Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ Will Make Protest Illegal

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Nov 10, 2008
590
112
43
45
#1
http://rt.com/usa/ne...-buildings-437/

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.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#3
To be fair, it is not as if the country is set up to allow the possiblity of a regime change instigated by mass protest to begin with. There is a reason why the capital is not one of the major economic and population centers of the country and why the kind of big open squares where you can fit a million plus people that exist in other countries are absent from US cities (the ultimate irony is that the reason why those squares exist there is for the state to have room to put its power symbols on display - monumental buildings and grand parades; then this turns around against it when the crowds assemble there).

Prior to the age of the internet it was simply impossible for a mass uprising to organize itself accross the whole continent. Now thi has changed and in the same time the system is finally starting to fall apart so I guess that's why they think it needs some tightening and are passing these bills. But the point is that the possibility of serious change has always been an illusion
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
44
www.thephylumonline.com
#4
To be fair, it is not as if the country is set up to allow the possiblity of a regime change instigated by mass protest to begin with. There is a reason why the capital is not one of the major economic and population centers of the country and why the kind of big open squares where you can fit a million plus people that exist in other countries are absent from US cities (the ultimate irony is that the reason why those squares exist there is for the state to have room to put its power symbols on display - monumental buildings and grand parades; then this turns around against it when the crowds assemble there).

Prior to the age of the internet it was simply impossible for a mass uprising to organize itself accross the whole continent. Now thi has changed and in the same time the system is finally starting to fall apart so I guess that's why they think it needs some tightening and are passing these bills. But the point is that the possibility of serious change has always been an illusion
The national mall in Washington DC holds 3 million people...for monuments and parades, etc. Washington DC is also the richest city in the US...which means it has the richest people...which makes it an economic center...not to mention the fact that 40 percent of our economy is planned and controlled by federal spending headquartered in DC.

"prior to the age of internet...now this has changed...the system is falling apart...change has always been an illusion"

Contradict much?
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#5
It (or rather, the metropolitan area around it) has 3 million now, it was a specially created city and it was founded two years after the French revolution, maybe a coincidence, maybe not. It's not the richest city, it's actually one of the poorest, some of the suburbs are rich but that's because of all the politics that's concentrated there. The point I made remains
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
43
www.myspace.com
#9
Occupying is illegal...

Go steal something and then use the excuse that you're just "occupying" the object in question.

As a staunch libertarian (classical liberal) I fully support the First Amendment but at the same time I also support individual ownership of property.
 
Nov 10, 2008
590
112
43
45
#10
Occupying is illegal...

Go steal something and then use the excuse that you're just "occupying" the object in question.

As a staunch libertarian (classical liberal) I fully support the First Amendment but at the same time I also support individual ownership of property.

If your implying the occupy movement is illegal. Arent these parks public parks? Plus i think the "Occupy" part of the movements name is a response to how the war beast of america "occupies" other countries. The people got robbed with there eyes open. And have been getting jacked since history.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,800
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#11
I would post an article, but there are just too many...

https://www.google.com/search?ix=seb&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=washington+dc+richest+in+nation

It's the richest metropolitan area in the country.
that is extremely misleading.

The richest of D.C. residents, those in the top 5 percent income bracket, make $473,000 a year, which is the highest in the nation — the average among all large cities is $292,000. D.C. is only behind San Francisco in how much the top 20 percent make, too. But the bottom 20 percent of earners in D.C. make $9,100, which is close to the average among large cities. The growing income gap partially reflects a national phenomenon in which the rich saw their incomes rise at a much faster pace than the poor did over the past three decades. When taking inflation into account, high-wage earners in D.C. made 44 percent more in 2009 than they did in the 1979. Low-wage workers, on the other hand, saw their earnings rise by only 14 percent. For every $1 a black person in D.C. earns, a white person earns $3.06.
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
44
www.thephylumonline.com
#12
that is extremely misleading.

The richest of D.C. residents, those in the top 5 percent income bracket, make $473,000 a year, which is the highest in the nation — the average among all large cities is $292,000. D.C. is only behind San Francisco in how much the top 20 percent make, too. But the bottom 20 percent of earners in D.C. make $9,100, which is close to the average among large cities. The growing income gap partially reflects a national phenomenon in which the rich saw their incomes rise at a much faster pace than the poor did over the past three decades. When taking inflation into account, high-wage earners in D.C. made 44 percent more in 2009 than they did in the 1979. Low-wage workers, on the other hand, saw their earnings rise by only 14 percent. For every $1 a black person in D.C. earns, a white person earns $3.06.
So would yo consider DC an "economic center"? Even entire countries of poor people have their "economic centers". Given the role of government in our economy and the huge and increasing role they play in all of our economic decisions and well being, I would consider it an economic center. Everything runs through DC.