US Government passes Amendment breaking bill

[Trill Co$by]

And you thought your rights were saved...

[youtube]FNWzYeiS2Oo[/youtube]


I'm surprised more people haven't brought this up, especially since it brings felony charges to people for utilizing their FIRST AMENDMENT rights of Free Speech. It's worth noting that nearly nobody in the Congress opposed this bill. If you're an illuminati believer, this might be more wood for your fire. But really, I'm mad because although I don't really protest with picket signs, I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech.

When you start taking away BILL OF RIGHTS amendments, that's when things are going to get bad. What do you think of this news?

 

[SalvIsWin]

OK - some things to note. The actual act doesn't mention protesting at all, it mentions "impeding or disrupting" the conduct of government business. Basically, the government can say this area is off-limits, and you're not allowed to go into that area and/or impede/disrupt the function that the limits are protecting.

The punishment is a fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years if

• The person uses/has a weapon/firearm.
• The offense results in injury

Now if you don't have a weapon, and if you don't cause injury, the punishment instead can be a fine and/or up to a year in prison - that's up to the discretion of the judge.

The restricted property refers to The White House and it's grounds, a place where the president or other protected person is staying.

It's hard to say when they're actually going to use this, if ever. It seems like most people would agree that you shouldn't be allowed to fuck up the presidents business, the real question is whether protesting or picketing is 'impeding or disrupting the orderly conduct' of the government or president.

Personally, I would say that this law is too vague and loose. Although that's the general nature of law, it's supposed to be loose and flexible, I feel like this act should be descriptive in what it intends to protect the president against. I have a hard time believing that people cannot protest the president visiting a building for example, as long as they're not blocking his way for example.

 

[GI Cake]

For those of you who choose to look for better sources for news than Fox. Here is a link with better information on the HR 347 bill.

HR 347 allows secret service members to arrest protestors and punish them with 1 to 10 years in prison. Or an area in protection of the National Special Security Event. So in other words. The public is not allowed to hold a public protest in places Secret Service or NSSE are present. It doesn't say why the people are not allowed to protest where Secret Service or NSSE can be present. So it leads me to asking the question "Who agreed to this bill? How does this bill support the people? How does this bill not break the first amendment rights?" Suppose your local Congressmen is at a hotel for a fundraiser for an act you and many others are against. If you choose to protest their and NSSE or Secret Service are present, they can disband and detain any members of the protest. However, in court you can only be tried for any real time if you (A)the 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.

If a protest that results in harming bystanders, then Police already have the rights to arrest and quell the protest. But if the protesters are obeying the law and keeping it a peaceful protest. Then I do not see the problem. Basically what this law does is push protestors away from buildings or grounds that are under the protection of Secret Service or NSSE. I agree with Salv here with the fact that this law is very loose and vague. But public protesting is still legal in the United States. But by the sound of this law, you can protest a McDonalds all you want, but if President Obama or any person of National interest walks into that building, you better scatter or you will get arrested.

 

[Davi323]

For those of you who choose to look for better sources for news than Fox. Here is a link with better information on the HR 347 bill.

HR 347 allows secret service members to arrest protestors and punish them with 1 to 10 years in prison. Or an area in protection of the National Special Security Event. So in other words. The public is not allowed to hold a public protest in places Secret Service or NSSE are present. It doesn't say why the people are not allowed to protest where Secret Service or NSSE can be present. So it leads me to asking the question "Who agreed to this bill? How does this bill support the people? How does this bill not break the first amendment rights?" Suppose your local Congressmen is at a hotel for a fundraiser for an act you and many others are against. If you choose to protest their and NSSE or Secret Service are present, they can disband and detain any members of the protest. However, in court you can only be tried for any real time if you (A)the 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.

If a protest that results in harming bystanders, then Police already have the rights to arrest and quell the protest. But if the protesters are obeying the law and keeping it a peaceful protest. Then I do not see the problem. Basically what this law does is push protestors away from buildings or grounds that are under the protection of Secret Service or NSSE. I agree with Salv here with the fact that this law is very loose and vague. But public protesting is still legal in the United States. But by the sound of this law, you can protest a McDonalds all you want, but if President Obama or any person of National interest walks into that building, you better scatter or you will get arrested.

There is a key piece of information missing...it really only applies when the protesters have already physically crossed into a zone that has already been blocked off. IE, they already aren't supposed to be there because it's already a restricted area.

the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area

If the protesters are already violating the restricted area designated, then what is the big deal with this, exactly? It doesn't apply to people who stay on the legal side of the barrier. As I read it, it pertains only to protesters who have already made the choice to cross the barriers set up, or otherwise enter a restricted area/building that they would not otherwise have access to.

