Welll well well, so the U.S.A has decided to do away with complete freedom of speech!!!!!

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
snopes link

mr conservative

I really don't know what to say and sorry if this is already covered - didn't see it (but didn't search too hard either
)

There goes the 1st amendment so what will be next do you think - not allowed to protest Obama now not allowed protest govt at all next, restriction on movement and public gathering gatherings after that.




posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by johnb
 



HR 347 did not technically make it "illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present," as a law to that effect had already been in place for over forty years. The primary differences between the previously existing law and the updated version enacted by HR 347 are:
The old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter restricted buildings or grounds, now the law only specifies that one must "knowingly" enter such a space to be in violation of the law.
The updated version specifically defines the phrase "restricted buildings or grounds" to include "the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds."

Read more at www.snopes.com...


from Snopes, Your link.


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
A lot of doom-porn can be avoided when one reads articles in full, or even, the first few paragraphs:

From the Snopes article previously linked:

"Origins: In February 2012, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and (as HR 347) approved by the House of Representatives by a lopsided vote of 399-3; the bill was then signed into law by President Obama. This bill was an updating of an existing law, originally enacted in 1971, that restricted access to areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service.

HR 347 did not technically make it "illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present," as a law to that effect had already been in place for over forty years."

It's not about not being able to "protest Obama." It's been substantially in place for 40 years. Forty years.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by johnb
 


Thanks for the info.

Yes. It’s remarkable how the establishment can quiet such things down when they really want. Not a word in the general MS media. But again. That’s how the globalists works these days. Anyways.

My first thought after having read this article is that someone are now introducing new laws to prepare for the coming economic meltdown that’s doomed to come very soon now. This very law tells me that it’s going to be sooner rather than later. More such laws will probably follow.
edit on 31-12-2013 by helius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by johnb
 


Well, the assault on the 2nd Admendment didn't go so well for them so they just changed tactics. Out of all the Admendments, the 1st and 2nd are joined at the hip. Take out one and the rest fall like a house of cards.

I'm glad I didn't have any kids now, though it still pains me to see what the younger generations are going to have to put up with.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
yes but further down




H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law.
Read more at www.snopes.com...





When it comes to relegating demonstrators to obscurity, two approaches predominate: keeping protesters outside an expansive, sanitized bubble that surrounds the very event they have come to protest, or allowing them to come closer, but only within the confines of heavily policed "protest pens" that one federal judge likened to temporary internment camps.
Read more at www.snopes.com...
edit on 31-12-2013 by johnb because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by johnb
 

Well, it is not surprising, if it's true that he has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood .Maybe what is needed if for the US military to have a go at it like they did in Egypt . He seems to be quite a cancer on the country .



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


What assault on the 2nd Amendment? Do you mean those calls for background checks to make sure that nutcases can't get assault rifles?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Giving them the benefit of a doubt, when the SS, ah, I mean Secret Service, guards a VIP, they don't need the added distraction of a massive protest within the general area, which could either erupt into something dangerous or be used as a diversion by bad guys and gals.

Just as long as this isn't stretched too thin, and arrests are made of people simply protesting an event such as the presidential inauguration in the U.S. (where the newly sworn-in president traditionally rides in a car from the Capitol to the White House, being cheered and jeered the whole way), I agree with the need to protect the homes and the very immediate vicinity of select individuals - although not including the male members of the Bush family, who don't need SS protection but are protected by the forces of Satan herself.
edit on 31-12-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-12-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by johnb
 


So ONE word in ONE location was dropped ... in a law that is 40 years old and substantively the same it has been for 40 years ... that might make a few cases a little bit easier to prosecute ... and this is supposed to demonstrate that President Obama has outlawed free speech even though it passed Congress with virtually 100% approval from both sides of the aisle?

This is a textbook case of RED HERRING. Next?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by johnb
 


So ONE word in ONE location was dropped ... in a law that is 40 years old and substantively the same it has been for 40 years ... that might make a few cases a little bit easier to prosecute ... and this is supposed to demonstrate that President Obama has outlawed free speech even though it passed Congress with virtually 100% approval from both sides of the aisle?

