First Amendment-Chip, Chip, Chip... Meet the Trepass Bill

[Diana Hignutt]

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.

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

When will it end?

[Don]

Romney already has Secret Service protection, Santorum's is on the way, and Gingrich has requested it. Ron Paul said he thinks he should foot the bill for his security, not the taxpayers. He has a security team that travels with him at his campaign's expense, as I believe the other candidates have had up till now.

Factor that into your consideration of this bill as well. The Secret Service will be "on the scene" with three of the four Presidential candidates as they continue their campaign. Good for them, bad for protesters.

[These Mean Streets]

Alas, nothing lasts forever.

Yes, it's painful to witness the inevitable crumbling and decay of something we once held grand. But pain is often necessary to bring about change.

How much pain is needed before change can come about? I guess we'll find out. Eventually.

[blacbird]

Hmmm. Strikes me that "peacefully protesting" and "disrupting an event" aren't exactly synonymous. Which isn't synonymous with the idea that I agree with this legislation.

caw

[Diana Hignutt]

Originally Posted by blacbird

Hmmm. Strikes me that "peacefully protesting" and "disrupting an event" aren't exactly synonymous. Which isn't synonymous with the idea that I agree with this legislation.

caw

I suppose we'll see how "disrupting an event" is interpreted in the real world...

[Mharvey]

I think they already sort of do this. At the GOP convension, for example, they have restricted "protest areas". Usually in a corner, out of sight, out of mind. Anyone protesting has to stand there or they get evicted from the premise.

Seems like this is just an extension of this, though I don't mean to diminish the obvious slippery slope we've begun down ever since 9/11, where freedoms just continue to be chipped away.

Anyway, I take solace in the idea that if the government takes a misstep so grievous that even I'm encouraged to protest, I will probably be one of millions - and all the laws and legislation in the world isn't enough to turn off a million people. And if they try, well... the forefathers saw fit to give the people one trump card above all else: the second amendment. It's hard to rule over 300 million people who decide you've become more trouble than you're worth when most of them have guns or can get them easily.

Bottom line: The slope can only get so steep before it hits ground. At least that's what I tell myself so I can sleep at night.

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Mharvey

I think they already sort of do this. At the GOP convension, for example, they have restricted "protest areas". Usually in a corner, out of sight, out of mind. Anyone protesting has to stand there or they get evicted from the premise.

Seems like this is just an extension of this, though I don't mean to diminish the obvious slippery slope we've begun down ever since 9/11, where freedoms just continue to be chipped away.

The 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago wasn't exactly a cakewalk either. Our slope has been slippery for some time.

[Mharvey]

Originally Posted by Haggis

The 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago wasn't exactly a cakewalk either. Our slope has been slippery for some time.

True, but those were held amidst full blown riots, most caused by events that weren't really the governments fault (the assassinations of MLK and Kennedy, for example). I'm a little more understanding of the government being a bit overzealous when people act like a stupid, stampeding herd of cattle. It's not like tearing apart Chicago's going to bring Robert back.

It's the heavy handed approaches when there hasn't been a real riot in decades that give me the chills. St. Paul in 2008, for example.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Haggis

The 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago wasn't exactly a cakewalk either. Our slope has been slippery for some time.

Under this new bill, they won't need riots. Engage in "disruptive" chanting or accidentally block a sidewalk "within proximity of" a national party convention, and it's into the paddy wagon for you, facing heavy fines and up to 10 years in the federal pen.

I don't generally push traffic to my blog from here, but this story's on top today and I think everybody needs to be aware of it. I included the bill's full text since Thomas searches always time out after a period.

[Diana Hignutt]

Originally Posted by Don

Under this new bill, they won't need riots. Engage in "disruptive" chanting or accidentally block a sidewalk "within proximity of" a national party convention, and it's into the paddy wagon for you, facing heavy fines and up to 10 years in the federal pen.

I don't generally push traffic to my blog from here, but this story's on top today and I think everybody needs to be aware of it. I included the bill's full text since Thomas searches always time out after a period.

This bill is a dangerous attack on Liberty. It's a sad statement on our times, that there is such little concern...

[Don]

Originally Posted by Diana Hignutt

This bill is a dangerous attack on Liberty. It's a sad statement on our times, that there is such little concern...

I think it deserves a lot of attention. I guess it's not quite on the level of SOPA/PIPA unless you're as prone to protest in person as to sign on-line petitions, but it's still worthy of some attention from the online community.

[Don]

The bill makes it a federal offense to enter a building or grounds without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function if "the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" or if said area is "restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

Shouting and/or waving signs of protest can easily be construed as disruptive conduct.

Protesters exercising their First Amendment rights could easily fall under the provisions of this law if an enforcement agent determines they intended to disrupt a government function, obstructed or impeded access to the event, or engaged in disruptive or disorderly conduct in or within proximity of the restricted location.

It takes no stretch of imagination to see such vague wording used to fill paddy wagons. Drop your sign? You're impeding access. Chanting? Definately disruptive.

And didya notice that "within proximity" bit?

Oh, and "special events of national significance" include Republican and Democratic National Conventions, G8, G20 and NATO meetings, and even Super Bowls and Olympics have been declared such in the past.

This is a very dangerous bill, and it needs to be stopped as badly as SOPA and PIPA did.

[Amos Gunner]

I did a simple search on this bill and came up with:

-10 years if you use or carry a deadly or dangerous weapon, or if the offense results in significant harm. A fine and/or not more than one year in the pen otherwise.

