"Anti-Occupy" law ends American's right to protest

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 1, 2012 — I was stunned upon hearing a news report about a protest going on in China. Teachers, parents with their young, school-age children and pro-democracy activitists (one estimate was 90,000 people) marched in Hong Kong to government headquarters last Sunday to publicly protest a new required “Patriotism” class, to be taught in the school system starting in 2015. The protestors think that the effort of the Chinese government here is to brainwash their kids in favor of communism.

What stunned me was that this protest, in China, against the government’s upcoming policy, at the government headquarters, would not now be tolerated here in the United States of America. Thanks to almost zero media coverage, few of us know about a law passed this past March, severely limiting our right to protest. The silence may have been due to the lack of controversy in bringing the bill to law: Only three of our federal elected officials voted against the bill’s passage. Yes, Republicans and Democrats agreed on something almost 100%.

"Anti-Occupy" law ends American's right to protest

Basically, this law makes it illegal to protest anywhere near where the secret service is or will be temporarily visiting, and the law allows for conviction if you are “disorderly or disruptive,” or if you “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

It looks like a police state is coming, and I'm not joking about that this time. Freedom of assembly is an important right - people need to be able to protest what the government is doing. There may be a time when the government starts doing terrible things to the point where nearly everyone is in agreement on their status as the enemy, and when this time comes, our rights will probably be taken away to the point where nothing will be able to be done about it.

In addition, I have heard of multiple sources in the NSA stating that we are close to a police state in America.

How much longer are we going to have freedom of speech on websites such as AboveTopSecret? It is only a matter of time before the government turns its head in this direction.

We used to have a right of access to streets, sidewalks, and public parks to engage in political discussion and protest. The government should be able to impose reasonable limits to ensure public order, but that power must have a limit; it must never be used to quell unpopular opinion or to discriminate against disfavored speakers. Protestors must be allowed to be in the same place at the same time as the speaker they oppose. The presence of a Secret Service Agent (remember, how do we know they are there?) should not prevent us from lawfully, non-violently organizing and demonstrating against a cause or a speaker we disfavor.

And still .......... they`ll get up in the morning and go to work like nothing has changed.

What are people waiting for ? troops to "contain" your street and kill your family before you go ape sh** and tear the government out of power ? it`ll be too late.

People need to start thinking about the future now , do we NEED to be controlled by government ? Can we live civilized without B.B breathing down our necks , ofcourse we can , but they fill you with fear so you feel like you NEED them.

I for one am looking for a nice cave to live the rest of my life in because i can see whats gonna happen , they`ll all turn against eachother , sheep v sheep like the London "riots".

reply to post by darkbake


well, sounds a little treasonous. i pray our future grandchildren forgives us for what we have alowed to go on in our country and hopefully we wont be considered dumbass traitors in the history books in 10 years. this is not an illusion....this is what we have truly become. god, etc forgive us all for what is surely to come now.

Screw that, the secret service does not trump our rights. We need to organize flash mobs everywhere a secret service agent is spotted. This is ridiculous.

reply to post by FreeEnglishArmy


Are you from America? Your odd puncuation suggests to me that you aren't.

Originally posted by darkbake
Basically, this law makes it illegal to protest anywhere near where the secret service is or will be temporarily visiting, and the law allows for conviction if you are “disorderly or disruptive,” or if you “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

Do you have a link to the law itself and not to a blog in a newspaper? It would be helpful for us to actually read the law itself without it being filtered through a media outlet. Thanks.

IF what the blog says is true, then I agree with no protests near the secret service. It's a matter of security and I fully agree with it. As far as the 'allows for conviction if you are disorderly or disruptive' ... that's wording is foggy and seems like it has been agenda-filtered. We need to see the original wording and that's why I ask for a link to this law. I looked and couldn't find one.

In addition, I have heard of multiple sources in the NSA stating that we are close to a police state in America.

