1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

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

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by BleedRocketsRed, Mar 1, 2012.

  1. BleedRocketsRed

    BleedRocketsRed Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,074
    Likes Received:
    580
    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/houses-passes-new-bill-that-would-make.html

     
  2. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,711
    Likes Received:
    7,323
    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.
     
  3. Hightop

    Hightop Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    68
    Good news for OWS since they protest businesses but not US Presidents.
     
  4. Realjad

    Realjad Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,418
    Likes Received:
    1,726


    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
     
  5. MoonDogg

    MoonDogg Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 1999
    Messages:
    5,167
    Likes Received:
    495
  6. CCorn

    CCorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    19,997
    Likes Received:
    18,127
    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.
     
  7. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    Hope Mr Obama doesn't sign the bill.
     
  8. False

    False Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    99
    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.
     
  9. Classic

    Classic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,101
    Likes Received:
    608
    Lol, ya right.
     
  10. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    47,121
    Likes Received:
    32,872
    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.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now