Obama wants to silence protestors....

[Jarhead]

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;
Part (B) is the damaging part...it leaves anywhere the SS decides....including your own front yard.

Temporarily visiting includes driving through....or the word "temporary" would not be needed in the law.

Where does ANYONE temporarily visit? Either you visit or you dont.

When it comes to crap like this, one needs to know how to read between the lines.

By "read between the lines" you mean "make shit up".

Temporarily visiting does not mean "driving through". Your own giant bold clearly says "building or grounds".

Where does anyone temporarily visit? Are you joking? You seriously can't think of places a President temporarily visits?

They travel all the time, giving speeches, staying in hotels, attending fundraisers.

you gave examples of where the POTUS would visit.

Please give me an example of where a POTUS would TEMPORARILY visit.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This bill was passed in the House 399-3.....looks like all our government reps are in on it......this is just another "tweaking" of an old law.....seems innocent enough on face but incrementally our rights are being restricted...

Simply put, the way the bill will “improve” public grounds is by moving all those unsightly protesters elsewhere. The law purports to update an old law, Section 1752 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that restricted areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service. The original law was enacted in 1971 and amended in 2006. At first blush, the big change here is that while the old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter a restricted space, now prosecutors need only show that you did it "knowingly"—that you knew the area was restricted, even if you didn’t know it was illegal to enter the space. This has been characterized in some quarters as a small technical change that hardly warrants an arched eyebrow, much less a protest.

But it’s important to understand what has changed since the original law was enacted in 1971, because it shows how much a tiny tweak to the intent requirement in a statute can impact the free speech of everyone.

For one thing, the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. Period. It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone. For another, it’s almost impossible to predict what constitutes “disorderly or disruptive conduct” or what sorts of conduct authorities deem to “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

The types of events and individuals warranting Secret Service protection have grown exponentially since the law was enacted in 1971. Today, any occasion that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event calls for Secret Service protection. NSSE’s can include basketball championships, concerts, and the Winter Olympics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with government business, official functions, or improving public grounds. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE.

And that brings us to the real problem with the change to the old protest law. Instead of turning on a designated place, the protest ban turns on what persons and spaces are deemed to warrant Secret Service protection. It’s a perfect circle: The people who believe they are important enough to warrant protest can now shield themselves from protestors. No wonder the Occupy supporters are worried. In the spirit of “free speech zones,” this law creates another space in which protesters are free to be nowhere near the people they are protesting.

Consider that more than 6,700 people have been arrested at Occupy events since last September. Thus, while these changes to the law are not the death of free speech, they aren’t as trivial as the administration would have you believe. Rather, they are part of an incremental and persistent effort by the government to keep demonstrators away from events involving those at the top of the political food chain.

The anti-protest bill signed by Barack Obama is a quiet attack on free speech. - Slate Magazine

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You can read this law in so many ways....just as the Marxist and chief intended. All it's gonna take is one word from a political figure and your ass is in jail. You may be able to fight it and win in court,but at what cost?
Huge amounts of leeway here.

This is meant to stop protesters from being heard,plane and simple. I would think this would really piss of the libs considering they are the ones who use this type of protesting the most.

I can see it now....Ol Mitt taking an unannounced ride through an OWS protest.
Hmmmmmmm....not a bad idea. You could lock up a few thousand stinking hippies in one fell swoop. Niiiiiiccce!

 

[g5000]

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;
Part (B) is the damaging part...it leaves anywhere the SS decides....including your own front yard.

Temporarily visiting includes driving through....or the word "temporary" would not be needed in the law.

Where does ANYONE temporarily visit? Either you visit or you dont.

When it comes to crap like this, one needs to know how to read between the lines.

"Read between the lines". You mean "make shit up".

Temporarily visiting does not mean "driving through". Your own giant bold clearly says "building or grounds".

Where does anyone temporarily visit? Are you joking? You seriously can't think of places the President temporarily visits?

He travels all the time, giving speeches, staying in hotels, attending fundraisers.

then it would say "visit"...

Why would it say "temporarily" visit?

"Visit" is not defined by a length of time

But when you toss in temporary...it will include "passing through" for it is not a real visit.

I can tell this is the first law you ever read......

"Temporarily visit" is a redundant phrase.

Give me an example of a permanent visit.

And I can guarantee I have read more laws than probably this entire forum combined.

 

[g5000]

I would also like to point out this bill was introduced by Congressman Rooney.

HE IS A REPUBLICAN, and the bill passed in a REPUBLICAN House.

Dumbasses.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I would also like to point out this bill was introduced by Congressman Rooney.

HE IS A REPUBLICAN, and the bill passed in a REPUBLICAN House.

Dumbasses.

the Republican House vote was already pointed out.....

but was it blocked by the Democrat Senate......?

or was it vetoed by the Democrat President......?

