By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A new bill introduced in the House of Representatives raises concerns among free speech advocates who fear it could empower the Secretary of State to revoke U.S. passports based on political speech. The bill grants the Secretary of State the authority to deny passports to individuals merely charged with or suspected of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Critics argue that the bill would allow the Secretary of State to bypass legal processes and unilaterally strip passports, potentially targeting individuals for their views. The bill’s language mirrors a previous attempt to limit nonprofit status based on similar grounds, raising alarms about thought policing and the potential for subjective interpretations to restrict fundamental rights.
Read the original article here
New ‘Thought Policing’ Bill May Let Rubio Strip Passports from US Citizens Over Political Speech
The core concern here revolves around a potential new bill that could allow Senator Marco Rubio to revoke the passports of U.S. citizens based on their political speech and beliefs. The fear is that this could be a chilling effect on free speech, effectively creating a “thought police” where individuals are punished for their thoughts and opinions.
The implications of such a bill are far-reaching. It suggests a dangerous expansion of government power, allowing officials to label individuals as “terrorist supporters” based on their words alone. The idea that the government could strip someone of their right to travel – a fundamental right – because of their political views raises serious constitutional questions and echoes dystopian narratives.
The structure of the bill itself seems particularly problematic. The fact that any appeal process is likely to be controlled by the very official who made the initial decision, raises red flags about fairness and due process. This lack of impartial oversight could make the system vulnerable to abuse and political targeting. The concern is that there’s no concrete standard for determining who could lose their passport.
This proposed legislation is viewed by many as an extension of the Patriot Act and could be a stepping stone towards a future where civil liberties are increasingly curtailed. It highlights a broader trend of eroding rights.
The potential for this legislation to be used for political retribution is a serious concern. If the government can punish people for their thoughts or speech, it opens the door to silencing dissent and suppressing political opposition. This would create a climate of fear, where individuals are afraid to speak out against the government, for fear of losing their rights.
The reactions to this potential bill also highlight the deep political divisions within the country. Some see it as a clear violation of constitutional rights, while others may view it as a necessary measure for national security, depending on their political affiliations.
The criticism of the bill isn’t just about the individual right to travel. It’s also about the fundamental principles of freedom of speech and due process. If this bill is passed, it would undermine the First Amendment, the very foundation of a free society.
There is a sense of deja vu with the bill, invoking comparisons to dystopian films like “Minority Report,” where individuals were punished for potential future crimes. This comparison underscores the fear that the proposed bill could lead to a society where people are penalized for their thoughts, regardless of any actions taken.
The discussion surrounding the bill also touches on the political climate. It references the hypocrisy of those who claim to be champions of free speech while simultaneously supporting measures that would limit it.
Many are questioning whether the Supreme Court would uphold such a law, given the current composition of the court. The concerns raised suggest a widespread lack of trust in the ability of the government to respect and uphold constitutional rights.
The call for the release of the Epstein files is a recurring theme and serves as a backdrop to the discussion of the bill. The repeated invocation of these files suggests a deep distrust of the political establishment and a belief that powerful individuals are shielded from accountability.
The proposed bill is seen by some as part of a broader effort to consolidate power and control. It’s argued that by eroding civil liberties and suppressing dissent, the government can strengthen its own position and limit the ability of citizens to challenge its authority.