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.'"
slashdot requires all first posters to register.
No one thought to do this pre 9/11.
I am not left-handed, either!
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.
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
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.
...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;"
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
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."
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.
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.
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).
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.