....talk about dumbasses....

 

[asaratis]

You can read this law in so many ways....just as the Marxist and chief intended. All it's gonna take is one word from a political figure and your ass is in jail. You may be able to fight it and win in court,but at what cost?
Huge amounts of leeway here.

This is meant to stop protesters from being heard,plane and simple. I would think this would really piss of the libs considering they are the ones who use this type of protesting the most.

I can see it now....Ol Mitt taking an unannounced ride through an OWS protest.
Hmmmmmmm....not a bad idea. You could lock up a few thousand stinking hippies in one fell swoop. Niiiiiiccce!

The decision rights belong to the SS. They can decide to let the protest continue or to arrest people. Obama would never allow the arrest of his children, those stinking, filthy, shit-on-the-flag, shit-on-the-cop-cars, brain dead OWS leeches.

I see protests being allowed at the Republican Convention and disallowed at the Democratic Convention. Partisanship at its finest!

 

[asaratis]

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;
Part (B) is the damaging part...it leaves anywhere the SS decides....including your own front yard.

Temporarily visiting includes driving through....or the word "temporary" would not be needed in the law.

Where does ANYONE temporarily visit? Either you visit or you dont.

When it comes to crap like this, one needs to know how to read between the lines.

By "read between the lines" you mean "make shit up".

Temporarily visiting does not mean "driving through". Your own giant bold clearly says "building or grounds".

Where does anyone temporarily visit? Are you joking? You seriously can't think of places a President temporarily visits?

They travel all the time, giving speeches, staying in hotels, attending fundraisers.

you gave examples of where the POTUS would visit.

Please give me an example of where a POTUS would TEMPORARILY visit.

Cuba?....only he wouldn't have to ask permission like this clown did.

http://www.cadenagramonte.cu/englis...emporarily-visit-cuba&catid=62:news&Itemid=57


Another example:
Temporary Visitor
Free Legal Info On Temporary Visitors & Non-Immigrant US Visas.
www.findlaw.com/Immigration

 

[g5000]

I would also like to point out this bill was introduced by Congressman Rooney.

HE IS A REPUBLICAN, and the bill passed in a REPUBLICAN House.

Dumbasses.

the Republican House vote was already pointed out.....

but was it blocked by the Democrat Senate......?

or was it vetoed by the Democrat President......?

....talk about dumbasses....

See topic title.

 

[g5000]

Obama is on the march. Next thing you know, he'll be limiting free speech on the internet to that which praises his sorry ass.

**** Obama. **** Marxism. **** all Marxist assholes. This is the United States of America! Take your ******* Marxism elsewhere!

Originated by the GOP.

Taking a page from his buddy Chavez's book.

Originated by the GOP.

You can read this law in so many ways....just as the Marxist and chief intended.

Originated by the GOP.



Remember that raid on OBL which UnConservatives work real hard to minimize the credit to Obama for? "All he did was nod", etc., etc., etc.

Well, all he did was sign the bill orginated by the GOP. So why you giving him all the credit?

 

[Liability]

The law is ESSENTIALLY a law prohibiting trespass and a law prohibiting the intentional interruption of the administration of the government.

Neither is remarkable.

Neither actually implicates a GENUINE First Amendment concern.

For an interesting synopsis of the law, its intent and the (then) expected "objections" to the law, here is a useful link:

Criminal Resource Manual 1547 Constitutionality -- 18 U.S.C. 1752

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I would also like to point out this bill was introduced by Congressman Rooney.

HE IS A REPUBLICAN, and the bill passed in a REPUBLICAN House.

Dumbasses.

the Republican House vote was already pointed out.....

but was it blocked by the Democrat Senate......?

or was it vetoed by the Democrat President......?

....talk about dumbasses....

See topic title.

although i know you want to blame it all on the republicans......the fact that the Democrat Senate passed the bill (not to mention all the Dems in the House too)......and the President signed it......2/3 of the legislative process.......definitely supports the topic title....

 

[asaratis]

The law is ESSENTIALLY a law prohibiting trespass and a law prohibiting the intentional interruption of the administration of the government.

Neither is remarkable.

Neither actually implicates a GENUINE First Amendment concern.

For an interesting synopsis of the law, its intent and the (then) expected "objections" to the law, here is a useful link:

Criminal Resource Manual 1547 Constitutionality -- 18 U.S.C. 1752

Campaign speeches and rallies by a sitting President or by candidates running for his position do NOT qualify as "administration of the government". The fact that the SS is protecting them should not impede my right to peaceable protest and display of placards.

I can see it now...misuse of an ill-gotten power over the people..and it will be applied in a partisan manner, by whichever party controls the SS at the time.

 

[g5000]

I think the GOP originated this bill because they don't want to be hassled by OWS fleabags and hippies and Tea Party alkies and yahoos while they are campaigning.

