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

Originally posted by Blaine91555
This is about people who trespass illegally. This has nothing to do with true protest. This will only affect people who are engaging in criminal activity pretending it's protest. The basis of this thread is not true.

Indeed...I even asked those who are up in arms about this to show me where it is about making protesting illegal. Of course those are ignored and only responses to the sensationalism are taken.

Originally posted by gadaffy
its time to clean house... seriously a breach of their oaths of office..

What about this bill is a breach of their oaths? Can you cite specific examples?

Looks to include any and all offensive protesting accross the country. Including WWW.

I can't believe no one has caught this:

The difference between the original code and the new amended code is the deletion of two very important subsections:

(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.
(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

The new version now allows any of this to take place in direct violation of both Federal and State laws prohibiting the restriction of freedom of protest or any number of other things. It now can be argued to supersede any other US or State law in its application, as this clause was specifically eliminated.

Furthermore, and scarier, it now deletes the requirement that the offender be prosecuted by the AG in a jurisdictional Federal court instead of being tried by the military under NDAA laws in the jurisdiction of whereeverthehelltheywant, including Gitmo.

And no, I've read zero media on this other than the bill itself, and this thread. I'm thinking quite for myself.

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

The language about "special events" bothered me too. This law seems to apply to Federal Buildings and the DC "gangsters", but what if this was used as a model by states as well? If states were to adopt similiar laws, no protesting allowed in close proximity to Governers, Mayors, State and City owned property?

I would say to those that don't see this as "any big deal", maybe it's worth giving more consideration to the implications of this when it comes to "free speech" and "the right to peacefully asemble in protest" Sure seems to me that this bill being pushed through implies a "percieved threat" on the part of OUR government from the People, why is that?

I'm also noticing alot of new "propaganda" aimed against the OWS movement which is planning to come back stronger in spring with more funds and better organization. These folks are worried and they are abusing thier power to pass laws to "cover thier lawless butts" The irony that the law is being used to "protect" those who broke the law is obscene......

What are you talking about? Obviously this law is designed to keep protesters AWAY from in any direct proximity or interaction to OUR government officials, people are being "forbidden" and threated with jail and violence if they DARE confront them in Public, how can you not see that?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


It's the language that is questionable and to be frank about it, it needs to be re-written more specifically. As it is written right now, they can disrupt any protest on the grounds that a "person of interest" is nearby.

How will anyone ever know that someone is nearby and under the protection of the Secret service? It's a sham...it's a way Congress can have anyone or any group removed from their line of sight if they don't like what people are saying or the signs they are carrying.

If you quit jumping to the conclusion that our government never writes Bills with the intent of undermining the citizen or the Constitution, you'll see the negative aspects of this and how it can be mis-used.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy

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

edit on 28-2-2012 by DestroyDestroyDestroy because: (no reason given)

Let's replace them with Nashville Cats. Everyone who signed on to this bill needs to be on a (political) hit list.

Originally posted by Damrod
It's the language that is questionable and to be frank about it, it needs to be re-written more specifically. As it is written right now, they can disrupt any protest on the grounds that a "person of interest" is nearby.

And to this I agree. I believe in transparent language -- it is the only way legislation works. Legislation that isn't transparent is meant to be chicanery.

How will anyone ever know that someone is nearby and under the protection of the Secret service? It's a sham...it's a way Congress can have anyone or any group removed from their line of sight if they don't like what people are saying or the signs they are carrying.

(a) Whoever—
‘‘(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;

This section, with its language of "proximity" is a bit vague and can understand why people are concerned. But the conduct in such proximity must meet the qualifier of impeding or disrupting the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.

If persons are protesting outside of a school that the president is speaking at and they are just protesting, it would be a tough sell in a Federal Court to show they disrupted or impeded the function.

Yet still, in with my opening remarks above, I can understand that it isn't the most transparent language and is vague. That is how nefarious legislation operates and it is up to the People to start demanding that legislation has a clear and narrow goal.

If you quit jumping to the conclusion that our government never writes Bills with the intent of undermining the citizen or the Constitution, you'll see the negative aspects of this and how it can be mis-used.

I am asking questions and not jumping to conclusions. It is quite the opposite as your initial response is that it is nefarious or can be used for such purposes. I came here and gave information for those to read themselves what it is about and not rely upon 3rd party interpretations or opinions to drive their own opinions. I never said that Congress doesn't engage in such actions and that bills are rosy.

I ask questions to responses such as "This bill goes against their oath of office" -- How? "This bill will ban protests!" Show me where it bans protests?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Fair enough. Sorry for the accusation.

I just didn't like the language as I said because I can see some "open to interpretation" verbage in there and that always makes me a bit suspect.

I wrote both Senators, for what it's worth, and also emailed the Whitehouse asking the POTUS to veto this thing when it hits his desk.

Here is the problem.

(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).

So all they need to do is say "oh so and so was going to cause a problem, so we arrested them".

Unless I'm missing something? This is just another nail in the coffin of freedom. Ridiculous.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


With all respect, giving the benefit of the doubt to the OP, something about this bill gave you enough pause to create a thread about it. You took the "devil's advocate" position in this discussion, so did you answer your question? Is this all really no "Big Deal" ?

This is the clause that really concerns me the most...never mind the idea that the S.S. can "supposedly" be protecting someone anywhere in the general area...

