HR 347, End to Free Speech?

[buffalobo]

Unfortunately this has been passed and signed by President.

Surprised I could not find a thread that referenced it.

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

Get short URL
email story to a friend print version
Published: 29 February, 2012, 02:13
Edited: 26 May, 2012, 19:11


TAGS:
Crime, Politics, Law, USA
TRENDS:
Defense Authorization Act



Washington: US park police detains a Christian religious activist during a pro-life demonstration in front of the White House in Washington on February 16, 2012. (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)

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.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
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.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?
On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “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,” adds the representative.
Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.
Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

[spqrzilla]

Even the ACLU seems to think description above is nonsense, they claim that the bill only makes a small change to the mens rea of the crime ie., that you knew you were in a restricted area. So it does remove the requirement to prove that entry was a crime per se, but not the requirement to prove knowledge that it was a restricted area.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech...g-protest-bill

[theGinsue]

We discussed this at length when it was originally introduced. The wording of the bill (now law) does allow individuals deemed to be protesting at events which the Secret Service is present to provide protection to be arrested I don't recall the exclusion zone, but as I recall, it's vague enough that you could be protesting in a park across the street from such an event and still face arrest.

This is still just the start folks.

[Great-Kazoo]

Two words for ya.
“Fairness Doctrine”

With O's re-election, do not discount a Dem led proposal to revisit it.

[buffalobo]

Will this put a chill on how likely folks are to show up and protest? Getting tagged with a felony for protest?

Another step on the path...

[Kraven251]

Will this put a chill on how likely folks are to show up and protest? Getting tagged with a felony for protest?

Another step on the path...

If they start throwing this around I would expect this to find itself in front of the Supreme Court pretty fast. If people are assembled and peacefully protesting something, I see no reason this law would stand up to scrutiny.

[roberth]

Two words for ya.
“Fairness Doctrine”

With O's re-election, do not discount a Dem led proposal to revisit it.

You're right, the "Fairness Doctrine" is coming.

If they start throwing this around I would expect this to find itself in front of the Supreme Court pretty fast. If people are assembled and peacefully protesting something, I see no reason this law would stand up to scrutiny.

That all depends on who is occupying the bench when it comes before the Supreme Court. If the bench is occupied with Obama selections this law will be rubber stamped, and it might still pass with the current bench. Your faith in the Supreme Court is admirable, I hold no such faith in them.

[Kraven251]

That all depends on who is occupying the bench when it comes before the Supreme Court. If the bench is occupied with Obama selections this law will be rubber stamped, and it might still pass with the current bench. Your faith in the Supreme Court is admirable, I hold no such faith in them.

Flawed as it is, I have to believe that system will right itself. The processes are in place for good reason, because if the system fails, I can't say that I much care for the alternative.

[Great-Kazoo]

You're right, the "Fairness Doctrine" is coming.



That all depends on who is occupying the bench when it comes before the Supreme Court. If the bench is occupied with Obama selections this law will be rubber stamped, and it might still pass with the current bench. Your faith in the Supreme Court is admirable, I hold no such faith in them.

Let's remember the same people who feel the patriot Act was Bush's way of eliminating free speech and running rampant over the Constitution, will have no problem with this. I feel the PA was most definitely misguided (to be kind) as is any other Law, Fed or Local, that infringes on any of our Constitutional Rights.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Let's remember the same people who feel the patriot Act was Bush's way of eliminating free speech and running rampant over the Constitution, will have no problem with this. I feel the PA was most definitely misguided (to be kind) as is any other Law, Fed or Local, that infringes on any of our Constitutional Rights.

I always found it interesting that left wingers who were vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act had no problems with the Secret Service arresting people who refused to shake hands with President Clinton (saying, "you suck" and pulling back when he approached to shake their hands), Chicago police arresting people for videotaping them, the IRS delving into EVERYONE's health records to determine if they had adequate coverage, etc. For all the vocal protests against the Patriot Act, there are very few instances of demonstrable misuse (there HAVE been some but not as many as you'd think after over a decade of having it with all the sturm-und-drang written about it).

Despite their propaganda, I don't see much out of the ACLU when government is overbearing on the side of socialists. Yes, they have filed occasional lawsuits to show "balance" but on the whole I don't expect to see much out of them when a left-wing government passes laws or regulations to limit right-wing or even centrist protests.