Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill I was hoping he wasn't going to sign it ;/ http://rt.com/usa/news/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/ Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States. RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution. Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.” The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form “means it's easier to prosecute under 'knowingly,'” instead of both knowingly and willfully, “which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime.” Speaking with IB Times, Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance. "[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn't supported by the facts," Verheyden-Hilliard adds. "This has always been a bad law." Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union adds to IB Times, "Bottom line, it doesn't create any new violations of the law.” So far, however, it has raised awareness of the levels that the US government are willing to go to in order to make it harder to express ones’ self. Under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars, and the thing about the Secret Service (in case you couldn’t tell by their name), is that they don’t always make it clear where they are. You could even say that the service they provide, at times, is kept secret. Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now officially covered under Secret Service protection, making it a federal offense to disrupt a campaign stop. That means whether it’s by way of a glitter bomb protest or causing a disturbance on the same Holiday Inn hotel floor that Santorum is staying in, doing such could cause a bit of a legal battle for the persons involved. Although the G-8 Summit originally scheduled for Chicago this spring would have made much of the Windy City a protected area where crimes could easily be tacked on to arrested protesters, the event was moved this week to the presidential retreat at Camp David. In turn, many have suggested that the White House is only going out of their way to limit protesting rights. While a Chicago summit would have meant the Trespass Bill could have been enforced in the same area where thousands of demonstrators were expected to protest, moving the event to a heavily fortified rural location will instead deter protesters from likely coming close atto the meeting at all. And before you forget, the president can now detain you for getting too close to his front yard, order your assassination if the country considers you a threat and lock you away for life with no charge if you’re alleged to be a terrorist. You, on the other hand, can’t yell obscenities at Newt Gingrich without risking arrest. <object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x_nHQCme-Nk?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x_nHQCme-Nk?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> ~waits for liberal idiot to twist logic and reason to try and convince you how awesome this is, and how Barack Obama isn't a bought and paid for tyrant.~ Government is ****ed and I'm not part of any 'team' and just for fun <object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iQXeGtfqCOw?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iQXeGtfqCOw?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
haha why don't you do your own research in the bill dummy It really is not good, it really does take rights away and it really will allow us to not protest when the government sends an CIA agent to overlook any ceo Yes- there is one thing in the bill i do agree with- however all the other little additions they added will screw us in the long run
You're the one who started the thread, tell me about the bill. And use something better than a bull**** website which is literally Putin's propaganda hub.
If you don't like the source don't comment in the thread or post your own source. You don't get to bark at others to provide information that you find credible. Though I find these protesters annoying for the most part, I enjoy seeing politicians try to handle these situations. Most of them look/act like morons when confronted with protesters. Ron Paul seems to handle them the best.
This bill again. Yawn. ACLU's Take on the Bill Enough with the knee-jerking. ACLU uses a lot of qualifying language as opposed to coming immediately out and decrying the bill.
The only thing I find even remotely interesting here is that only 3 members of congress voted against it. I would think a few more would at least try to make a showing of disgust here. But I'm hardly surprised. Ever since the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security, I've pretty much given up on the US returning to the days when the Bill of Rights meant something.
I'm so happy you can read.. wait a second.... People who take teams are funny 'Yeah Republicans!!'.. 'Yeah Democrats!!'... ~facepalm~
Yes, because Fox News and CNN never criticize Obama and they receive funding from the American government. Wait. You post PressTV, I will mock you for believing such a ridiculous source. You post Alex Jones, I will mock you. Same with RT.
If he was white and had an R next to his name, Republicans would already be trying to name an airport after our current president.