This is a textbook case of RED HERRING. Next?


But what would we be with out jumping to conclusions on ATS?
edit on 31-12-2013 by Awolscout because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Post deleted just because.
edit on 31-12-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


What assault on the 2nd Amendment? Do you mean those calls for background checks to make sure that nutcases can't get assault rifles?


I mean that they are using regulations as fiat laws to undermine the Constitution. It's really as simple as that.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
So its a small change to an existing law - no need to worry then - it's not like the ptb abuse any of their existing powers is it?

So the fact they have now made it even easier to abuse those powers is no cause for alarm then - i assume you have already handed in any weapons you have as clearly you don't need them as the ptb will be there to keep you safe lmfao.

Changing one word makes no difference - if you say so then.

'It is legal to own guns' - now 'it is illegal to own guns' - no worries they only changed one word so move along nothing to see here.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
From what we have been seeing in recent times, any lawful assembly protesting anything that the government, local or national is doing is open season as far the police seem to be concerned. It's become an invitation to being pepper sprayed, beaten and arrested.
Same goes here in the UK, protest is met with harsh treatment by the police, who over the years have become nothing more than the governments own enforcers, with senior officers only too willing to obey in the hope of getting a gong to go with that fat retirement package.

So, the right to free speech has not been terminated as such, but expressing anything they don't want to hear will still get you arrested on one pretext or another if you stand up for your rights.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Possibly the registry they store your information after the check. This was integral for the rise of the Nazis and will be a very important factor for whichever party decides to go full blown Nazi.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by johnb
 


Except that ... in this case, the law is virtually the same in every respect with the removal of one word. The argument you're making is flawed for several reasons 1) you're implying that the change is something like exchanging words opposite in meaning (legal/illegal) when it was the removal of a word 2) you're tossing in the lightning-rod issue of gun control as a red herring, attempting to generate emotion in this argument that belongs to another and 3) you're making general arguments without specific claims about the subject matter at hand.

As to my own opinion on the matter, I am very concerned about the overreach and abuse of government power. Contrary to the national trends on the matter in the US however, corruption at the national level bothers me far less at this moment that abuses at the local and State levels. Power hungry local satraps are (quite obviously to me) working to minimize any control from higher authorities which very often results in tragic abuse of power. A local Sheriff that thinks he's untouchable is a lot more dangerous to my personal freedoms than the figureheads in Washingon, IMO.

Your mileage will vary.
edit on 9Tue, 31 Dec 2013 09:19:03 -060013p0920141266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Gibraltarego
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Possibly the registry they store your information after the check. This was integral for the rise of the Nazis and will be a very important factor for whichever party decides to go full blown Nazi.


I'm afraid that's a myth - the Nazis weren't into gun control - here.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by johnb
 


So ONE word in ONE location was dropped ... in a law that is 40 years old and substantively the same it has been for 40 years ... that might make a few cases a little bit easier to prosecute ... and this is supposed to demonstrate that President Obama has outlawed free speech even though it passed Congress with virtually 100% approval from both sides of the aisle?

This is a textbook case of RED HERRING. Next?


This is ATS where Obama is a muslim, nazi, communist, CIA plant, NWO, or a lizard person depending on the day of the week. The very place where people who lack a complete and total knowlege of American history and seem to think they have lost rights when in reality they have more than ever before. Where anything and everything is some kind of master plot by people who never ever get around to do anything. Toss out common sense, logic and reality and just watch as people lead each other down the rabbit hole. It really is kind of funny.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

MrSpad
This is ATS where Obama is a muslim, nazi, communist, CIA plant, NWO, or a lizard person depending on the day of the week.


I see only six types there so I take it that he takes Sunday off?

OMG! He's God too!


Ok, I admit to Obama bashing but I also bashed Bush as well.



new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join