Last week an editorial appeared in the Balitmore Sun titled "Here come the thought police," which outlines the many reasons some privacy and civil liberties groups oppose Representative Jane Harman's (D-CA) Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (HR1995). At first glance, the bill overwhelmingly approved by the House in October appears safe, but many fear that it could lead to the criminalization of beliefs, racial or religious profiling, and unconstitutional restrictions on speech. The bill would create a national commission to examine the causes of violent radicalization, domestic terrorism and ideologically based violence in the U.S., and to make legislative recommendations. The editorial states: Any social or economic reform is fair game. Have a march of 100 or 100,000 people to demand a reform - amnesty for illegal immigrants or overturning Roe v. Wade - and someone can perceive that to be a use of force to intimidate the people, courts or government. The bill defines "violent radicalization" as promoting an "extremist belief system." But American governments, state and national, have a long history of interpreting radical "belief systems" as inevitably leading to violence to facilitate change. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has come out in opposition, out of concern that the bill could end up stifling dissent. Many consider the bill's language to be too broad and could even lead to censoring the Internet. The ACLU issued a press release stating; "As an organization dedicated to the principles of freedom of speech, we cannot in good conscience support this or any measure that might lead to censorship and persecution based solely on one's personal beliefs." In response, Harman sent a letter to the director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative office. Meanwhile, Susan Collins (R-ME), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking has a introduced companion measure to the House bill.