The First Amendment Is On Its Way Out
People who laugh at me, pooh-pooh how I act up at the TSA checkpoint, or tell me I just shouldn't fly don't get it. I'm trying to do something about one area of our eroding civil liberties. We are bleeding rights on many fronts.
The latest is H.R. 347 the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." From RT.com:
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....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.
The Senate passed this bill back on February 6. Those of you who voted for Obama, did you tell yourself he'd never sign something like this? I mean, except for stuff like the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that he signed a few months back, "essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens," as RT.com puts it.
Why politics is the way it is and who is most likely to join a single issue group and who will be arousing sympathy and why they make no sense.
The PTSD Party
Now consider who the attention seekers might be? And why they didn't get over it?
And OH. Yeah. This is sort of OT but I couldn't resist being near the top.
M. Simon at February 28, 2012 10:59 PM
Know what I hate about articles like this?
Articles like this disregard the fact that when an America is using his freedoms correctly, "leaders" are irrelevant. Unnecessary.
I seriously believe that have forgotten that. All this chatter about heroic (or merely honest) politicians has taken root even though we know better.
Part of it is that the press can report on science correctly, even when the science is bogus. Bogus media on top of bogus social research.
"Scientist say" is the bullshittin'-est sentence fragment you'll read today, Wednesday. Good to get it out of the way.
Scientists do not, in any meaningful sense, "say" stuff. They publish and argue and publish some more.
I hate humanity.
Thanks. Thank you. No, please. Thank you. You're very kind. Please be seated... Thank you. Thanks. I'm here all week. Goodnight.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 29, 2012 12:07 AM
I hate humanity too Crid,
The government owed me some money recently and this is going to sound mind boggling, they did not bother to look me up by social security number but by my first and last name. I have a very generic first name and a very simple four letter last name. They obviously looked up the wrong ME. I received paperwork that I was going to receive about $12,000. I called them up and explained this was TOO MUCH, I was not owed anywhere near that. They told me I was, and then offered some bullshit explanation. Anyways I called them 2-3 times weekly trying to get this thing fixed, and it took them 6 weeks to finally fix the issue. Well I received notice I was going to finally get my money, but they sent the wrong amount again (too little).
What the fuck....
Purplepen at February 29, 2012 12:56 AM
Don't LOCAL ordinances cover this sort of thing, no matter what city you're in?
But NOOOOO, the feds (debt 15.3 trillion and climbing) have to get involved in EVERYTHING! And, of course, it depends on what the definitions of "disruptive" and "violent" are.
mpetrie98 at February 29, 2012 4:32 AM
All it takes is a living Constitution, and anything is possible.
The First Amendment explicitly prohibits this - "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
Perhaps it's time to start over, with a government that respects its limits.
MarkD at February 29, 2012 4:54 AM
Depends on what the definition of "peaceably" is, nyuk-nyuk. Obviously, to this government, it could mean "far, far away."
mpetrie98 at February 29, 2012 6:16 AM
AMy,
Thank you for saying this, "Those of you who voted for Obama, did you tell yourself he'd never sign something like this? I mean, except for stuff like the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that he signed a few months back, "essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens," as RT.com puts it."
Remember all of those people out here who just couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for McCain bc the big, bad, Sarah Palin was going to use her evil super powers to keep all women at home, barefoot, and pregnant? She believes in God...who knows what her REAL agenda is? Where are they now? "She scares me" was often bleated right here on this site. Well. What you think about your rights now? They are slowly being eroded in service to a corrupt government that wants to strip you of ALL your choices and not just whether to have an abortion. Don't worry. You'll always have that one and that can be your comfort as you are getting an anal probe while trying to board a plane. I laugh if the situation wasn't so sad and scary.
sheepmommy at February 29, 2012 10:42 AM
Davy Jones outgoing, Snooki incoming; Civilization in neutral.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 29, 2012 11:28 AM
So, government officials can drive around Washington "kind of" honking at people, but the people can't honk at the government officials?
I guess some animals are more equal than others.
Conan the Grammarian at February 29, 2012 1:28 PM
Bush the Younger was going to make a speech at the World Trade Center site, and protesters were expected. The protesters were told that there was going to be a special place for them to air their views. It was a cyclone fence enclosure, far away from the speech site.
And here's the kicker. It was called the Free Speech Zone. And here all this while I thought the borders of the Free Speech Zone were delineated by the borders of Canada and Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and what the hell, Alaska and Hawaii too.
They're treating American citizens like kids at the small table on Thanksgiving.
Steve Daniels at February 29, 2012 2:27 PM
> They're treating American citizens like kids
> at the small table on Thanksgiving.
Yes; The children are being indulged, and fed, and patiently permitted to share silly inanities with each other. They're just not being allowed to ruin the conversations between everyone else.
Sorry, but here we are: Occupy has brutalized the notion of thoughtful group expression in this country. You said it yourself: They were protestors, not "speakers". The SCOTUS, and almost every sane man, has accepted the truth that overwhelming another's speech isn't the same as sharing one's own.
Thing is is, I kinda like your Boosh anecdote... Because the problem these "citizens" had to deal with was not that they couldn't speak freely, it's that they couldn't interrupt the somber observance of a savage attack that had taken people's lives, including those of hundreds who sought only to assist and comfort.
Dood, protest has a righteous history... A lot of bad stuff has stopped because good people went out and said 'stop this.' But in America, it's no longer about persuasion. And that's not good. In our cell-phone-atomized social consciousness, we've lost the mutual faith that permitted us to build and operate businesses freely, creating the wealth to answer obligations we've so promiscuously agreed to share.
I wouldn't trust the Occupy movement with a wooden nickel.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 29, 2012 6:15 PM
The last gasps of a dying, corrupt, bankrupt government.
They got scared after the healthcare townhall meetings and debates.
Sio at February 29, 2012 6:50 PM
somewhat on topic - Amy, I'm sure you've already seen this but just in case:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/02/29/the-tsa-is-coming-to-a-highway-near-you/
more on the power grabbing TSA, your favorite agency! Perhaps with some publicity this one at least can be defeated.
chickia at February 29, 2012 10:47 PM
For those of you who have claimed that Amy has no Consitutional right to travel on an airplane: What mode of travel IS your right?
I didn't get an answer on another thread. As long as you think the above, you enable the police state.
Radwaste at March 2, 2012 6:54 PM
Leave a comment