Free Speech = A Felony ?

[myrobbins7]

Obama Makes Free Speech A Felony - YouTube!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment I
Bill of Rights
United States Constitution
Adopted August 21, 1789

HR347:
Whoever attempts or conspires to knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

The punishment for a violation is—

(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 10 years, or both, if—

Both parties supported this btw. *sigh*

 

[slh1089]

You didn't type this near a restricted building did you?

 

[myrobbins7]

You didn't type this near a restricted building did you?

 

[volinbham]

Looks like OWS could be in deep doodoo.

Correction - we are all in deep doodoo (please don't arrest me)

 

[lawgator1]

Do a little research.

Oh, and quote it accurately and fully.

You just might learn something.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Do a little research.

Oh, and quote it accurately and fully.

You just might learn something.

yeah @c

 

[BigPapaVol]

Do a little research.

Oh, and quote it accurately and fully.

You just might learn something.

Not sure if hypocritical.

 

[myrobbins7]

Do a little research.

Oh, and quote it accurately and fully.

You just might learn something.

The research has been done but you refuse to see it, but before long you will have no choice but to see it and then it will be to late, sadly.

 

[utvolpj]

pretty sad the ruling class is allowed to pass things like this. Of course this is really a minor change to something that's been around for a long time.

I did get a laugh from the bill's name though

Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011

 

[Gramps]

HR347:
Whoever attempts or conspires to knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

This has to be unconstitutional.

If I am understanding this correctly, town hall meetings will be considered Government business or official function.

This will ensure all the coward politicians will have only those that agree with their opinions at town halls or campaign stops.

Is this law enacted due to the disruptions at the town hall meeting during the 2010 elections?

This is a terrible bill. IMO this is communism.

 

[therealUT]

This has to be unconstitutional.

If I am understanding this correctly, town hall meetings will be considered Government business or official function.

This will ensure all the coward politicians will have only those that agree with their opinions at town halls or campaign stops.

Is this law enacted due to the disruptions at the town hall meeting during the 2010 elections?

This is a terrible bill. IMO this is tyranny.

fyp

 

[YorkVol]

This has to be unconstitutional.

If I am understanding this correctly, town hall meetings will be considered Government business or official function.

This will ensure all the coward politicians will have only those that agree with their opinions at town halls or campaign stops.

Is this law enacted due to the disruptions at the town hall meeting during the 2010 elections?

This is a terrible bill. IMO this is communism.

Agree it is a terrible bill, but not sure if it would disrupt local government as it seems focused on the federal level.

Which, of course, means you can't complain at your local IRS Office, Social Security Office, Passport Agency or Immigration Office. And no protesting at a military base...not sure if a peaceful protest in a National Park would be prosecuted, but I guess if you blocked the passage of a US Forest Service vehicle that might be felonious disruption of government services.

 

[lawgator1]

This has to be unconstitutional.

If I am understanding this correctly, town hall meetings will be considered Government business or official function.

This will ensure all the coward politicians will have only those that agree with their opinions at town halls or campaign stops.

Is this law enacted due to the disruptions at the town hall meeting during the 2010 elections?

This is a terrible bill. IMO this is communism.

Agree it is a terrible bill, but not sure if it would disrupt local government as it seems focused on the federal level.

Which, of course, means you can't complain at your local IRS Office, Social Security Office, Passport Agency or Immigration Office. And no protesting at a military base...not sure if a peaceful protest in a National Park would be prosecuted, but I guess if you blocked the passage of a US Forest Service vehicle that might be felonious disruption of government services.

I repeat, look at the actual bill or some source explaining it, fully. As is, you are both WAY off the mark on what this does.

 

[therealUT]

I repeat, look at the actual bill or some source explaining it, fully. As is, you are both WAY off the mark on what this does.

Is this what you are referring to:

H. R. 347—2
‘‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any
posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
‘‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice
President’s official residence or its grounds;
‘‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or
other person protected by the Secret Service is or will
be temporarily visiting; or
‘‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction
with an event designated as a special event of national
significance; and
‘‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’
means any person whom the United States Secret Service is
authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by
Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined
such protection.’’.