I don't see anything particularly egregious here. They all seem like reasonable restrictions to me. As long as the protesters don't try to enter restricted areas they aren't legally authorized to enter anyway, don't plot or engage in violence and stick to their side of whatever is being used as a barricade, they should be fine.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

It will be interesting to see what happens when someone sues and then the case makes it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I can honestly see the arguments both ways regarding this bill and I think it's really going to depend on how it is applied.

Needless to say, this will be a mess and the subject of many cases, I'm sure, possibly even a landmark case at some point.

 

[SalvIsWin]

There is a key piece of information missing...it really only applies when the protesters have already physically crossed into a zone that has already been blocked off. IE, they already aren't supposed to be there because it's already a restricted area.



If the protesters are already violating the restricted area designated, then what is the big deal with this, exactly? It doesn't apply to people who stay on the legal side of the barrier. As I read it, it pertains only to protesters who have already made the choice to cross the barriers set up, or otherwise enter a restricted area/building that they would not otherwise have access to.

I don't see anything particularly egregious here. They all seem like reasonable restrictions to me. As long as the protesters don't try to enter restricted areas they aren't legally authorized to enter anyway, don't plot or engage in violence and stick to their side of whatever is being used as a barricade, they should be fine.

It mentions that you can't impede or disrupt in proximity to the restricted zones, not just within them. You could be across the street and be in proximity, it all depends on how you view 'in proximity'.

 

[Larry]

Yeah, I don't like the sound of this. It just leaves the door wide open for those people to send their critics to jail for having the nerve to protest or heckle them. It's an excuse waiting for abuse. They can just say "Oh well, they were in a restricted zone, endangering the crooked bastard politician that sold them up the river" and off you go to a federal penitentiary because you were on the wrong side of the argument. What business do these people have "setting barriers" anyways? Whats wrong? Afraid some of the people you fucked over might want to take a pound of flesh out of your ass??? Maybe you do need that barrier huh? What a shame. Maybe if these people were doing their job and serving the people instead of their fat asses and the special interest and lobbyist groups that line their pockets, you'd have people breaking barriers to thank you for doing the right thing by them. Instead the government fucks you, me, our kids, their kids, their kids, and their kids, and their kids, and we are supposed to be okay with it, and God forbid they make imaginary lines that we cross. It's as if we are slaves to the system, and the slave master says "You can't go beyond the tree line" and if you do you get shot. The real bullshit about it is that WE OWN THEM. It is our money that pays for everything for them, they make their living off of us, we give them their power not the other way around, and we can take it away. It seems to me like that time is well on it's way where we face the need to overthrow the current, corrupted and decayed government we have in place now, and re-establish a government that is once again of the people, by the people, and for the people.

 

[WallsofZakku]

And you thought your rights were saved...

[youtube]FNWzYeiS2Oo[/youtube]


I'm surprised more people haven't brought this up, especially since it brings felony charges to people for utilizing their FIRST AMENDMENT rights of Free Speech. It's worth noting that nearly nobody in the Congress opposed this bill. If you're an illuminati believer, this might be more wood for your fire. But really, I'm mad because although I don't really protest with picket signs, I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech.

When you start taking away BILL OF RIGHTS amendments, that's when things are going to get bad. What do you think of this news?

This is just showing that America is going to the dumps. The Constitution holds no meaning anymore and its just going to get worse. this act can be abused and im sure it will be. and yes, we can blame the illuminati

 

[Kaztrator]

I kind of agree with the bill, but that's just me. I never liked protests. They are more disruptive then they are effective. Lobbying, debating and petitioning are much better ways to get things to happen. Standing outside of a building with a picket sign does nothing.

I understand why people will have a problem with this bill, but the thing is, this doesn't affect the First Amendment whatsoever. To use an example, I currently study in a private college. The private college here has a NO PROTEST policy. Organizing a protest might result in expulsion. They are allowed to do this because they are a private entity and can impose as many rules as they want, regardless of the Constitution.

Although the Secret Service are a governmental body, they should have that luxury too. Having 30 members of the Westboro Baptist Church outside a Presidential speech picketing about how Obama is the Anti-Christ is distracting. It would distract them from noticing actual security threats in the vicinity. How could you pay attention to profiling terrorists when there are a few people around the crowd with OBAMA IS GOING TO HELL signs?

Wether you are Republican, Democrat or Independent, people should be more respectful to the president, the Secret Service and other members of government. We can openly disagree, criticize and even bash them anywhere we want, but we should listen to what they have to say. After the forums and/or events in which those officials speak, the people can protest however they want. But while the Secret Service is there trying to protect the elected officials of our nation, the people must remain civil.