HR 347

[wowzers]

Has anyone read this bill. This link makes it seem fairly benevolent, but I can see room for abuse. Hopefully this doesn't result in first amendment zones like in our national parks.


http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/01/do...ill-change-any

[Longrifle]

This site hates it, therefore I am for it.

[redhawk]

Not exactly the abolition of the First Amendment, is it? RT and The New American's warnings are hopefully an exaggeration.

RT (Russia Today) is an anti-America propaganda machine and nothing more. It pains me to see people lend credence to their reports, analysis, and opinions.

[Mortalitus]

Originally Posted by Longrifle

This site hates it, therefore I am for it.

That bill is a tragedy. Having read it thoroughly it does several things. It effectively creates a felony enforceable "free-speech zone" around all public officials protected by Secret service (that means just about all Federal elected officials now congressman too) in a roving bubble. As well as any event, area, or building that the DHS determines is a NS event.


The language of the bill having been altered from "Knowingly and willfully enter" to just 'willfully" means that anyone caught in this area is subject to this jail-able punishment whether they had knowledge of this public officials visit, the location of the building (tourist) or the restriction as it is placed in real time or temporary for events. It also does not identify what activities constitute violation of the act. So all forms of conduct that would offend against the proper flow of the officials visit or normal operations of the building or event are punishable.


Scenario. This means all political rallies cannot be protested. No more DC protests outside tightly restricted areas. Occupy, tea party, all that shit is done.

If your standing on a corner and a Congressman or the POTUS drive by you are now subject to search and or arrest if it is determined you are being disruptive to this process or offensive. For instance angry at a town hall meeting? This act could net you in jail. Outraged at police beating that homeless guy in California last year, we wont see any protest on something like that anymore I'm positive this includes police stations in the broad scope of definition of Public buildings. The police now effectively have to power to disperse a crowd with the threat of arresting anyone with a year plus fiens in prison for coming withing X amount of space of any GOV building, special event or official.

However, don't think that we are special in this. It's actually quite Euro in origin. The French Monarchy and Church enacted laws for the poor and "unwashed masses" that prohibited them from being in sight whenever the King, an important Aristocrat (French or other), or Church official's Carriage were to pass. This was to used to uphold the false impression of a stable society. Ultimately separating the classes further and one of the main leading causes to the French revolution oppression of the masses and their voices.

2. chief things wrong here. It suppresses the Right to free speech and it does so via the redress of grievance. 2 things the GOV does not have the power to enforce. I pray there are enough Americans willing to go to jail for this because when it's our cause and our time to say something. You better believe I will speak up and do so publicly. I don't care if they wish to have all news coverage with shots of happy people for their propaganda machine this is America and it just doesn't work that way here.

[Longrifle]

Originally Posted by Mortalitus

That bill is a tragedy. Having read it thoroughly it does several things. It effectively creates a felony enforceable "free-speech zone" around all public officials protected by Secret service (that means just about all Federal elected officials now congressman too) in a roving bubble. As well as any event, area, or building that the DHS determines is a NS event.

OK. Got it. Public officials protected by SS. (SS - Sounds Nazi, doesn't it)

Did you mean "NO free-speech zone?"

No more DC protests outside tightly restricted areas. Occupy, tea party, all that shit is done.

Wait, what about the SS part? I have been to Occupy events and Tea Party events. Never saw the Secret Service. Is that proof they were there?

For instance angry at a town hall meeting? This act could net you in jail. Outraged at police beating that homeless guy in California last year, we wont see any protest on something like that anymore

Is the Secret Service at town hall meetings and/or police beatings?

2. chief things wrong here. It suppresses the Right to free speech and it does so via the redress of grievance. 2 things the GOV does not have the power to enforce. I pray there are enough Americans willing to go to jail for this because when it's our cause and our time to say something. You better believe I will speak up and do so publicly.

So will I. And with congressional approval ratings almost down to single digits, I think we'll have a lot of company.

[Mortalitus]

No but DHS was, most large protests fall under thier umbrella now. At Occupy they sent "advisors", as wel as anti-terrorism teams to the bigger protest in NY, oakland, etc. DHS has the power to classify any event as being under "special security circumstances" This includes all large protests and not even protests. DHS also monitors sporting events like the World series, super bowl, olympics, and other large public (newsworthy) events, etc
All these are now off limits to controversy if there is either a dignitary in the area or if it is considered a DHS "national special security event" whether you are aware that it is or not. This includes all surrounding areas that they designate.

‘‘§ 1752. Restricted building 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;

‘‘(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 or by
Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined
such protection.’’.


here's the catch all. Notice that the President now has the power to assign SS protection to whomever he wants as well by Memorandum. DHS has the power to state that any property is a restricted area for Special security" reasons.

[Fubar]

The power grab continues.....

[KidA]

Originally Posted by Mortalitus

...DHS was, ...DHS has the power to classify any event as being under "special security circumstances" ...DHS also monitors sporting events like the World series, super bowl, olympics, and other large public (newsworthy) events, etc...DHS "national special security event" whether you are aware that it is or not. ....

Who are the Americans who are going along with this and doing this work and seeing nothing wrong with it? Seriously?

DHS Please Protect me from Terrorists and people who say bad things!

Seriously...how does any American go along with this?

[Markslams]

I was going to post about this the other day when I came across it. I didn't because this law is already on the books and is nothing new. What they are doing, which this article clearly explains, is removing a single word "willfully". Now I must say that it is indeed troubling, but I don't believe this is a huge power grab as it's being made out to be.

... for a defendant to have acted willfully, he must merely have “acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.”...we focus our discussion on whether Bursey “willfully” violated the Statute, because, generally, “[m]ore is required” with respect to conduct performed willfully than conduct performed knowingly... requires “more culpable” mens rea than knowing violation).As a general proposition, the statutory term “knowingly” requires the Government to prove only that the defendant had knowledge of the facts underlying the offense

[Trailboss]

Originally Posted by Longrifle

And with congressional approval ratings almost down to single digits, I think we'll have a lot of company.

That's *why* they are pushing for it! Remember: these people like to think ahead...way ahead! They know what is coming and are shoring up their defenses now! Or trying to, anyway...They may seem stupid sometimes...they may be elitist, arrogant, condescending, smarmy, snotty etc, etc, on and on...they may *be* a lot of things...but they are *not* stupid...it is, and has been, "Us vs Them" for a while now. They know that's only going to get worse.

Lol...we have arms...they have legislation!

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by Trailboss

Lol...we have arms...they have legislation!

Last time I checked, they have both.

[Trailboss]

Originally Posted by redhawk

Last time I checked, they have both.

LOL! True....Not that many of them would pick up arms themselves. They have plenty of others to do the hard stuff...