And, H.R. 347 amends Section 1752, of Title 18 which follows 1751:

(a) Whoever kills
(1) any individual who is the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President, or, if there is no Vice President, the officer next in the order of succession to the Office of the President of the United States, the Vice President-elect, or any person who is acting as President under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or
(2) any person appointed under section 105 (a)(2)(A) of title 3 employed in the Executive Office of the President or appointed under section 106 (a)(1)(A) of title 3 employed in the Office of the Vice President, shall be punished as provided by sections 1111 and 1112 of this title.
(b) Whoever kidnaps any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section shall be punished
(1) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or
(2) by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if death results to such individual.
(c) Whoever attempts to kill or kidnap any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
(d) If two or more persons conspire to kill or kidnap any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished
(1) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or
(2) by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if death results to such individual.
(e) Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(1) shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(2) shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(f) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.
(g) The Attorney General of the United States, in his discretion is authorized to pay an amount not to exceed $100,000 for information and services concerning a violation of subsection (a)(1). Any officer or employee of the United States or of any State or local government who furnishes information or renders service in the performance of his official duties shall not be eligible for payment under this subsection.
(h) If Federal investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction is asserted for a violation of this section, such assertion shall suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a State or local authority, under any applicable State or local law, until Federal action is terminated.
(i) Violations of this section shall be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistance may be requested from any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.
(j) In a prosecution for an offense under this section the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the victim of the offense was an official protected by this section.
(k) There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section.

 

[lawgator1]

What I mean is that it just rewrites existing law and specifies that we are talking about areas designated by the Secret Service as part of their area of protection of the POTUS, the VP, and candidates. Its narrow, very narrow, and enables them to keep people from crowding areas where they are bringing or housing protectees.

The part quoted by OP leaves all that out. And subsequent posts by others make it seem like the law would ban getting close to government buildings, just generally. That is not true, its a Secret Service thing, only.

 

[lawgator1]

Here is an article at the ACLU website that explains it better than I can. It really is no big deal.

Ready to Occupy? What You Need to Know about H.R. 347, the "Criminalizing Protest" Law

 

[therealUT]

What I mean is that it just rewrites existing law and specifies that we are talking about areas designated by the Secret Service as part of their area of protection of the POTUS, the VP, and candidates. Its narrow, very narrow, and enables them to keep people from crowding areas where they are bringing or housing protectees.

The part quoted by OP leaves all that out. And subsequent posts by others make it seem like the law would ban getting close to government buildings, just generally. That is not true, its a Secret Service thing, only.

Regarding these laws, I have to think that protesting and disrupting the State of the Union Address would fall under them; do you think disrupting the State of the Union Address should be punished with ten years of imprisonment?

Further, from the article you referenced, you do not find the following troublesome:

• You cannot "knowingly" engage in "disorderly or disruptive" conduct in or near a restricted zone. A prosecutor would have to show, however, that you intended to disrupt government business and that your conduct actually did cause a disruption. Troublingly, the term "disorderly or disruptive conduct" is undefined.

 

[volinbham]

Here is an article at the ACLU website that explains it better than I can. It really is no big deal.

Ready to Occupy? What You Need to Know about H.R. 347, the "Criminalizing Protest" Law

I don't see how this helps your case. If someone disrupts a Romney campaign event they could be guilty under this law. They just have to have knowingly disrupted it.

 

[utvolpj]

some other quotes from the ACLU website

The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.

H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU.

 

[lawgator1]

Regarding these laws, I have to think that protesting and disrupting the State of the Union Address would fall under them; do you think disrupting the State of the Union Address should be punished with ten years of imprisonment?

Further, from the article you referenced, you do not find the following troublesome:

I don't see how this helps your case. If someone disrupts a Romney campaign event they could be guilty under this law. They just have to have knowingly disrupted it.

some other quotes from the ACLU website

The ACLU says it is going to monitor the application of this. They say that so far there appears to be no misuse of it, no overreaching to get to political speech.

