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

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   


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%.


Wow great. Just what we need.

Like I just don't understand how this was passed? I don't understand how I never heard about it? How does this keep happening? Why do we keep letting this just slip past us?

VV Thanks MaxMars, here's the link!
edit on 3-8-2012 by cetaphobic because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Whoops, thanks for the reminder!



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Well guess it's time to start protesting more! they'll never shut me up as long as I can breath

2nd



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
For those interested in reading the bill, here it is at this LINK

However, this bill only applies to government building and government property. OWS is GUILTY of trespassing and prohibiting government function. Plain and simple.

This law really does not affect anyone's right to protest. It simply states that if you hold a protest, you can not inhibit government from its functions.

I dont see what the problem is ....




SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011'.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDINGS OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 1752. Restricted buildings or grounds

`(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;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
`(A) any person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
`(c) In this section--
`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--
`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.'.




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by phantomjack

This law really does not affect anyone's right to protest. It simply states that if you hold a protest, you can not inhibit government from its functions.

I dont see what the problem is ....





"Yes, go quietly protest over there in the corner, we have important financial institutions to bail out. You'll find our designated 'free-speech zones' suited to all your protest needs."

If you don't see the problem with this, you don't understand the purpose of protesting.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Exactly, Dr. Wizard. Any kind of protest, I believe, after the passage of this law, will be considered infringing upon and impacting government business, and they will have the law behind them to stop it I hadn't heard of this, and I think this is really scary business. This, to me, is a sure sign of our rights being removed .. one by one. Which one is going next ......



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
The idea of regulating or making laws about protests is a psychological game. Protests have nothing to do with laws. But when they tell people there are laws against it, people eat it up and get scared.

Think about it. in the 60's, they would have protested for their right to protest. They would have taken to the streets.

The american people these days are simply to complacent and too easily accept what they are told.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 

Agreed, the entire point is to disrupt .gov and other operations, so as to bring attention to a situation that people thinks needs to be addressed.

To everyone that keeps saying that we don't need revolution to fix our broken system, these kinds of laws are the reason so many see no other way. They have intentionally closed all avenues of approach to stop girievences from being aired. They won't allow us to peacably change the system, they know most can't stomache violence, so they feel reletively safe from it being used to change the system. This leaves us with no avenue to persue a change they don't want, as they are on top and plan on keeping their boots on our necks.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
What is it now 4billion laws and counting, how does it go is there a law now for ever man, woman,and child, + eligible alien, and and anything that lives and breaths.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


And they don't need the fear of 10 years of incarceration looking at them should they want to protest. Why should it be on the books in the first place?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


Well if you read the article it explains it's opinion on this Gov't bill to limit protestors.


Last year’s “occupy movement” scared the government. On March 8, President Obama signed a law that makes protesting more difficult and more criminal. The law is titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, and it passed unanimously in the Senate and with only three “no” votes in the House. It was called the "Trepass Bill" by Congress and the "anti-Occupy law" by everyone else who commented.

The law “improves” public grounds by forcing people - protestors - elsewhere. It amends an older law that made it a federal crime to “willfully and knowingly” enter a restricted space. Now you will be found guilty of this offense if you simply “knowingly” enter a restricted area, even if you did not know it was illegal to do so. The Department of Homeland Security can designate an event as one of “national significance,” making protests or demonstrations near the event illegal.

The law makes it punishable by up to ten years in jail to protest anywhere the Secret Service “is or will be temporarily visiting,” or anywhere they might be guarding someone. Does the name Secret tell you anything about your chances of knowing where they are? 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.” You can no longer heckle or “boo” at a political candidate’s speech, as that would be disruptive.

After you swallow all of this and correctly conclude that it is now very easy to be prosecuted for virtually any public protest, you should brace yourself and appreciate that it is even worse. Today, any event that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event has Secret Service protection. This can include sporting events and concerts.

The timing of the law was not coincidental. The bill was presented to the Senate, after House passage, on November 17, 2011, during an intense nationwide effort to stop the Occupy Wall Street protests. Two days before, hundreds of New York police conducted a raid on the demonstrators’ encampment in Zucotti Park, shutting it down and placing barricades.

This law chips away our First Amendment rights. Its motivation is 100 percent politically based, as it was designed to silence those who would protest around politicians giving speeches. Both Republicans and Democrats agreed they did not want hecklers at their rallies. If you want to protest a politician speaking to a crowd now, you can do so maybe a half mile or so away.

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.


Tell us, the bill you're defending, why did we need it in the first place? Who does it protect and who does it hinder?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hebegbes
 


They just got rid of the first amendment, I would bet the next one they go after is the second.
Oh wait.......



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


So basically what protesters need to do is to present a "Front man" to oppose the Candidate in question to oppose them in a sanctioned philosophical debate. That would require all of them to get together so they can nominate a "Front Man". Oh wait..............................................................

If people don't see this is very bad....there is no help for them.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
I'm surprised this hasn't attracted more attention. This is serious stuff.

Slowly, ever so slowly, things are slipping further and further into a dictatorship. Unbelievable....



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by phantomjack

This law really does not affect anyone's right to protest. It simply states that if you hold a protest, you can not inhibit government from its functions.

I dont see what the problem is ....





"Yes, go quietly protest over there in the corner, we have important financial institutions to bail out. You'll find our designated 'free-speech zones' suited to all your protest needs."

If you don't see the problem with this, you don't understand the purpose of protesting.


As you can see, this thread died. Why? Because OWS is a lost cause.

What exactly are the OWS protesting? Banks? Why? How does what a bank does affect you? Do you have a 401K? Annuity? How do you think your money saved collects "interest"?

What exactly did the financial district do to warrant the protests?

Your problem is WASHINGTON! GO THERE and protest! Stand at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! Stand on Capital Hill!

Those are the people you need to be protesting, not banks and big business for heavens sakes.

When OWS figures this out, then I will support the "revolution." Until then, they need to get organized, and find a leader.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Good threads die everyday on ATS but crap threads sometimes excel. For example, check out this current piece of crap that is rising in stars and flags. Sometimes ATS is complete fail.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


You shouldn't support terrible legislation just because it was targeted at a group that holds different political ideals than your own.

This affects everyone's right to protest, including the tea party and what have you. It's a dangerous step in the wrong direction.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


How can one "inhibit government function" when the government does not function?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

SteveMT on Wed, 02/29/2012
Here are the three Patriots who voted AGAINST this tyranny.
Nay GA-10 Broun, Paul [R]
Nay MI-3 Amash, Justin [R]
Nay TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]


Another good reason not to vote for Ron Paul, he does not play well with the elitist who wish to rule us.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join