Obama makes free speech a crime

[+OverSword]

[Agent0range]

Ohhh...Obama did it. Do you know how many members of the GOP controlled house voted against it? I will give you a hint. More than 2...but less than 4.

[seaturtlehorsesnake]

could you provide some details, rather than just the video link?

[Agent0range]

could you provide some details, rather than just the video link?

Surely there can't be more to the story than a Youtube video would report!

[aztek]

you don't need you tube, it has happened many times, arrests during protests, and maceing of pieceful protesters. (and funniest part, cop doing spraying claimed emotional damage.)

as for those in denial of anything on you tube, show me anything different from reliable source, you can't. facts confirm you tube.

one thing i agree, obama is not the one to blame.

Edited November 19, 2013 by aztek

[Imaginarynumber1]

This is almost 2 years old and has been discussed already. It's a trespassing law.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=226748&st=0&p=4287213&hl=+hr%20+347entry4287213

[mysticwerewolf]

one thing i agree, obama is not the one to blame.

He may not be the ONLY one to blame but if the meet the press video is correct HE SIGNED IT so he shares the blame with which ever politician started it. unless of course it was an executive order which was neither said nor implied by the vid.( at least not as I heard it)

[seaturtlehorsesnake]

This is almost 2 years old and has been discussed already. It's a trespassing law.

http://www.unexplain...7

thank you. i mean, is it so hard to include some basic details in a post?

[Imaginarynumber1]

thank you. i mean, is it so hard to include some basic details in a post?

It is when all you are trying to do is fear-monger.

[Kowalski]

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."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Link: http://rt.com/usa/34...-buildings-437/

John Whitehead, president of the the Rutherford Institute, explained the plan came about as a knee-jerk reaction to a crazed assailant’s attack on U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., a year ago.

“The bill’s language is so overly broad as to put an end to free speech, political protest and the right to peaceably assembly in all areas where government officials happen to be present,” he wrote.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said it was something he could not support.

“Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway,” he said. “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity – even if that activity is annoying to those government officials – violates our rights,” he said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2...gY6EltoTpvz5.99

Edited November 19, 2013 by Kowalski

[Kowalski]

Here is a list of how everyone voted, just in case anyone is interested....

Link: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h149

[Kowalski]

While the Trespass Bill may have started out with the best of intentions, it has ended up as the government’s declaration of zero tolerance for individuals exercising their First Amendment rights,” he said.

“If these types of laws had been in effect during the Civil Rights movement, there would have been no march on Washington. Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellow activists would have been rendered criminals. And King’s call for ‘militant nonviolent resistance’ would have been silenced by police in riot gear,” he said.

He also criticized so-called “First Amendment zones” or areas.

“Free speech zones have become commonplace at political rallies and the national conventions of both major political parties,” he said. “One of the most infamous free speech zones was erected at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Not so much a zone of free expression as a cage, it was a space enclosed by chain link fences, Jersey walls, and razor wire. Judge Douglas Woodlock, who toured the free speech cage before the convention, noted, ‘One cannot conceive of other elements put in place to make a space more of an affront to the idea of free expression than the designated demonstration zone.’

“Bubble zones and free speech zones, in essence, destroy the very purpose of the First Amendment, which assures us of the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances,” he said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-signs-end-to-free-speech/#URbm9UtcBvvdOVBt.99

[RavenHawk]

Here is a list of how everyone voted, just in case anyone is interested....

Link: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h149

This is one of those votes that you have to wonder what were they thinking?? Someone who had the floor made such a good point that nothing else mattered. I have a feeling it had to do with personal safety and they didn't realize that it would infringe on our Rights of free speech. This is an old story and I've only heard it used once but I don't recall any specifics.

[Kowalski]

This is one of those votes that you have to wonder what were they thinking?? Someone who had the floor made such a good point that nothing else mattered. I have a feeling it had to do with personal safety and they didn't realize that it would infringe on our Rights of free speech. This is an old story and I've only heard it used once but I don't recall any specifics.

