H.R. 347: Protesting to be made illegal in the presence of politicians!?

Hey guys, I did a search and nothing came up for h.r. 347 or protest being made illegal; regardless, if this is a repost please remove it.

This bill was just passed the house 388-3 late Monday:

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Link
Link 2

Is this not a direct infringement of the first amendment?

Does the constitution hold any bearing within our current government?
Apparently not considering congress incessantly tramples all over it.

If this passes the Senate, which it probably will, we could be absolutely robbed of our right to protest! We should be protesting this bill right now and reminding our imbecilic incumbents that it is in direct violation of our rights!



Oh, and of course:

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware.

This pisses me off so much

Can we please replace all of congress with cats? At least cats won't take away what little liberties we have left.

Time to mobilize EVERYONE to call the senators so it doesn't pass the senate.

Those bastards passed this when nobody was looking yet again...

MOBILIZE EVERYONE... ANONYMOUS...Twitter, Facebook, all forums you know, everyone you know...

This MUST NOT PASS.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

It's not saying you can't stand outside holding a sign peaceably. It seems to be geared towards people that would block entrances and exits, or actively disrupt (walk in chanting) govt. business. Seems reasonable to me.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware.

KNOWINGLY. This is engineered to rile up individuals that lack reading comprehension, most likely to gain a few hits to the websites.

HR 347:

Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

reply to post by Domo1

It seems to be geared towards people that would block entrances and exits, or actively disrupt (walk in chanting) govt. business.

Basically : look pretty with your sign and stay quiet otherwise the cops will send you to jail.

Seems like a good law to me... if you're a tyrant.

reply to post by Vitchilo


M'kay. Let's say I want to go to work. I work at McDonalds. PETA is protesting, and blocking me from going to work. Is that protected under the 1st? Nothing in that bill sounds unreasonable. I was mad as hell when I read the thread, but then I clicked the link and actually read the thing. It's actually fairly innocuous.

The McDonalds bit was hypothetical smarty pantses.

"a special event" can be construed to mean just about anything, anywhere, anytime.

No clause pertaining to hanging public officials for high treason then?
Oh well.


Incidentally, what is the penalty for that? Does it vary by state?

reply to post by Domo1

Let's say I want to go to work. I work at McDonalds. PETA is protesting, and blocking me from going to work.

Yeah they can't do that since you're not a politician.

So no.

This bill is yet another bill from politicians to protect themselves from the people.

I think it's aimed at the coming G20 meeting along with the political conventions so people aren't allowed to protest there and if they do, they'll go to jail.

And is it me or IT ALREADY PASSED both the house and senate?

Anyway all that doesn't matter. When people are pissed enough, no law is gonna stop them from getting payback.

How about a bill that makes it illegal for police to stop the progress of people trying to enter a bank? Or leaving?

reply to post by Domo1


If this bill is so "innocuous" and harmless, why is it necessary?

Sorry, but to me, this is a bill which is trying to put more space between those lying, thieving politicians and the electorate which they supposedly serve. There would be no reason for such a law and an infringement on the right to peaceably assemble unless those sniveling dirtbags are afraid of getting their just desserts.

First, it was removing protesters far away from political conventions and G20 summits into a caged-in "free speech zone"....now they're just making it impossible to get anywhere near these creeps. "Restricted" government = Tyranny in secret.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Well I do disagree with it only being geared towards politicians, but to me the bill seems like a mildly ramped up version of trespassing laws. I'm no lawyer, but am generally fairly good with legal speak and all I got from this bill was people that are going into meetings and being disruptive, blocking entrances and exits, or attempting/committing violent acts against politicians will be prosecuted a little harder than say a pain in the ass vegan hassling a Deli owner.

I think what the article is trying to get us mad about is the idea that standing outside a building with a politician protected by the secret service holding a sign is grounds for Guantanamo. I don't think that is the case at all.

reply to post by Domo1


I agree with you, it does seem reasonable, but it also leaves potential for abuse. It is giving more power to the government, which is already drunk off of its own power. If we had a reasonable/trustworthy governing system I wouldn't be too concerned with this bill either, but it just seems like this is one of those things which gets passed under the guise of being beneficial, then gets used in ways which are damaging to the public.

From a utilitarian perspective, this bill makes little sense. From an egalitarian perspective, it again makes little sense.

If something is not broken, why fix it?

Are they anticipating that protests are going to get really disturbing soon? Perhaps because there are war plans on the table and they realize that a massive number of people will not consent to them? It is also possible that this bill is on the table to prevent the Occupy movement, which is planning a comeback this spring, from gaining ground. I don't support Occupy, but I do support their right to protest what they see unjust.

reply to post by FissionSurplus

If this bill is so "innocuous" and harmless, why is it necessary?

Well when we have 'peaceful' protesters throwing pies and glitter at politicians, I guess they feel the need to protect themselves. Also, if what was legal for protesters to stand in and shout and scream/block exits nothing would ever get done in govt. (arguably a good thing ). We pay them, we vote them in and if we let anyone with a beef keep them from working nothing happens. For good or bad.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Anyway all that doesn't matter. When people are pissed enough, no law is gonna stop them from getting payback.

I think an LRAD will do a fine job preventing them from getting payback. I don't know if a revolution is even possible in America at this point. The people pulling the strings really have everything figured out.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

I agree with you, it does seem reasonable, but it also leaves potential for abuse.

I agree, there is potential for abuse. Just not in the 'OMG no more 1st amendment' sense the sources are shoving down our throats for page views. I worry that the majority here don't realize it's peaceable assembly too. Blocking govt. officials ingress and egress goes beyond that. You can still stand outside with a sign. I don't think there was ever a time when it was legal to knowingly trespass, and then not leave once informed. The politicians under SS protection portion doesn't even really give it more teeth.

Also, OP this was a very good find and I find it interesting. Please don't take my approach to the topic as an insult, I just think that we should take a minute to discuss.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

I think an LRAD will do a fine job preventing them from getting payback.

I didn't know LRAD stopped bullets.

They should put it in their ads.

H.R. 347 Redress of Grievances Suspended in Proximity to Politicians

ATS please realize that this statement is false. Nowhere in that bill does it state protests in the presence or near proximity to politicians are going to be illegal. It simply says that if you are knowingly trespassing in a restricted area, blocking the entrances or exits, or getting violent you will get in trouble and that if you KNOWINGLY do it with a person protected by SS you can get in more trouble. Now I agree that's not fair, everyone deserves EQUAL protection under the law, but this is not a bill to strip away your right to protest.

"2..a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting,"

This one could be misused.....Scenario...

Occupy protesters,legally protesting something, somewhere.
TPTB 1-"we cant have that"
TPTB 2 "yeah I agree, lets get a couple of SS guys to visit the area accompanied by some random person."
Result ..Occupy Protesters now illegally gathered..

Im probably over reacting,and it most likely will be used for summits etc..... but if I was some kind of psychopathic political control freak thats what I would do..
Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.

This law can be abused to any degree TPTB wish. Where theres a will theres a way..

reply to post by Vitchilo

I didn't know LRAD stopped bullets. They should put it in their ads.

You didn't know bullets were terrified of that sound? Every time I start indiscriminately firing guns at my neighbors LRAD they always come running home with tails tucked betwixt their legs.