Obama Makes Free Speech a Felony

reply to post by jessemole


Soon, I fear, there will no longer be freedom of speach on the internet as well.

Threads like this will be considered an act of agression and law breaking.

Peace be with us.

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
reply to post by jessemole

 

Soon, I fear, there will no longer be freehealthcare and great stuff from the government

Threads like this will be considered an act of information and joy and happiness.

Peace be with the government.

I fixed it for you.
-Courtesy of the United States Government

Edited by beezzer just to make a snarky point.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
reply to post by jessemole

 

Soon, I fear, there will no longer be freehealthcare and great stuff from the government

Threads like this will be considered an act of information and joy and happiness.

Peace be with the government.

I fixed it for you.

-Courtesy of the United States Government

Edited by beezzer just to make a snarky point.

edit on 24-4-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Oh - I see what you did there

lol

This is a REPUBLICAN bill. While you're all crucifying Obama for signing it, just remember who put it on his desk to be signed in the first place - our "friends" in the Republican party.

Sponsor is Tom Rooney (R - Fla).

Tom Rooney defends his bill:

Twitter / Tom Rooney: HR 347 does not effect you ...

HR 347 does not effect your right to protest in any way whatsoever. It deals with fence jumpers, not protestors.

ACLU: How Big a Deal is H.R. 347, That “Criminalizing Protest” Bill?

What Rooney doesn't tell you is this:

...anyone can be charged with a federal felony for 'trespassing' on grounds shared by a person or group receiving Secret Service protection (including NSSE's); EVEN IF THE 'TRESPASSER' HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH PROTECTED PERSONS BEING PRESENT. In theory, anyplace where there is a protest could also be the setting for mass felony charges against constitutionally protected behavior such as the right to protest. source

PS: this has already been posted several times to ATS.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
This is a REPUBLICAN bill. While you're all crucifying Obama for signing it, just remember who put it on his desk to be signed in the first place - our "friends" in the Republican party.

Sponsor is Tom Rooney (R - Fla).

Tom Rooney defends his bill:

Twitter / Tom Rooney: HR 347 does not effect you ...

HR 347 does not effect your right to protest in any way whatsoever. It deals with fence jumpers, not protestors.

ACLU: How Big a Deal is H.R. 347, That “Criminalizing Protest” Bill?

What Rooney doesn't tell you is this:

...anyone can be charged with a federal felony for 'trespassing' on grounds shared by a person or group receiving Secret Service protection (including NSSE's); EVEN IF THE 'TRESPASSER' HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH PROTECTED PERSONS BEING PRESENT. In theory, anyplace where there is a protest could also be the setting for mass felony charges against constitutionally protected behavior such as the right to protest. source

PS: this has already been posted several times to ATS.

Your post is ironic when you think about it.

You are basically pointing a finger at a political party: "Republicans" for making this bill.

Yet it is a Democrat who signed it.....

Does it even matter if it was a Democrat or a Republican that made this bill, or signed it?

The point is that it was signed. The point is that it is wrong. The point is that it is absurd. Should I go on with other points of similar ideas?

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

That's right, man.
''freedom of speech deletion'' is not what Obama seeks. It's what the REAL power from behind seeks. The one that has ramification up to the UN.

Can you explain what you mean by "ramification up to the UN"?

What is odd to me is that you all are blaming Obama for something introduced and sponsored by Republican Thomas Rooney.

So, is Obama to blame for signing into law something that CONGRESS PASSED?

The bill passed the house with a vote of 388 to 3. BOTH PARTIES VOTED FOR IT!!!! And the President signed off on it. So go ahead and pick sides, I hope it makes you feel better.Please stop the nonsense.

i dont believe a damn thing from fox

free speech is very misunderstood

you can't say whatever you want wherever you want

there are laws protecting people from verbal assault, slander and defamation

I don't want to live in a society where kooks can go up to the president and insult or verbally assault him/her, regardless or party of the potus

have some respect for the office

it's a sad commentary that a law is need to be honest with you

Originally posted by GD21D
The bill passed the house with a vote of 388 to 3. BOTH PARTIES VOTED FOR IT!!!! And the President signed off on it. So go ahead and pick sides, I hope it makes you feel better.Please stop the nonsense.

It doesn't matter who drafted it, proposed it, or signed it, its either Democans or Relublicrats. They're both just 2 sides of the same coin and until we collectively realize that its all just a big show to make us stay divided among political, social, and racial lines the easier we are to control.

That thinking right there, the arguing about which ones better or does more is the problem. Face it, both.parties screw us equally, they just do it in different ways. It's an elaborate show of good politician, bad politician with the end result being to preoccupy us while they steal our liberties and sovereignty all in the name of "protecting" us from their created division.

We need people in office that don't interpret the constitution but instead abide by what is written, and how its written. No more of this interpretation, it was not written to be interpreted by the government to oppress and control the people. It is the document written by the people that limits government power. Until we have Americans serving instead of Democrats and Republicans we will only see a furthering of interpretation to include infringing us off all of our rights. We are on the verge of destruction.

Really, people better wake the hell up. And that's not hyperbole, I mean it literally we are witnessing the destruction of our nation and a coup for power by corporate elites. At the rate we are going we are soon headed for slavery. The fact that this bill is being allowed to pass without everyone in this nation calling their senator and congressman is scary. It shows that we are utterly done as a nation because everyone can damn sure tell you who "Snookie" is but hardly anyone would be able to tell you who their senator or congressman is much less how they've voted on bills.

