It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(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;
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes I don't see anything in the bill text that would prevent legal protest, as protected under the Constitution.
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......
(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(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by korathin
But the States do.
§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.
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.
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.
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
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?
(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.