-This bill is bad news for anyone who "impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions." I suppose that means you can still protest outside the White House. Just don't cut off the power supply or mess with the cars going in and out. Also, tresspassing is a no-go.

It passed 388 to 3. Two Republicans and one dem against.

Please let me know if I got anything wrong.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Amos Gunner

I did a simple search on this bill and came up with:

-10 years if you use or carry a deadly or dangerous weapon, or if the offense results in significant harm. A fine and/or not more than one year in the pen otherwise.

-This bill is bad news for anyone who "impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions." I suppose that means you can still protest outside the White House. Just don't cut off the power supply or mess with the cars going in and out. Also, tresspassing is a no-go.

It passed 388 to 3. Two Republicans and one dem against.

Please let me know if I got anything wrong.

Well, you left out the "or within such proximity to" clause, which means you don't actually have to cross any barriers at all to be found guilty.

Then there's that clever term "disrupts." If you're protesting loudly enough outside the venue that some low-level bureaucrat flashes up the wrong Powerpoint slide, you've disrupted the meeting. If the wind or your clumsy hands cause you to drop your protest sign in the driveway, you've disrupted the orderly flow of chauffeur-driven limousines carrying very important people on their appointed rounds. And lookie, there, boy, that 2x2 you've got that protest sign nailed to looks like a dangerous weapon to me.

And who's going to be interpreting "disrupts?" Government-employed prosecutors appearing before government-employed judges.

Then there's the whole "event designated as a special event of national significance," which in the past have included the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, NATO, G8 and G20 summits, and even Super Bowl XXXVI and the 2002 Winter Olympics.

So as long as people only protest silently outside any event of national significance, or stay far enough away that nobody will hear you, it's all good.

[Diana Hignutt]

Originally Posted by Amos Gunner

I did a simple search on this bill and came up with:

-10 years if you use or carry a deadly or dangerous weapon, or if the offense results in significant harm. A fine and/or not more than one year in the pen otherwise.

-This bill is bad news for anyone who "impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions." I suppose that means you can still protest outside the White House. Just don't cut off the power supply or mess with the cars going in and out. Also, tresspassing is a no-go.

It passed 388 to 3. Two Republicans and one dem against.

Please let me know if I got anything wrong.

Just a lack of historical and recent interpretations of the word "disrupt" utilized to silence OWS and other protests.

[Diana Hignutt]

So, what were you doing when freedom died?

Quietly applauding from the sidelines?

[Chrissy]

Much scarier than the solar flare threat, IMO.

[Fins Left]

"The House of Representatives approved a bill "

Makes you wonder just how bad they expect this election to get. There is no doubt in my mind that my Representative would use this if he could. He's already called cops because he held a 2 hour "open house" but then only allowed one person at a time to enter his office building, the rest (about 40) had to wait outside on the side walk. And when they complained that at least 'small groups' should be allowed to enter and talk as a group, he called the cops to have them all cleared away before the 2 hours were up.

[hvysmker]

I lost all trust in elections after the two for Bush the shrub. There were legions of lawyers guarding every door and glaring at voters. In the background, other lawyers inspected boxes of votes. It they were taped wrong the boxes would be dumped into a bin containing those from GIs and suspected space aliens. If you gave a democratic sneeze you were suspected of corrupting Republicans with cold germs and disallowed.

That was enough for me.

Now this one has many more millions of dollars used for stupid telephone and television ads. Here in Ohio, I've already received several Republican telephone calls spouting innuendo and half-truths.

Not that I trust Obama any more. I'd prefer Ron Paul but he doesn't have a chance of winning. If he did, he'd be in John Kennedy's position of working with a "Do Nothing" Congress. So I'll most likely vote for Obama again. I don't trust any of the Republican candidates NOT to go to war with Iran. Obama seems slightly less likely to do it.

As usual, it's not that I like any of the candidates or trust them to actually represent me. It's back to voting for the least obnoxious.

Charlie

[Fins Left]

@hvysmker - I agree, 'cept Ron Paul has started going over the the dark side this year. I'm also being pelted by push-polls and the like. I'm so sick of them, that I don't even answer my phone anymore.

(Registered Republican in Ohio)

[hvysmker]

I have to agree Fins Left about Ron Paul.

As for Iran, despite the huge propaganda campaign over the last ten years, if you look back at their recent history they've been a peaceful country. They haven't been unduly influencing other nations, for instance. Of course they have a vested interest in the affairs of Iraq, as we do with Mexico and Canada. It's right next door to them.

We, the US and Britain, were instrumental in unseating a Democracy there in 1953, not only that but putting in an unpopular dictator. When they finally kicked that dictator out we probably would have interfered again if they didn't take our low-level embassy people hostage. I don't condone that act, but it did keep us out while they formed another government, again a Democracy. So, it's a religious one, so what?

The only war they've had since WWII was one we helped instigate with Iraq, which came to a stalemate. Even though Iraq used poison gases they got from us to kill a million Iranians. Why would they suddenly about face and want to use an atom bomb on Israel? It would be suicide.

Now we pretend they're evil on the behalf of Israel. That's because they're following original UN dictates in nuclear research.

Do you think they're actually stupid enough to make an atom bomb? If they did and it were, and it would be, found out the US and Israel would be certain to attack them.

No, their offences, when you come right down to it, are threefold. They stand straight and tell us to go to hell, to play in our own sandpile and leave them alone. Also, their oil is not under OPEC control and, thirdly, they threaten to sell for other than US currency.

Charlie

[Don]

No mention lately of whether Obama has signed HR 347, (still pending according to the White House) but LA Times reports Obama moved G8 from Chicago to Camp David.