posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Phantom28804
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.
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
"within such proximity to."
The language, yes, is VERY broad. If it is within earshot.
Who decides what is disruptive? Who decides what the proximity is and to whom? To the people going to
the event? That they have to walk bu,
through, or near a protest group, which inconveniences or impedes
Who decides what is a national event? Sporting event, political convention, candidate at a town hall?
If protesters are across the street, and they are audible to those inside, it could be considered "disruptive."
And not that it is simply disorderly conduct or what have you, this makes it a FEDERAL crime. When simply failure to obey or disperse or "illegal
assembly" is not strict enough, there is the federal crime
that makes any building or grounds--when visited by anyone under Secret Service
protection--restricted to anyone not authorized. What determines who is authorized? Why are the former prohibitions not adequate?
This is frightening and troubling.
The overly broadness of the language is also what is truly frightening, because we KNOW how law enforcements operates and interprets where the law is
THIS is the problem.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)