Would you please provide a link to these multiple NSA sources claiming this?
I'd like to see that. Thanks.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Here is a link to an ATS thread on it....

linky

or this link to the original bill...H.R. 347

linky

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by darkbake
Basically, this law makes it illegal to protest anywhere near where the secret service is or will be temporarily visiting, and the law allows for conviction if you are “disorderly or disruptive,” or if you “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

Do you have a link to the law itself and not to a blog in a newspaper? It would be helpful for us to actually read the law itself without it being filtered through a media outlet. Thanks.

IF what the blog says is true, then I agree with no protests near the secret service. It's a matter of security and I fully agree with it. As far as the 'allows for conviction if you are disorderly or disruptive' ... that's wording is foggy and seems like it has been agenda-filtered. We need to see the original wording and that's why I ask for a link to this law. I looked and couldn't find one.

In addition, I have heard of multiple sources in the NSA stating that we are close to a police state in America.

Would you please provide a link to these multiple NSA sources claiming this?
I'd like to see that. Thanks.

Here is a link and quote from a story wherre the bill is at the bottom of the page

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

link

Things are speeding up, i feel and see more and more control systems being put in place.

And they seem to be pointing it in the faces of the Truth movement as a psychological warfare.

" Look at what we can do, brag about publicly and get away with "

This kind of psychological warfare, instill defeatism in the Truth movement.

Spread the word, raise awareness, make people see what they are doing, the psychological warfare against the Truth Movement only works, as long as the main stream think we are "Looney ".

People cannot see the Forrest for all the trees so to speak, so start pointing out some of the trees (conspiracies, truths and alternate theories) them and if their mind is not completely docile, the will quickly gain interest in knowing all the Unknown they did not know that they did not know (There is the known unknown and then there is the unknown unknown, the trick is to make them realize how much the do not know, how much there is left to learn, most people stop after school).


But slightly more on topic, this is ridiculousness how a bill such as this can be passed to law, with no public or even any state uproar. So now in theory, the secret service can show up, arrest someone and the because they are guarding a suspect, they can arrest every one in the vicinity ????? This is just making a law for being able to arrest people without charge, they are basically claiming that an area with secret service activity is a "Warzone" for lack of better words, with anyone inside of it, being liable to be lawfully arrested for no other "Crime" than being in the area...

This is very unjustifiable and ridiculous, Reminds me of "So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause", there may not be physical applause, but there is apparently public approval.....

Namaste.

reply to post by darkbake

and the law allows for conviction if you are “disorderly or disruptive,” or if you “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

Protests are designed to be inherently disorderly and disruptive for christ sakes. The purpose of them is to impede and disrupt Government business so the Government is forced to pay attention to the people they are supposedly serving. If they weren't annoying or disruptive in some shape or form then no one would even pay attention to the protestors.... you may as well just write a letter to your friendly Government representative and see how far that gets you. If you're not at the gates of a Government function yelling into their doors and making your voice heard, if you're not capable of expressing your anger and right to free speech without being muzzled and arrested for being disruptive, then you are clearly already living under a totalitarian dictatorship. The founding fathers would vomit all over this law and wipe their ass with it.

First Amendment:

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.

Bill in question:

`(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;

Yes the first amendment protects freedom of speech and Peaceable assembly.
The bill is aimed at assembling with the intent to disrupt.

The question is how will the bill be interpreted.
I can see the concern with re to Occupy anything.

It's way too vague and leaves too much open for interpretation.

