New Bill May Restrict Protests

[Th-e]

Well, first we had SOPA, with the threat of Internet censorship. That ultimately faded away, though there's still ACTA and such.

Then we had the NDAA with indefinite detention provisions, with the potential for Americans to be branded "suspected terrorists" and imprisoned forever. That became law and was made effective as of March 1st.

Now we have a new bill that has already swept through Congress (388-3 in the House, unanimous in the Senate) that allegedly outlaws protests whenever a government official protected by the Secret Service is in a nearby area.

This bill, called the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,is said to be targeted at fence jumpers, but the vagueness of the law (sound familiar?) makes it so that protesting in these areas, even peacefully, would be a federal offense. Or so these sources say.

The bill already passed both houses of Congress without any attention from the major media networks (again, sound familiar?), and is on its way to Obama's desk for signature.

Are we really turning into a totalitarian police state? Are these laws being developed because Congress "is sick and tired of hearing these protests" from the Occupy and related movements? Or is this another overblown conspiracy theory thing?

[TNT]

At 1 hour ago, Th-e wrote: Well, first we had SOPA, with the threat of Internet censorship. That ultimately faded away, though there's still ACTA and such.

Then we had the NDAA with indefinite detention provisions, with the potential for Americans to be branded "suspected terrorists" and imprisoned forever. That became law and was made effective as of March 1st.

Now we have a new bill that has already swept through Congress (388-3 in the House, unanimous in the Senate) that allegedly outlaws protests whenever a government official protected by the Secret Service is in a nearby area.

This bill, called the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,is said to be targeted at fence jumpers, but the vagueness of the law (sound familiar?) makes it so that protesting in these areas, even peacefully, would be a federal offense. Or so these sources say.

The bill already passed both houses of Congress without any attention from the major media networks (again, sound familiar?), and is on its way to Obama's desk for signature.

Are we really turning into a totalitarian police state? Are these laws being developed because Congress "is sick and tired of hearing these protests" from the Occupy and related movements? Or is this another overblown conspiracy theory thing?

From what you are saying (I did not check the link because I have to go to another class in like two minutes), there are already laws that protect private property when it comes to trespassing. Why are they proposing this kind of bill to prevent "fence jumpers" when the illegality of that law exists already? Kinda counter-productive if you ask me...

[Tony-DarkGrave]

if it helps stop this dumb ass Occupy shit Im all for it. its nothing but a bunch of college kids who think they fucking know what's right for the country. what they don't know is everything that involves big business is fucking political.

[Th-e]

At 3 minutes ago, TNT wrote:
From what you are saying (I did not check the link because I have to go to another class in like two minutes), there are already laws that protect private property when it comes to trespassing. Why are they proposing this kind of bill to prevent "fence jumpers" when the illegality of that law exists already? Kinda counter-productive if you ask me...

What the articles are saying is that these new laws might make legitimate protests illegal. Sorry you didn't have time to look into it in more detail.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 3 minutes ago, Th-e wrote: What the articles are saying is that these new laws might make legitimate protests illegal. Sorry you didn't have time to look into it in more detail.

yeah on federal and state property where said State/Federal buildings are.

[djack]

At 1 hour ago, Th-e wrote: This bill, called the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,is said to be targeted at fence jumpers, but the vagueness of the law (sound familiar?) makes it so that protesting in these areas, even peacefully, would be a federal offense. Or so these sources say.

I'm going to say this now so that I don't have to say it again (although knowing this forum I'll probably have to), link to the bill not some biased articles so that we can look at the bill and decide for ourselves what we think of it. The titles of those articles alone was enough to make me lose interest because I already knew what the rest would say. I specifically avoid watching the news because I hate having to swallow their bias, I don't want to sift through the articles and youtube videos you link to just because their bias happens to match you're own.

[Camarohusky]

I will be the first adult here and post the actual text: HR 347

This seems very much constitutional. It does not target any point of view. The government has a sufficiently compelling interest in keeping itself functioning. This law, while restrrictive, does not foreclose other readily accessible means for protests.

What this stops isn't protesting, it stops such protects that interfere with the functioning. In other words, the sit ins inside the Congressional offices, or shouting over Congressional hearings/votes.