Government is permitted to make reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. One cannot, for example, in the name of free speech stand behind the podium as POTUS gives a State of the Union speech and waive signs around. It is a security concern.

Similarly, you can go to the Republican National Convention if you want and protest, but they are allowed to regulate where you do it. It has to be reasonable, i.e. they can't designate a 6 inch square for you to all stand and waive your signs 20 miles away from the convention.

On the other hand, I think you are making too big a deal of this if you think it really changes anything from the status quo.

The lingo about undefined terms is a problem in any such statute. If some group wants to challenge it, fine, but I really don't think it is all that outrageous to allow the Secret Service some type of buffer zone around protectees.

 

[therealUT]

The ACLU says it is going to monitor the application of this. They say that so far there appears to be no misuse of it, no overreaching to get to political speech.

Government is permitted to make reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. One cannot, for example, in the name of free speech stand behind the podium as POTUS gives a State of the Union speech and waive signs around. It is a security concern.

Similarly, you can go to the Republican National Convention if you want and protest, but they are allowed to regulate where you do it. It has to be reasonable, i.e. they can't designate a 6 inch square for you to all stand and waive your signs 20 miles away from the convention.

On the other hand, I think you are making too big a deal of this if you think it really changes anything from the status quo.

The lingo about undefined terms is a problem in any such statute. If some group wants to challenge it, fine, but I really don't think it is all that outrageous to allow the Secret Service some type of buffer zone around protectees.

I might be able to swallow the restriction of free-speech in designated restricted areas; however, the fact that this bill states that it is limited near restricted areas should be a cause of concern.

 

[Gramps]

The ACLU says it is going to monitor the application of this. They say that so far there appears to be no misuse of it, no overreaching to get to political speech.

Government is permitted to make reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. One cannot, for example, in the name of free speech stand behind the podium as POTUS gives a State of the Union speech and waive signs around. It is a security concern.

Similarly, you can go to the Republican National Convention if you want and protest, but they are allowed to regulate where you do it. It has to be reasonable, i.e. they can't designate a 6 inch square for you to all stand and waive your signs 20 miles away from the convention.On the other hand, I think you are making too big a deal

of this if you think it really changes anything from the status quo.

The lingo about undefined terms is a problem in any such statute. If some group wants to challenge it, fine, but I really don't think it is all that outrageous to allow the Secret Service some type of buffer zone around protectees.

IIRC during the Bush 2 presidency protesters were kept x feet away from any event and the route his motorcade was taking.

Obama my be doing the same thing. I just remeber our non bias media reporting this while Bush 2 was in office.

 

[lawgator1]

IIRC during the Bush 2 presidency protesters were kept x feet away from any event and the route his motorcade was taking.

Obama my be doing the same thing. I just remeber our non bias media reporting this while Bush 2 was in office.

This isn't Obama doing anything. It is a statute that the Secret Service wanted passed so that they had some authority to do what they were already doing at certain buildings when protectees were there.

It really is much ado about nothing. And if it ever developed into something, then the ACLU would jump all over it.

 

[therealUT]

This isn't Obama doing anything. It is a statute that the Secret Service wanted passed so that they had some authority to do what they were already doing at certain buildings when protectees were there.

It really is much ado about nothing. And if it ever developed into something, then the ACLU would jump all over it.

If it develops into something, i.e. if individuals are imprisoned for protesting near restricted areas, it may be too late for the ACLU to do anything.

 

[volinbham]

If it develops into something, i.e. if individuals are imprisoned for protesting near restricted areas, it may be too late for the ACLU to do anything.

That's the point.

I also don't see why it's a felony to disrupt - so if Obama was having a "town hall" meeting and one of the attendees behaved like we saw all over the country at town hall meetings (forcefully arguing a point and shouting) that's a felony? According to the law it could be charged as such if the party knew he was disrupting the proceedings.

Escorting them out and possibly a small (ticket) fine would be appropriate.