"
`(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; "

Isn't the idea of a protest to be disruptive and get attention?

The way that is written and could be interpreted is that a member of of House or Senate can pick up a phone and say "we're having a meeting and those protestors outside are disrupting us"...

and then the Neo-Gestapo shows up and hauls them away...

FYI entering a designated structure with the intent to commit grand / petty
larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.... a felony ( in Cali ref 459PC)...ouch.

Folks arrested could easily be facing felony charges...

Speak truth to power and get paper checked by the Gestapo..lol..Redress of Grievances is now a felony in USSA... nice.

Two words: JURY NULLIFICATION.

"SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS. Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds `(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;"

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

With all respect, giving the benefit of the doubt to the OP, something about this bill gave you enough pause to create a thread about it. You took the "devil's advocate" position in this discussion, so did you answer your question? Is this all really no "Big Deal" ?

It isn't that I think its no "big deal"; its more the fact that 2/3rds the responses so far are just knee-jerk reactions to the title of the thread -- and not the content. That is why I ask questions; that is why, instead of linking some random third-party article that is steeped in opinion rather than fact, I provide links to the source. It is so we all can have a discussion on the content, not what someone else wrote.

I do not like legislation that is vague and I have already said that there is a clause that does leave too much room for interpretation. Actually that clause, the first time the Federal Government invokes it on "peaceful protesters" that are not "impeding or disrupting" said Federally protected event, should be summarily challenged with the intent to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, typically, is not fond of vague and broad legislation, especially when it comes to the First Amendment. That is why they are struggling with the Stolen Valor Act -- which makes lying a crime. Heck I lie about my service record all the time (not in an official manner; but you bet I was a pilot and not some electronics technician when it comes to the ladies). The broad aspect that the Federal Government can arrest you and convict you of lying (outside of perjury) run along with the same that the Federal Government can declare declare any building to be "Federal" just because a Federal official is occupying it in an official capacity.

The same here with this legislation. The broad scope is of concern but so far only a handful of responses have even attempted to discuss and debate -- the rest are content to just get pissed off without even bothering to critically think about it (because the linked article has already done that for them and made up their minds.) It is those that I try to draw out with my questions. Although, not a single one save those that I have acknowledge with having a back and forth will even bother to come back to their "hit and run" response.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

With all respect, giving the benefit of the doubt to the OP, something about this bill gave you enough pause to create a thread about it. You took the "devil's advocate" position in this discussion, so did you answer your question? Is this all really no "Big Deal" ?

It isn't that I think its no "big deal"; its more the fact that 2/3rds the responses so far are just knee-jerk reactions to the title of the thread -- and not the content. That is why I ask questions; that is why, instead of linking some random third-party article that is steeped in opinion rather than fact, I provide links to the source. It is so we all can have a discussion on the content, not what someone else wrote.

I do not like legislation that is vague and I have already said that there is a clause that does leave too much room for interpretation. Actually that clause, the first time the Federal Government invokes it on "peaceful protesters" that are not "impeding or disrupting" said Federally protected event, should be summarily challenged with the intent to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, typically, is not fond of vague and broad legislation, especially when it comes to the First Amendment. That is why they are struggling with the Stolen Valor Act -- which makes lying a crime. Heck I lie about my service record all the time (not in an official manner; but you bet I was a pilot and not some electronics technician when it comes to the ladies). The broad aspect that the Federal Government can arrest you and convict you of lying (outside of perjury) run along with the same that the Federal Government can declare declare any building to be "Federal" just because a Federal official is occupying it in an official capacity.

The same here with this legislation. The broad scope is of concern but so far only a handful of responses have even attempted to discuss and debate -- the rest are content to just get pissed off without even bothering to critically think about it (because the linked article has already done that for them and made up their minds.) It is those that I try to draw out with my questions. Although, not a single one save those that I have acknowledge with having a back and forth will even bother to come back to their "hit and run" response.

Well I count myself in the small percentage that has actually read the Bill and digested it's intent and how it can be perverted...I see problems with it beyond the typical hair pulling and stomping about...there is issues within the language that needs to be addressed and I "think" I have addressed those. "IF" they were to pause this and clarify things...it would make sense...no...it is not ok for people to pass into cordoned off areas...no...it is not ok to protest outside the VP's house or any member of Congress's house...no...it is not ok to put someone under protection at risk....these are common sense arenas....however...as it is written...these can apply...anytime and anywhere...and I personally see fault therein....However...it is not ok to pick up the phone and say "these folks are disturbing and disrupting my day" and get a hammer thrown at the crowds...that is not OK...

Originally posted by Damrod
Well I count myself in the small percentage that has actually read the Bill and digested it's intent and how it can be perverted...I see problems with it beyond the typical hair pulling and stomping about...there is issues within the language that needs to be addressed and I "think" I have addressed those. "IF" they were to pause this and clarify things...it would make sense...no...it is not ok for people to pass into cordoned off areas...no...it is not ok to protest outside the VP's house or any member of Congress's house...no...it is not ok to put someone under protection at risk....these are common sense arenas....however...as it is written...these can apply...anytime and anywhere...and I personally see fault therein....However...it is not ok to pick up the phone and say "these folks are disturbing and disrupting my day" and get a hammer thrown at the crowds...that is not OK...

Agreed and I have enjoyed the discussion we have had.

This is very bad news!