Picketting outside, even loudly, is still 100% ok under the text of this bill.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 17 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: Picketting outside, even loudly, is still 100% ok under the text of this bill.

just not on the grounds of a federal building.

[Camarohusky]

At 13 minutes ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 17 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: Picketting outside, even loudly, is still 100% ok under the text of this bill.

just not on the grounds of a federal building.

I was thinking more of on the sidewalk.

[djack]

At 13 minutes ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 17 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: Picketting outside, even loudly, is still 100% ok under the text of this bill.

just not on the grounds of a federal building.

Not only is this not a new bill (it's an amendment to a law that already exists), but everything within it is completely reasonable. This is why you should read the bill before making assumptions and post a link to it so that others can read it.

[TNT]

At 53 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: I will be the first adult here and post the actual text: HR 347

That link is not working...

[Camarohusky]

At 15 minutes ago, TNT wrote:

At 53 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: I will be the first adult here and post the actual text: HR 347

That link is not working...

Dammit. Well here it is:

One Hundred Twelfth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

An Act

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 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;
`(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) 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 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 or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

[Th-e]

The issue these sources have with the bill is vagueness/loopholes.

Well, guess we can call this another one of those paranoia/conspiracy things.

Anyway, we need to do something about Wall Street, though not the way Occupy does it...that's for another topic.

[Camarohusky]

At 39 minutes ago, Th-e wrote: The issue these sources have with the bill is vagueness/loopholes.

If you would point out exactly which language you think is vague and what loopholes ou see I will axddress them. Based on similar time-place-manner restrictions and limited public forum rulings this area is not as vague as many would think. But again, if you address specific point, I'll give specific examples.

Well, guess we can call this another one of those paranoia/conspiracy things.

No it's not. There are clearly valid concerns and many extremely intelligent legal scholars have hit both sides of these issues. Again, the biggest issue here is a lack of information and a quickness to trust other who lack information.

Anyway, we need to do something about Wall Street, though not the way Occupy does it...that's for another topic.

There are many of those lurking around.

[TNT]

Thank you Husky for posting the bill onto this thread.

Now that I have read the text, I can say that I have little concern about this bill. Could there be loopholes in the bill? Certainly, but the bill is pretty clear on what exactly will happen when someone violates the law if it passes, and it does not restrict the First Amendment. This is more dealing with the protection of private property, which technically the white house and other government buildings are their "private property". So if someone were to step into their said property and disrupting the flow of government officials trying to get to work, then they have every right to press charges against them.

[Camarohusky]

At 44 minutes ago, TNT wrote: This is more dealing with the protection of private property, which technically the white house and other government buildings are their "private property". So if someone were to step into their said property and disrupting the flow of government officials trying to get to work, then they have every right to press charges against them.

Well... Technically any and every State and Federal property is public land. However, this is where the limited public forum and such otehr doctrines come in. There are three classifications of public land. First there's off limits (I cannot remember the judicial name for this) where the public has no expectation of being present, let alone having the right to free speech at. these are treated exactly like private property. Second there is the limited public forum where the nature of the forum lends itself only to a limited expectation of free speech. Lastly there is a completely open public forum where speech is given the highest respect.

Governmental buildings usually fall into the first 2 catergories. Agency buildings are often in the first category, while political buildings tend to be lumped in the limited section. The limited public forum is like a quasi-private property in such that speech that is not part of the expected discourse of that forum. An example of such a place is a courthouse.

[Entice]

At 5 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: if it helps stop this dumb ass Occupy shit Im all for it. its nothing but a bunch of college kids who think they fucking know what's right for the country. what they don't know is everything that involves big business is fucking political.

I'm not going to comment on the OP's claims, but it's just plain stupid that you would support a potentially oppressive bill just because it would silence a specific group that you disagree with.

[Camarohusky]

At 8 hours ago, bgraybr wrote: I'm not going to comment on the OP's claims, but it's just plain stupid that you would support a potentially oppressive bill just because it would silence a specific group that you disagree with.

So long as the bill/law is facially neutral it can have as much pretext as it wants, per O'Brien.

I will make the claim that this bill does not hurt protesting but actually helps it if anybody wants to hear it.