Technically, it is illegal to protest inside of Trump rallies

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Specially if the fire hydrants got alligators tied to them...

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Yes it's recently illegal and it shouldn't be. The right wing is calling for safe spaces and condoning the criminalization of protest. Security above freedom amirite guys?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

As a guy who voted Bernie during the CO caucus, I agree. These idiots need to be thrown in jail for disrupting Trump rally's. Let the man, and his people have their say.

a reply to: Gothmog

You think when Trump supporters storm a Sanders rally, and they will their master asks them to, they won't be disruptive?

They should just let the Trump rallies go ahead - the Daily Show (yes, I know) had footage of him rambling and being really boring until he hit his "punch lines" (pun intended) regarding immigration, P.C., etc. Then they awoke from their stupor to cheer.

I think that the protestors are making things more exciting and Trump is capitalizing on that. They should try ignoring him and then what would he do? It's part of his shtick now to throw people out! He'd have to hire them to interrupt!



AB

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Yes it's recently illegal and it shouldn't be. The right wing is calling for safe spaces and condoning the criminalization of protest. Security above freedom amirite guys?

Which President signed it into law?

a reply to: Swills
Maybe , maybe not. Do I detect a hint of extreme Trump dislike ?

a reply to: butcherguy

You're not getting me with Obama, I don't support much of what he's done, including this... I wrote about it here at the time even.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: butcherguy

You're not getting me with Obama, I don't support much of what he's done, including this... I wrote about it here at the time even.

He is the leader of your party is he not? A great lesson must be learned, you must treat people the way you want to be treated. That is what is so funny about this law. He probably signed it thinking it was a way to stifle dissent against him, now his own party will get bit by the same teeth.

If I go to a broadway play to protest is it a crime? I am asking a hypothetical in order for rallies to setup similar to plays.

It looks like rallies are going to become semi-private events so people can be thrown out.

IT is legal to currently protest in public and I think it should remain that way, but when this right is abused and distorted expect laws to change due to popular emotional sentiment.

It may be legal to open carry in some states, but we don't have gangs walking around in the burbs with AR's and AK's strapped to them. Laws could change due to popular emotional sentiment if pseudo militias were walking around.

The laws are supposed to work with the social norms of average or higher iq individuals...common sense.

brownshirting multiple events is going to have terrible consquences for society as whole. popular opinion will allow laws to be changed for the worse.

a reply to: Swills

Then it's also illegal to protest Sanders and Clinton at their rally's. Someone better tell Trump!

Trump is only going to get more bad press again if his supporters disrupt a Sanders or Clinton rally. He says his rhetoric isn't causing his supporters to be violent, yet now he clearly tells his supporters they should disrupt Sander's and Clinton's rally! The media didn't get Sander's on camera telling his supporters at his rallies to disrupt Trump's rallies.

If Trump supporters do disrupt and become violent at a Sander's or Clinton's rallies, it will be interesting to see if Trump blatantly lies that he didn't suggest his supports to do it. Stay tuned as the reality show continues...

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It's not a "clash of First Amendment rights" at all. The First Amendment protects us from the government not one another. What's more shocking is that while several of you are high fiving because you think that it might be used against protesters at Trump rallies, you're completely ignoring what it's meant to protect and how it's actually a threat to our First Amendment rights to Free Speech.

Read the text

a)Whoever—
(1)knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
(2)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;
(3)knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
(4)knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(c)In this section—
(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.

Put simply, this law can be used to quash all dissension anywhere the President, Vice President or any number of people protected by the Secret Service may be. This law isn't meant to protect political rallies from disruption by protesters, it's meant to stop the American people from visibly protesting their government.

Wtf.

We already have disorderly persons laws throughout the country. We have trespassing laws throughout the country. We have laws against assault and inciting violence, inciting riots, etc. There's no need for a law that makes it illegal to protest "Government business or official functions." Anyone who thinks a law like this is a good idea deserves to be corralled into a "Free Speech Zone."

Actually I take that back, the very idea of "Free Speech Zones" is wholly illiberal and contrary to what we allege to believe in and it makes me nauseous to know that people can be herded out of the sight of the cameras, out of the sight of foreign visitors — effectively out of the sight of the world — when they are protesting their government.

I cannot wish on people I disagree with anything I wouldn't be willing to accept myself and that's why I could never support such a law. It truly saddens me to see people so eager to accept real, in your face authoritarianism.

a reply to: BIGPoJo

He is the leader of your party is he not? A great lesson must be learned, you must treat people the way you want to be treated. That is what is so funny about this law. He probably signed it thinking it was a way to stifle dissent against him, now his own party will get bit by the same teeth.

How foolish. The law was sponsored by a Republican and passed a Republican controlled Congress. The yeas in the House were R - 224 and D - 164. The Senate passed it by unanimous consent without a vote even being recorded so nobody can ever be held to task by their constituency.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 is an affront to liberty. The fact that you find some perverse pleasure in believing that it might be used against your political foes only shows that you will happily embrace authoritarianism when you falsely believe that it will only impact others.

Mr Obama is the winner of the Nobel peace prize, and leader of the free world, We should ask his opinion and go with that......







OK just kidding

a reply to: theantediluvian

Actually I don't agree with the entirety of the law, my point is simple, the secret service have a job to do, and idiots that rush the stage when the person they are protecting crosses the line, so yes those people should have the law used on them.

Why I disagree with part of the law is something that happened during the 2008 RNC, there was a lone protester way up in the upper decks holding a sign against the Establishment. He was no threat to the actual security of the candidate. This thing in Chicago is whole different deal, they were planning to rush the stage in a mass, they even said so online, it was their plan. This is a legitimate problem for the secret service, protest all you want but understand where the line is.
Cross it and be prepared to go to jail.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I fully agree that anyone rushing the stage should be prepared to go to jail and that disruptive people should be removed at the discretion of candidates, their security and authorities. There's no place for attacking anyone at a rally, let alone candidates.

We already have plenty of laws on the books to deal with these people though. The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 should piss all of us off equally, regardless of who we support for President.

The idea that a guy shouting "Trump's a loser" at a Trump rally or a soldier flipping out on Bill Clinton at a Clinton rally should face up to a year in jail for disruption is ridiculous. As long as the people are nonviolent and comply when asked to leave, it's an annoyance we should accept in the name of liberty.

If the action is organized and violence takes place, it's clearly a form of civil disorder and should be prosecuted under laws covering civil disorder and inciting civil disorder. What's less clear is how to handle what amounts to an organized human denial of service attack on a campaign rally. That is, an organized direct action that is intended to deny attendance to a rally for candidate's supporters by such means as obtaining a large number of the available tickets. My gut tells me that denying supporters access to rallies is a greater harm than that posed by denying detractors access and so I might support some sort of law specifically addressing those kinds of organized actions designed to block access to candidates. This law however is definitely not it.

a reply to: BIGPoJo

I'm registered Independent, so no.

a reply to: Kali74

Kali you know you want to MAGA

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

A rally is not government business or an official function.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I dont know how you guys do it
in good ol' US of A...but back here in my almost 3rd world country...you have to register for a protest...and a location for it. The police then secures the protestors and a location, and supervises that there arent any problems.

You just cant go anywhere and protest...peacfuly or not. A protest has to be registered and announced in advance.

I must admit...this sounds rather reasonable...even to me.


I know you guys in America enjoy much greater freedoms, carry guns and such...so maybe it's just an extension of your freedoms...do whatever, whenever you please.