Sorry for the goof in the headline, now corrected. Take note: Alexander Cohen, attorney and profoundly steeped in Objectivism took me to task. He points out that the language of the bill itself, in contrast with the preface and the statements accompanying its introduction, limits the crime to violence and does not mention "white suprematism." This certainly is important. To stand up to legal challenges, the bill had to exclude any reference to ideas or ideology. The preface and statements introducing it and the whole legislative "history" are focused on the highly elastic term "white suprematism." But we can hope that the wording of the legislation, if its becomes law, will rule in court. With thanks to Alexander Cohen. As for the comments, here, I thank you!

Shame on you. I started copying articles and now I am going to be reading this material for a month. One thing led to another and I couldn't stop. Found your article and another on the same subject. Good thing I like to read.

Is a "climate denier" also considered a terrorist?
Is an anti-vaxxer also considered a terrorist?
Is a home-schooler also considered a terrorist?
Is a person who pays with cash also considered a terrorist?
Is a prepper also considered a terrorist?
Is a gun owner also considered a terrorist?
Is someone with 2 passports also considered a terrorist?
Is someone who uses a VPN online also considered a terrorist?

Most of my comments here in the Gulch would probably be deemed terrorism under the proposal.
I wonder if they have thought about the unintended consequences.
If someone is already considered guilty, why not act instead of talk?

And in the blink of an eye (figuratively of course) the thought police are out in full force. Who would have thunk it would happen during our lifetime.