? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ok. How often does someone get arrested for cannibalism, or necrophilia? After 20 years it becomes legal?

      I'll worry about that after you've explained why canibalism and necrophilia should be illegal.

      (I'm serious - why should they be illegal?)

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    14. Re:First and Last solution? by saider · · Score: 2

      Who gives consent? Technically, the perpetrator should have to get consent from the estate of the deceased in order for the act to be legal. No consent = illegal.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  44. Can I register from a distance? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I live in Nebraska, but I'd like to register anyway. I have advocated "controlling and conducting" the government by means of encouraging others to vote for the candidates I like and by donating time and money to their campaigns. By South Carolina's standard, I'm a subversive. Would I get a registration form I could hang on my wall next to my college diploma, a share of SCOX stock, and a Church of the SubGenius ordination certificate?

    Actually, I'm kind of serious about that. In a dream world, I'd like to see a few hundred million people register as South Carolina subversives.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Can I register from a distance? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not if it costs them $6 a pop to process.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  45. The feds beat SC to it a long time ago..... by ogdenk · · Score: 3, 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.

  46. Did they just outlaw civics teachers? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 3, 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?

  47. Did the TV stations and parties register already? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, 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?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  48. Political parties by WPIDalamar · · Score: 3, 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.

  49. Shock and Awesome! by WCVanHorne · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now all they need to do is have an insurgent tax, IED levy, and require permits for any terrorist act and our security problems will clear away like second hand smoke.

  50. Re:You mean you can become a subversive for only $ by voss · · Score: 2, Funny

    South Carolina could make decent money selling "Registered Subversive" ID's Tshirts and buttons :)

  51. Secessionism by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess this means secessionist groups must now register in South Carolina.

    What is this world coming to?

  52. George Soros by kenh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any chance George Soros would count as a foreign organization plotting the overthrow of the US Gov't?

    Just a thought...

    Any reason to think this would withstand a constitutional challenge?

    --
    Ken
  53. what the applications really look like by ffflala · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dear South Carolina,

    As requested, we hereby notify you that we are a "Subversive organization" --a corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons. We hope to directly or indirectly advocate, advise, teach or practice the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government the State of South Carolina and any political subdivision thereof by unlawful means.

    Specifically, we wish to advocate doing so by (1) collecting money from business organizations, then (2) using this money to support the campaign efforts of a sufficient number of elected officials to obtain majority influence over the elected branches of the Government of South Carolina. We will solicit and accept donations from corporations subject to foreign control, such as Sonoco Products, SCANA Corporation, Bowater, Inc., and other corporate entities with major investments in both South Carolina and the rest of the world. They do not have to be Fortune 500 companies! We're willing to include profitable corporations of any size, regardless of the national allegiances of their stockholders, board members, or executives.

    We will, by funding the continuation of the careers of elected officials in the State of South Carolina, hope to directly or indirectly influence them to pursue policies favorable to the business interests of our donors, particularly when these interests conflict with the rights provided in the constitutions of the State of Carolina and the United States. As we anticipate that these conflicts will be of a constitutional nature, this should suffice to be unlawful enough to warrant registration under your recent legislation. Hopefully you will find this suitably subversive.

    Included with our registration fee you will find a 15% gratuity. Please consider this a token of our appreciation of your ongoing efforts to make the realization of our goals easier.

    Looking forward to seeing you at the President's Day golf outing. Looks like the weather will keep us in the clubhouse!

    Toodles,

    -The Old Boy Network

  54. Re:Easy way to "democratically" jail and fine diss by Shark · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  55. Not all subversives required to register... by Old+Man+Kensey · · Score: 3, Informative

    As far as I can see, if your interest in overthrowing the government is purely recreational, you're not covered by this law.

    --
    -- Old Man Kensey
  56. What about Thomas Jefferson? by dwiget001 · · Score: 2, 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.

  57. Mod story down by chazzf · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to Eugene Volokh, the law was actually passed in 1951, is something of a dead letter, and they're currently trying to repeal it. Sorry to spoil all the hand-wringing.

    --
    No statement is true, not even this one.
  58. Hello by TRRosen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hello My name is Thomas Jefferson I'm here to register.

  59. Declaration of Independence by realsilly · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

    IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
    hen 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, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  60. United States by hackus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is of course finished.

    We no longer have a representative government. 85% OF congress is always re-elected, which really doesn't matter anyway because corporations put people in the places of power from either party. Your illusion of voting is there to keep the scenery of democracy recognizable so people are kept in line.

    The differences between the two parties are really just to divert attention and amount to very little.

    Some predictions on my part:

    1) More of the US will become like Detroit, Mich. Mainly looking like a bombed out third world country.

    2) Universities. Hey this is a prediction: Universities are next on the chopping block. Over priced, and under powered, American Universities are about to go the way of the do do bird.

    The big "University" crashes will come in the next 5 years as the powers that be (Foreign Banks under direction of the Federal Reserve) finish gutting the financial system of the US. University campuses will probably be converted to low income housing "projects" developments for the poor, who are growing by leaps and bounds.

    10 Years from now the wealthy will be sending their kids to China to learn Chinese, and to do research or get a job there. The rest of you poor bastards will end up working in a government job, or out on the streets in the projects where massive unrest will be common.

    The fastest growing job is going to be in the "goon" squads the government hires to keep all of the mass unrest from getting out of control.
    (Luckily since the demise of the University system, you don't need a degree to be a goon, just naivety and loyalty to the government.)

    So being a government goon wielding a baton is going to be a BIG growth industry.

    3) The US Dollar. Wow, what a huge crash that one is going to be. In the next 5-10 years the US dollar will no longer be a reserve currency. The powers that be won't let it crash all at once of course, they will most likely do a controlled demolition. (Mainly to protect their own assets in the USA.)

    They already have started the process using deflation so that those on the top have time to sell their US securities at a decent price before the next phase hits. That will probably come this summer with a huge financial crisis with the banks _again_.

    Not sure what excuse they will use this time, last time it was because _the little people where to blame for borrowing money_. My guess is it will be something to do with commercial real estate.

    Doesn't matter really, because all of you poor bastards are going to pay, and YOU WILL PAY whatever the Fed decides it wants for its cronies.

    Each and every American owes 80,000 dollars. You WILL pay this debt off or your grand kids will...but it WILL be paid.

    The end result will be lots of poor and impoverished people with big rolls of money in their pockets looking into super market windows lusting at all of the food on the shelves, but too poor to buy anything except maybe butter and a little bit of flour.
    (They won't be breaking those windows because the goons will be out in force on most street corners and businesses.)

    4) Bombs. Wow this will be a cottage industry. 10 Years from now I see bombs going off all over the place. Washington DC will be transformed into a fortress with most of the government buildings moved or removed from the public eyes so they can't be hit by "terrorists" (i.e. People who are wondering why they have been robbed by the banks and have decided the political system doesn't work anymore and resort to violence to change it by assassinations on corporate and government leaders.)

    I mean already all 10 heads of the Federal Reserve have private high tech militarys guarding their homes and families. All of them live in closed gated and heavily defended communities.

    I wonder what they are afraid of? They couldn't possibly doing something illegal or criminal and are afraid of retribution could they?

    5) Finally, a terrorist attack. Its going to happen. Not sure

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  61. Capone by Well-Fed+Troll · · Score: 2, Funny

    They arrested Capone for tax evasion. Woulda taken them longer to find something to stick him with if he'd filled in that "illegal income" line on his tax return.