Goodbye First Amendment

[Jello Biafra]

http://2012reality.posterous.com/goodbye-first-amendment-trespass-bill-will-ma

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

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.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

-snip-

This snuck in somehow.....guess there will be no more Occupy or demonstrations at conventions or G20/NATO in Chicago this year....

[geek tragedy]

1. All the law says is that you can't interfere with the Secret Service.

Unless OWS is planning on kidnapping Obama, this is harmless.

[Jello Biafra]

2. It's more than that...if it is considered a National Special Security Event...

"When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act."

If you do a mic check at a political convention it's now a federal offense.......

[geek tragedy]

3. Only if the Secret Service is involved. That term

isterm is defined under US code.

And it only covers areas where people aren't allowed to be. Street protests aren't covered

[Jello Biafra]

4. If the powers to be wanted to do something about occupy protestors....

and put a couple SS agents in a crowd of protestors without their knowledge, it would technically be a federal offense @ that point....

[geek tragedy]

5. Only if Obama himself designates that event to be a "special event of

national significance,' directs the secret service to participate, and then reports to congress On the criteria he used to make that determination.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I honestly appreciate discussions that seek to avoid worst-assumption arguments. n/t

[Selatius]

16. It kind of makes you wonder what George W. Bush would've done if he had that law. nt

[Ian62]

11. Yeah right

So the Secret Service have never made a story up huh?

All you have to do is have a protest near the entrance to a venue and the Secret Service will say you are interfering.

If peaceful protest is outlawed. So is Democracy.

OWS crowded out the front rows of a Santorum event in Wa.
I bet they wil not be allowed to do that any more.
Might be endangering poor frothy.

[rhett o rick]

6. This wont stop Occupy. It possibly elevate the conflict to the next level which is going to happen

sooner or later. The oligarchs are not going to give up an iota of power. IMO they can afford to pay a lot more than they do now to maintain their power and expand their power. I dont believe it is an exaggeration to say that oligarchs get a 1000% return on their lobbying investments. Backing down would be extremely expensive to them. Lobbying expenses are a bargain.

In the same light, Congress isnt going to reform itself. Trying to replace corrupt Congress-critters is a long process and the temptation to be corrupt is overwhelming.

This isnt going to be pretty.

[woo me with science]

7. K&R

[Javaman]

8. Coming to a Starbucks near your...nt

[onenote]

9. So Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are not opposed to ending the First Amendment?

Who knew?

Dennis voted for this bill in the House in 2011. He didn't cast any vote when it came back around after the Senate amended it, but the amended version and the version DK voted for were not substantially different. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, which means that Bernie Sanders didn't oppose it. Or anyone else in the Senate. (The only Democratic member of the House to vote against it either time it came up for consideration was Ellison.)

Maybe the claims about what this bill does are a wee bit overblown?

[Vincardog]

12. When this gets killed in the Senate will it get the same buzz?

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. you mean like the NDAA? Oh wait...

[Selatius]

17. +1 nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. ".. of the people, by the people, for the people."...as long as they keep their mouths.

And, revere the bosses.

[Quantess]

15. Bad news.