Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

I havn't seen this posted yet so I thought I would throw it on here. The new bill H.R.347 was passed in a 388-3 vote. This bill will IMO take away almost all of our protests rights when it comes to political protest. The fact that this passed with only 3 no votes leaves me speechless. Our government is very rapidly axeing our rights one after another. We are no longer free to voice our unhappyness with our political figures! This is one of the most important rights in this country!

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

Not only will this apply to current political figures but would be leaders of this country. It did not take long for Santorum to run for cover! I can picture a future where even talking against leaders of our country in a public place could lead to armed men kicking in your door in the middle of the night! I know some may feel that sentence is fear mongering but I really think that its no a far stretch the way we are currently headed.

I have so much more to say about this issue but I'm honestly too shook up to even put it in to words. I'm an activist and have seen many shady things go down but I now know more than ever that things are headed in a very bad direction when it comes to our freedoms. I encourage you all to read the article and open your minds to what is happening in this country!


Link

Looks like we will have to start kicking their doors in as well. Or we can just do what they do and totally disreguard the rules and not pay attention to what they try and pass. Now where is the smiley with the hair pulling?!!

reply to post by jrkelly77
Oooh, let me guess - Ron Paul was one of the 3 nays!

Amiright??

Just the steady march of anti-progress, and another signpost on the obvious track we're taking with these "representatives" and the like being treated as some kind of royalty and insulated from any normal handling, instead of the citizen representatives they're supposed to be.

We are very far off-track, and if our current trajectory is anything to judge by (on a whole range of issues) - hold on to your hat. I have to shake my head when I see some talk about how much better off we are now than at some times in our past, and as compared to some other places. Granted, the latter is definitely true, but when you hold the fair comparison to where we SHOULD be with what this country was founded as...sad, sad, sad, and so very poorly off.

They've been clamping down on protestors for years calling it illegal assembly.

Anyways seems like they're getting ready to protect their sorry asses for what's to come. More unconstitutional bills and wars

This is soooo not good. Only one silver lining I can see to this: Those Westboro Apes.

But as far as the rest, uh oh. I don't like this one bit.

What a monstrous bill... Obama turned out to be quite the snake-in-the-grass. That bastard won my ignorant 18-yr-old vote... boy do I feel the fool!

By the way, Abash, Broun and Ellison are the three nays... 47 didn't vote. What a bunch of turncoats our Congress is! Who bribed them to sell our right to protest? And the tax-dollars pay these clowns to mock the foundations of this nation... shame on all of us Americans! SHAAAAAAAAAME!

you only have yourselves to blame. you let the american government get hijacked by two self serving political parties.

You can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say. That's the mentality now. Our freedoms are slipping through our fingers and nobody is even really trying to save them.

One step closer to the abyss.

And you don't want to go into the abyss... because it's very very very cold, painful and ugly.

Ok maybe I am missing something but I looked this bill up and the only thing it is referring to is trespassing on federal property. Nothing major there.

SUMMARY AS OF:
11/17/2011--Reported to Senate amended.

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.

Source

reply to post by randomname


Well our party system was screwy ever since it was created! Having only two parties... what on Earth were (some) of my ancestors thinking?! One side is for the patricians, the other is for the workers selling themselves said patricians. No one is for the people themselves! It's the Roman Republic all over, and we know how that turned out... I wonder who will be crossing the Rubicon, or in this case, the Potomac?

Our ancestors sold us into this system, so it's not like we ourselves asked for wage slavery. But what we ARE doing is NOT doing anything to get ourselves out of it because our molester gives us comfort and shiny things! I actually think that is worse than asking for it... I wonder during what presidency our American backbone was replaced by an elbow...

Who cares if protesting leads to ones ultimate demise/detention/whatever. We cannot succumb to the fear of speaking out.

It is not a freedom granted by this government, but a god-given human right. Freedom is not granted it is utilized.

Permission is not necessary if you take the liberty.

To hell with the consequences. Stand up for the right reasons and your conscience will be clear when punishment is dealt. Laws only apply to those who observe authority. When authority is in the wrong, it is tyranny. When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

What else can be said?

Glitter bombing commie
terrorist ruining it for everyone else.

What gives these terrorist the right
to terrorize someone when we
are in a war on TERROR.

Pretty dumb move, just giving
more power to the government
pulling stunts like that.

Imagine what would be going through
your mind when anthrax is a real threat,
biological weapons, acid bombs, a bomb in general
could be being released and thrown on you?

That is terrorizing my friends, do these commie
terrorist want the government to crack down harder on us?
Maybe so..

reply to post by Phantom28804

(3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

Pay attention to the wording. That's how it starts. So any political event could be considered of national significance? Who decides what type of event is of national significance? They're taking away your ability to voice your disagreement in the presence of those who pass the laws and policies.

reply to post by GD21D


There is nothing that says you can't stand across the street and protest. Unless they declare the entire city a special event area (highly unlikely) you still have your voice. There is no reason that it is necessary to crash a rally etc, to impose your beliefs or grievances. I will never understand why people feel the need to stand on the doorstep to protest. If anyone has ever thought it legal to express your grievance to the President by running up to him and telling him face to face then you are only kidding yourself, and lucky if you don't get taken down by the Secret Service. That is a ridiculous assumption to have.

I will not be quite! I will not stay silent! I will not roll over and play dead! We all know that they will twist this bill and use it against us every chance they get! Silence disinters seems like the first steps of a military regime to me. If any thing this bill make me want to fight harder and to speak louder. The sad thing is that these types of things get passed quickly and quitely with out much notice by the american public.

Okay, what am I missing here? I went and read the summary of the bill and this deals with the White House or where the President and Vice President may appear or be for a period of time. Additionally, it covers national security events like the Super Bowl, World Series or similar national, high profile and high value type events.

Where is the problem? Was someone actually considering storming the White House fence line?? Everyone realizes this law just makes a new charge for arrest....they always would and still will simply SHOOT YOU if you pose a real and physical threat to the Pres, Vice Pres or the next couple down the line of Presidential Succession. I just don't see, by reading the actual text of what passed, what this really changed?

reply to post by Phantom28804


So protestors should be neither seen nor heard by those they are protesting? Im sure that they will have a nice little spot for protestors picked out 10 blocks from where actual events that shape our future are unfolding!

reply to post by jrkelly77


No protestors should be seen and heard, but where in that does it say you won't be? It doesn't say you can't protest the event or the politician. It basically says the same thing the law has always said. You can't bum rush the man and make demands. You can't storm the White House as Rabbit said. When did you think you could do this stuff in the first place?

As I said in another post this is one of those examples of how Social Media screws everything up. It has a tendency to make everything seem like a Extinction Level Event. If they announced VIA RT that the president had sneezed due to a white powdery substance. I would almost guarantee that half the internet would have determined it was an assassination attempt. Kind of like those ninjas that killed Kim Jung Il's boy.

reply to post by Phantom28804
Yeah man, I completely understand what you're saying. Furthermore I agree. In all honesty I don't think protesting really does anything. Does anyone really think standing outside with some signs really touches these guys? What I'm trying to say is it's vague wording that can be interpreted any way they want. It's not what they're doing now, it's where will it end. Slowly but surely stripping those rights.