Oh, I am sure they did realize it. Your more optimistic than I am....

[RavenHawk]

Oh, I am sure they did realize it. Your more optimistic than I am....

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. It's one of those things where individuals are smart but people are dumb.

Edited November 19, 2013 by RavenHawk

[+OverSword]

could you provide some details, rather than just the video link?

Nope. That video is all I know, for more details I suggest you google them. Feel free to report on whatever you find out.

[+OverSword]

This is almost 2 years old and has been discussed already. It's a trespassing law.

http://www.unexplain...7

And in the trespassing law was it up to the Secret Service what constituted a breach?

And this is new. Quit trolling with your false information.

Edited November 19, 2013 by OverSword

[+OverSword]

This is one of those votes that you have to wonder what were they thinking?? Someone who had the floor made such a good point that nothing else mattered. I have a feeling it had to do with personal safety and they didn't realize that it would infringe on our Rights of free speech. This is an old story and I've only heard it used once but I don't recall any specifics.

What they were thinking is if I vote 'yea' then I can have people arrested who oppose my POV.

@ patagonianhorsesnake, imaginarynumber 1, you both are in heavy denial.

Edited November 19, 2013 by OverSword

[Imaginarynumber1]

And in the trespassing law was it up to the Secret Service what constituted a breach?

You can still protest whom or whatever you choose without fear of being imprisoned, despite what fox news may tell you.

It merely updated a law that Nixon signed making it illegal to trespass when the secret service is present.

It added only two things:

It specifies that it is unlawful to enter secured areas of the White House and its grounds, or the vice president’s official residence and grounds. Previously, according to the report, the law prohibited unlawful entry to any building or ground, secured by the Secret Service, where the president or vice president is “temporarily” visiting. That forced the Secret Service to rely on a District of Columbia law that “addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions” even if somebody were to breach the White House residence itself.

The new law revises the standard that prosecutors must meet to gain a conviction, from proving that a violation was committed “willfully and knowingly” to merely proving that it was committed “knowingly.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/obama-criminalize-free-speech/

It wasn't secretly signed, it was announced like every other bill.

This is nothing but fox news fear-mongering, plain and simple.

[Odin11]

So a bill is passed that turns a misdemeanor into a "federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene" and boom free speech is now a crime? All this bill is saying is that it is now a felony to unlawfully enter a building that a person protected by the Secret Service is in. You can still protest all you want outside, you just can't go in, just like always. This is nothing more than hyperbole by people who want to be mad at everything Obama does.

I want to know what you people think you can't do now that you could do before. Trespassing is illegal, that's what this bill is about, not protesting.

[Imaginarynumber1]

What they were thinking is if I vote 'yea' then I can have people arrested who oppose my POV.

@ patagonianhorsesnake, imaginarynumber 1, you both are in heavy denial.

How am I in denial?

THIS IS AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED LAW.

Nixon signed it into law 42 YEARS AGO. Where were you then? we're you complaining about it then, too?

All this did was add the White House and VP House as areas that this applies, instead of DC law.

[seaturtlehorsesnake]

what i like is that i'm in heavy denial for asking for basic information, apparently.

[+OverSword]

How am I in denial?

THIS IS AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED LAW.

Nixon signed it into law 42 YEARS AGO. Where were you then? we're you complaining about it then, too?

All this did was add the White House and VP House as areas that this applies, instead of DC law.

If it was an established law then why did the president just sign it. I saw what you posted, got links?

[Imaginarynumber1]

And in the trespassing law was it up to the Secret Service what constituted a breach?

And this is new. Quit trolling with your false information.

My false information?

Your youtube video is from April of 2012.

The bill is HR 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,"

Who's trolling with false info, now?

Edited November 19, 2013 by Imaginarynumber1

[+OverSword]

what i like is that i'm in heavy denial for asking for basic information, apparently.

Research it and get back to me.