In comparison the UK laws regarding protests are pretty much relaxed.

it will be a crime to engage in a ‘prohibited activity’ in the Square where a police or local authority officer directs you not to do so. Directions to cease doing a prohibited activity or not to start to do one can last up to 90 days. The prohibited activities include: operating amplified noise equipment such as a loudspeaker or loudhailer, unless you have authorisation to do so from the Greater London Authority or Westminster Council; erecting a tent or other sleeping structure, or sleeping in one; placing or keeping a sleeping bag, mattress or similar equipment in the area in order to sleep there; or using any sleeping equipment to sleep overnight in the area. A police officer or local authority officer can also seize any property which might be used to commit one of these offences. If convicted, you could be liable for a fine of up to £5,000. You could also be ordered by a court to forfeit any equipment used in the offence or be banned from entering the area for any period. Source

As long as the police authorities are notified in writing ahead of time you can organize any protest you like, as long as it does not promote racism, religious hatred or incitement to riot etc.

I have no doubt that the United States government are concerned for the general health and safety of people involved in protests but at the same time they have to assess the risks to corporate and other private groups that may suffer damage that results from protests.

Remember PWP - Protest With Permission.

As long as the police authorities are notified in writing ahead of time you can organize any protest you like, as long as it does not promote racism, religious hatred or incitement to riot etc.

I have no doubt that the United States government are concerned for the general health and safety of people involved in protests but at the same time they have to assess the risks to corporate and other private groups that may suffer damage that results from protests.

If the locals don't realize that they need to protest til day of, perhaps due to lack of available information, then do you mean to say that the Govt is not required to 'grant them the right to peaceably protest?'

I.e. day before the Pres is in town it comes out that he's planning on passing a bill which will limit a person's right to bear arms.
People want to protest and plan to do so peaceably.
They have the right to do so, do they not?

reply to post by SangriaRed


Requiring permits for protests is unconstutional. Free-speach zones are redundant. Our stupid ass supreme court needs to get off it's collective ass and start doing it's job!

Any protest is a disruption, However it's been a few months since I read the bill, but I thought all of this was in regards to protests near the president or higher government duties. However it still infringes the right to protest no matter how you spin it.

If the president was about to sign a law that killed all indian-irish-chinese-males between the ages of 35-36, and we didn't have the right to march into that building and say NO, our rights have been infringed. Period. If congress were to sign a law that affected 90% of the population negatively and we didn't have the right to march into the state house and say NO, our rights have been infringed. Period. Anything else is drivel. Our rights are being oppressed as plain as day. Say what ever you like defending this anti-constitutional government, you're still wrong. Period.

reply to post by TKDRL


Why would they get up to do work? They're already on elected salary without responsibilities. C'mon, would you? Of course you would, cause you still give 1/2 a sh^t. But money is the great corrupter, it wouldn't take lobbyists more than a couple weeks to flip your view if you were in their position.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by darkbake
Basically, this law makes it illegal to protest anywhere near where the secret service is or will be temporarily visiting, and the law allows for conviction if you are “disorderly or disruptive,” or if you “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

Do you have a link to the law itself and not to a blog in a newspaper? It would be helpful for us to actually read the law itself without it being filtered through a media outlet. Thanks.

IF what the blog says is true, then I agree with no protests near the secret service. It's a matter of security and I fully agree with it.

So we can never protest against our President ever? Not even at political rallies?

Secret Service are obviously at any presidential political rally,as well as the opposition candidate's. In fact at a certain point Secret Service gives full protection to the opposition candidate, so no protesting Romney either I guess.

This was introduced in January 2011 and was finally signed by Obama in March 2012 ( look at what took place between those dates) Occupy was not officially on the radar in January 2011. Occupy stormed the scene in Sept. 2011. Perhaps, those in the know knew what was about to come their way....

H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011

3/8/2012--Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on November 17, 2011.
The summary of that version is repeated here.) Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.
Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of:
(1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds,
(2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or
(3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

Sounds like they are just ramping up the ability to Protect the President and VP and hold those accountable.

Plenty of talk about trouble in the Weeks leading up to the November elections. They are crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

www.govtrack.us...

reply to post by TKDRL


Right.
That was basically my roundabout point. It was uh more hypothetical....
Sorry. :/

um

when did we have the right to protest violently and disruptively ?