We have been besieged by our own stupidity and pop culture, not by accident but by carefully planned design.

reply to post by Nucleardiver
Thank you.2ndEDIT: And the three that voted against it, GA Rep. Paul Broun, MI Rep. Justin Amash, And TEX Rep. Ron Paul. Source

reply to post by GD21D


Ron Paul abstained from voting, just an FYI.

Yep Bush signed the Patriot Act

4 years later what's that ? it is still here and its powers have been expanded right along with the NDAA right along with the op.

Whats that who are the self righteous now eh?


Whats the difference between Bush and Obama?

Bush doesn't have a Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama is a monster along with every congress person that voted for it
Putting all the blame on one man when many are responsible is ridiculous

Freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right which was authored to protect societies intellectuals from the sedition laws of the past, this freedom in its inception was freedom to criticize governance on factual basis, open discussion intent upon the discovery of truth and the open discussion thereof. The contemporary interpretation includes all manner of speech and expression, regardless of fact, truth or basic morality, irregardless of perception. This modern interpretation is seen daily on the internet in grotesque abundance and supported by the ACLU, while sedition laws are recreated under other names, aka The Patriot Act as well this new bill (among others)

The precise wording of the text of the Constitution, Amendment I (Ratified December 15, 1791) is as follows:
Congress 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 for a redress of grievances. (The Charters of Freedom)

There were two prior wordings to this amendment, both of which contained more detail and later cut to what we have now. It is essential to consider the word abridge as it is misinterpreted, if I abridge a thing I take from it, make it smaller, remove any aspect thereof.

While I applaud the efforts of our government to protect us from “bad guys” I do not applaud the efforts to curtail the freedom to criticize government and its policies. There are two extremes of speech seen in the courts, one harms, while one intends to heal, yet what is now protected is the speech that harms, and that which heals, that which is in accordance with the spirit of the words written by the founding father, is unprotected and being prosecuted.

This bill is unconstitutional, and as such must be removed from law. I would suggest everyone making a very large noise where concerns this bill. They want you to think you are free when you can speak all the smut that comes into the minds of the most ill, while they remove the speech that criticizes government in all its forms.

There have been a few in this thread who've pointed to slander, libel, and other laws that hold people accountable for the injury they've caused through words, vocal or otherwise. However, these points are always sloppily made and have little understanding of the principles behind them. invariably there is always someone who chimes in and states; "try yelling fire", or "you can't yell fire in a theater", and few, if any, ever give the precise Supreme Court ruling - Schenk v United States - where justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater analogy:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Any fool who honestly believes that if they were in a crowded theater and knew the theater was on fire, but were somehow mystically prevented from yelling fire to save everyone else from certain painful and horrifying death probably should be escorted to that theater by their parents or legal guardian. Seriously, only children and those with underdeveloped minds have a reasonable excuse when it comes to ignorance of the law. When it comes to law, and one is in a crowded theater fully aware this theater is on fire, but all that individual does is get up and leave without informing anyone else of the imminent danger, this is criminal and far more criminal than it would be if one were to stand up in a crowded theater and falsely yell fire.

What people do not have a right to do - outside of defense - is to cause injury to another. If one person makes up vicious lies about another, and those lies have the effect of causing injury to the aggrieved party, then a clear and present crime has been committed. It is not some arbitrary act of legislation, or a court ruling that makes this law, the law makes this law, and the law is simple, true, universal, and absolute, and in its simple, true, universal absoluteness, what the law states is that what an individual does that causes no harm is done by right, and outside of defense, what is done that causes harm is not done by right.

There is no confusion on this, no pointing to mystical utterances by the priest class lawyer sect and shrugging our shoulders and sighing and saying; "Well, they make the laws and all we can do is obey them". Indeed, while Justices Holmes fire analogy is spot on, the Schenk ruling is dubious at best, and where a clear and evident injury can be shown by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, the government failed to show evidence of injury simply because some protestors of the draft were passing out flyers. The Schenk ruling should be overturned.

If a President has been injured by the speech of someone standing near him then let that pansy president show in a court of law how he or she has been injured, that is how the law works, not writing down on paper some decree and signing it in some officious manner. Prove that injury has been caused by speech, and failing that, learn to live with the self evident fact that all people everywhere have the right speak freely.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by GD21D

 

Ron Paul abstained from voting, just an FYI.

It was voted on Feb 28 2011, and yes he did vote on it. Did you even look at the source I provided? Or did you just jump at the first chance to try to prove me wrong? I'm not spitting venom, but I provided the actual vote on HR 347 and I'm being told my facts are wrong.Did anyone look at the source? Or maybe my first post where I provided the first legislation Section 1752 Title 18 and the updated version which is HR 347? Are we looking at the actual facts, or are we more interested in conjecture? Just because this bill was voted on by the senate, and the President signed off on it doesn't mean it's new. It was first introduced over a year ago.

Originally posted by neo96



Whats the difference between Bush and Obama?

I'm guessing you only voted for the first one.

Did i get it right?

reply to post by stanguilles7


What does that have to do with the op?

Obama makes free speech a felony

Guess some people on here want to make voting a felony.