Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Damrod
 


Hehe, we both know that this "bad language" was used on purpose. They do that in every restraining law they pass so they can twist any law the way they want to screw us.

What a wonderful world!

Peace out.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Oh so that's what all those Fema Camps are for, for everyone that dares protest after this bill is enacted.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
With the kind of protests that are coming to this country very soon...

DO THEY REALLY THINK THIS WILL DETER PEOPLE FROM RESISTING/DEMONSTRATING???

HAH!!!!!!




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
The people who make laws make a law telling you it's illegal to protest the laws they make.

Oh man I need a drink.....




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
According to the official site - text of bill - this states that:




(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;
`(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;


...will be punished. It doesn't say one cannot lawfully protest. Lawful protest already doesn't impede business, or engage in disorderly or violent conduct. Plus, presidential candidates are always eligible for Secret Service protection. That isn't anything new. I don't see anything in the bill text that would prevent legal protest, as protected under the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes I don't see anything in the bill text that would prevent legal protest, as protected under the Constitution.


That's because there is nothing there. The OP stated it was his "opinion" that it meant this.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Here's a thought... Maybe they should act like human beings. I didn't see a single moment in that entire video that could be called a "Legal protest". It more closely resembled an unlawful demonstration, or what us normal people call a riot. The video was taken almost completely out of context and the... "Officers numbers" that the man is reciting are actually the number's of the car that the riot gear is assigned to.
If you were a cop facing those protesters, things might look quite different.

Also... as a species, we have the amazing ability to subconsciously "twist" things based on our bias and experiences in life.... Furthering that is our desire for people to see thing the way we see them. In all reality, the only way to know the real story is to have been there.

That bill is in place to quell the threat of physical violence against political figs, meaning anytime it becomes a dangerous situation, they can shut it down... Act like domesticated individuals and I see you having no problems keeping your protest alive.

Basically if you look for a blue pig long enough you will find one.

Oh and if anyone can define "Normal" in reference to the human psyche we need to talk because I found an ocean in Montana for you to buy
edit on 1-3-2012 by halleuco1536 because: damned spelling



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jrkelly77
 


Ugh.

See? It's stuff like this that gives everyone else a bad name. This bill does not take away your "Freedom of Speech" It's no different than saying you can't scream bomb in a crowded room.

Unbelievable over exaggeration in the name of making your argument appear valid.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Why complain? This is what the fringe right wing wanted, no protests, just take your #ing like a good citizen and stfu about inequality.

Hilarious. You all BEG for the fourth reich!!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Guys, no offense, but the majority of the posts in this thread are from a willfully ignorant position, from "useful idiots" that get their information from a friggin thread title alone. This thread is a perfect illustration showing the current status of conspiracy folks.

I would think that anyone who posts on this thread and has not READ THE BILL is a complete and total useful idiot....exactly what "they" want, lol......



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MainLineThis
Guys, no offense, but the majority of the posts in this thread are from a willfully ignorant position, from "useful idiots" that get their information from a friggin thread title alone. This thread is a perfect illustration showing the current status of conspiracy folks.

I would think that anyone who posts on this thread and has not READ THE BILL is a complete and total useful idiot....exactly what "they" want, lol......


I have read it and I don't like the wording. It is wide open to interpretation. As I said in another thread, it's bad enough they can use the clause about the Secret Service protecting someone close by...that's pretty vague and you will never know when or where...but the real stickler is this clause...


`(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;

The idea of a protest is to be disruptive in order to get attention...disruptive, not destructive. Any member of the House or Senate could pick up a phone and say "We are having a meeting/session and these people are disrupting us"...In comes the Storm Troopers and away the protestors go...

Think about it long and hard and consider how easily this clause ca be twisted into a weapon against free speech and the First Amendment.
edit on 3/2/2012 by Damrod because: spelling



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Since my post was ignored in the other thread about this, I'll repost it here and see if it gets any discussion:

The difference between the original code (which is ALREADY law) 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.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes I don't see anything in the bill text that would prevent legal protest, as protected under the Constitution.


That's because there is nothing there. The OP stated it was his "opinion" that it meant this.