 

[Liability]

The law is ESSENTIALLY a law prohibiting trespass and a law prohibiting the intentional interruption of the administration of the government.

Neither is remarkable.

Neither actually implicates a GENUINE First Amendment concern.

For an interesting synopsis of the law, its intent and the (then) expected "objections" to the law, here is a useful link:

Criminal Resource Manual 1547 Constitutionality -- 18 U.S.C. 1752

Campaign speeches and rallies by a sitting President or by candidates running for his position do NOT qualify as "administration of the government". The fact that the SS is protecting them should not impede my right to peaceable protest and display of placards.

I can see it now...misuse of an ill-gotten power over the people..and it will be applied in a partisan manner, by whichever party controls the SS at the time.

There is zero reason to believe the modification of the law (which already existed on the books) has any effect on protesting with placards, peacably outside any such residence or facility.

That's not what the law says and I doubt it would be read in that way by any court.

 

[The T]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This bill was passed in the House 399-3.....looks like all our government reps are in on it......this is just another "tweaking" of an old law.....seems innocent enough on face but incrementally our rights are being restricted...

Simply put, the way the bill will “improve” public grounds is by moving all those unsightly protesters elsewhere. The law purports to update an old law, Section 1752 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that restricted areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service. The original law was enacted in 1971 and amended in 2006. At first blush, the big change here is that while the old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter a restricted space, now prosecutors need only show that you did it "knowingly"—that you knew the area was restricted, even if you didn’t know it was illegal to enter the space. This has been characterized in some quarters as a small technical change that hardly warrants an arched eyebrow, much less a protest.

But it’s important to understand what has changed since the original law was enacted in 1971, because it shows how much a tiny tweak to the intent requirement in a statute can impact the free speech of everyone.

For one thing, the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. Period. It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone. For another, it’s almost impossible to predict what constitutes “disorderly or disruptive conduct” or what sorts of conduct authorities deem to “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

The types of events and individuals warranting Secret Service protection have grown exponentially since the law was enacted in 1971. Today, any occasion that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event calls for Secret Service protection. NSSE’s can include basketball championships, concerts, and the Winter Olympics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with government business, official functions, or improving public grounds. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE.

And that brings us to the real problem with the change to the old protest law. Instead of turning on a designated place, the protest ban turns on what persons and spaces are deemed to warrant Secret Service protection. It’s a perfect circle: The people who believe they are important enough to warrant protest can now shield themselves from protestors. No wonder the Occupy supporters are worried. In the spirit of “free speech zones,” this law creates another space in which protesters are free to be nowhere near the people they are protesting.

Consider that more than 6,700 people have been arrested at Occupy events since last September. Thus, while these changes to the law are not the death of free speech, they aren’t as trivial as the administration would have you believe. Rather, they are part of an incremental and persistent effort by the government to keep demonstrators away from events involving those at the top of the political food chain.

The anti-protest bill signed by Barack Obama is a quiet attack on free speech. - Slate Magazine

Unsightly? Really? Does that include Smelly[Tourists]?

Harry Reid's 'Smelly Tourists' Comment

Reid: We won't smell the tourists anymore
The Capitol Visitors Center, which opened this morning, may have tripled its original budget and fallen years behind schedule, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found a silver lining for members of Congress: tourists won't offend them with their B.O. anymore.

"My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway," said Reid in his remarks. "In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true."

 

[uscitizen]

I would also like to point out this bill was introduced by Congressman Rooney.

HE IS A REPUBLICAN, and the bill passed in a REPUBLICAN House.

Dumbasses.

the Republican House vote was already pointed out.....

but was it blocked by the Democrat Senate......?

or was it vetoed by the Democrat President......?

....talk about dumbasses....

but it was introduced by a republican not a demoncrat and passed overwhelmingly by a republican house including the Tea Party Caucus.

hmmm
I thought the tea party was for freedom?
And the republicans claim to be as well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Give me an example of a permanent visit.

Mothers-in-law – or it certainly feels like it…

I would also like to point out this bill was introduced by Congressman Rooney.

HE IS A REPUBLICAN, and the bill passed in a REPUBLICAN House.

So this means republicans are bad, too, and no one should vote for Romney.

Got it.

 

[francoHFW]

A total Foxcrappe outrage for the dupes lol

 

[Sunshine]

Obama Makes Free Speech A Felony - YouTube
» H.R. 347: Another Step in the Elimination of the First Amendment Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 347 | The White House
Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill — RT

The whitehouse.gov statement is intentionally brief and does not tell the entire story. Free speech is under attack by the Marxist Obama. He wants to silence protestors.

The bill applies not only at the White House but at every location where someone is under the protection of the Secret Service.
Let’s here from both sides on this. I want you liberals to try to justify this shit!

I saw this earlier. So, how do you get the needed information?