posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:11 AM
I don't get it, is it just some retarded occutards getting worked up about seomthing that was already established.
First off, I don't remember any protests on whitehouse/vice-president grounds. Also, I don't think you was able to protest when the SS were setting
up an event that an individual they were protecting was around.
I really don't get what the big deal is, its not stopping your protesting abilities. All the locations mentioned you wouldn't of been allowed to
protest at anyway. ITs not like will be able to designate a place randomly as a special event of national significance. Like the recent occupy
protests, none of those were protesting at special event of national significance. The words aren't vague or anything like that. or would you like
them to have to make a new amendment every time a new special event of national significance is decided. Also, it requires an area to be posted,
cordoned off or restricted somehow, before its designated as a special event of national significance.
Its also not restricting your protest abilities, the secret service isn't always protecting your government officials so you will hardly be effected
by this bill unless you're wanting to protest the president/vice-president. Also It says nothing about orderly assembly, which you have the lawful
right to do, it just restricts impedment of government duties violence and agression, something which I doubt you'd be able to do around secret
service personal anyway.
It seems that this is just a bit of transparceny on what will happen to you in these situations. Then you occutards got all worked up and trying to
read into it too much and seeing something that isn't there. The first few posts didn't even read the bill before making a comment, they were
askiing for citations from the bill. I find that funny, one persons opinionised summery of a bill is all you need?