Figured as much! Any time someone posts on a bill, I make it a point to read the thing first, and see what it actually says. Almost every time, it's much ado about nothing. Besides, the things they state are illegal in the bill are NOT part of legal protest in the first place! Lawful protest doesn't include violence, impeding businesses, etc. I figure this bill was passed to make it easier to arrest the OWS types, that get out of control.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes I don't see anything in the bill text that would prevent legal protest, as protected under the Constitution.


That's because there is nothing there. The OP stated it was his "opinion" that it meant this.


Figured as much! Any time someone posts on a bill, I make it a point to read the thing first, and see what it actually says. Almost every time, it's much ado about nothing. Besides, the things they state are illegal in the bill are NOT part of legal protest in the first place! Lawful protest doesn't include violence, impeding businesses, etc. I figure this bill was passed to make it easier to arrest the OWS types, that get out of control.


Well that's fine as it is for most arm chair revolutionaries....answer me this...

If you feel strong enough to go to the National mall and parade your sign around and suddenly the men in black swarm in and arrest you....what would you say? "But officer, I am only expressing my First Amendment rights"...and they say "sorry chickie...we have a person of interest nearby and you are threatening them"...or..."You are disrupting a session of congress and you are now under arrest"...

It's not so clean and simple is it?...read the damn Bill with a neutral point of view...if you cannot see how this can be perverted into a means to squash the First Amendment....well...apparently you have not been taught how to read and interpret what you have read....it's not hard...try just once...you might surprise yourself with your expanded capacity to interpret and understand....



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Buffalo Soldier
Oh so that's what all those Fema Camps are for, for everyone that dares protest after this bill is enacted.


The Bill is unconstitutional because CONGRESS DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY to infringe on speech, protest, religion and the media.

But the States do.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


Um, you do understand that federal law trumps state law, right?

Again, what y'all are debating over is ALREADY LAW. The only change that's been made is the removal of the clauses I quoted above.
edit on 4-3-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I shared earlier in this thread why I think this bill is wrong. What I wonder is for those who see this as "no big deal" and some have suggested just a repeat of laws already in place, why did they pass it? At the very least then it would be a waste of tax payer money.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
But the States do.


Really? Show me a State Constitution that doesn't reflect the Federal Constitution's First Amendment clause.

New York:

§8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her
sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right;
and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or
of the press.


California:

SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.


South Carolina:

SECTION 2. Religious freedom; freedom of speech; right of assembly and petition.

The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances.


And so on and so on....do people even think before they post anymore?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
If nothing has changed, and our rights to protest have been unchanged, then why did they even have to edit this Bill?

Reading into it, makes pretty clear that it goes against the spirit of freedom of speech, ESPECIALLY when it comes to politics, wherein the founding fathers would have most assuredly agreed the people to speak their minds.

The politicians don't want anyone to interfere or speak out against the criminal laws they create is basically what it comes down to, and they have worded it in such a way where they can throw out anyone that speaks their mind and protests against it.


Anyone that supports this Bill, supports the Big Bad Nanny State trampling on our rights.



Originally posted by Damrod
I have read it and I don't like the wording. It is wide open to interpretation. As I said in another thread, it's bad enough they can use the clause about the Secret Service protecting someone close by...that's pretty vague and you will never know when or where...but the real stickler is this clause...


`(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;

The idea of a protest is to be disruptive in order to get attention...disruptive, not destructive. Any member of the House or Senate could pick up a phone and say "We are having a meeting/session and these people are disrupting us"...In comes the Storm Troopers and away the protestors go...

Think about it long and hard and consider how easily this clause ca be twisted into a weapon against free speech and the First Amendment.
edit on 3/2/2012 by Damrod because: spelling
edit on 4-3-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-3-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
I shared earlier in this thread why I think this bill is wrong. What I wonder is for those who see this as "no big deal" and some have suggested just a repeat of laws already in place, why did they pass it? At the very least then it would be a waste of tax payer money.



Originally posted by jacobe001
If nothing has changed, and our rights to protest have been unchanged, then why did they even have to edit this Bill?


Oh FFS, am I talking to myself? I posted the answer to your question like 5 posts before yours! Let me post it again, and maybe someone will actually read:

The difference between the original code (which is ALREADY law) 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.
edit on 4-3-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-3-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join