House Votes to Defeat Freedom of Speech, Awaiting President's Signature

i understand the argument for something like this but you have to be careful how you define "protest." some could argue a crowd is a crowd regardless of the message. this law could be easily be abused.

for example, have a government official stop by an occupy site and now all of those occupiers are breaking the law. that would be abusing the law and not good for the people.

 

Good news for OWS since they protest businesses but not US Presidents.

 

If the government decides to have secret service guard any CEO... Your ****ed- its not just for politicians it's for whoever has secret service protection

 

Ridiculous. What's next? A curfew in the cities the president is staying. I don't like this decision. At least the representative I voted for voted in my interest.

 

Hope Mr Obama doesn't sign the bill.

 

I don't feel like going to read the actual bill, but I seriously doubt it would have passed 388-3 if there was something that could reasonably be construed as "defeating free speech," or even unreasonably construed as saying the same. A 388-3 vote means means that not only would Tea Partiers have to be for it, but that extremely left wing reps would also have to be for it.

I'm 100% certain that this article is over blowing the impact and misconstruing this bill. I don't understand what the point of that level of disinformation is, so I'm hoping we will get a follow-up.

You guys are being fooled by what is likely some fringe site (likely libertarian), that is masquerading as a real news source through the use of a fancy sounding name.

Here's a link to the front page, it oozes slant and mediocrity.

 

Lol, ya right.

 

I would have to know more about this bill to say this actually is something that is as dire as the OP makes it out to be.

[rquoter]n 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...[/rquoter]

Under a very strict reading of this text this doesn't sound like it would cut off free speech provided it was done in a peaceful manner. Like most things I am guessing if this becomes law the devil will be in the details in regard to what is considered disorderly conduct. I would say a strict reading would say that a peaceful protest would be one would be fine but one where there was property damage and other vandalism wouldn't be. That doesn't seem too different from current law.