NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! Obama secretly signed bill!!!

There is significant concern about an unassuming bill with an unassuming name: the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." The bill, H.R. 347, has been variously described as making the First Amendment illegal or criminalizing the Occupy protests.

The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.

It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.

These restricted areas include locations where individuals under Secret Service protection are temporarily located, and certain large special events like a presidential inauguration. They can also include large public events like the Super Bowl and the presidential nominating conventions (troublingly, the Department of Homeland Security has significant discretion in designating what qualifies as one of these special events).

The original statute, unchanged by H.R. 347,made certain conduct with respect to these restricted areas a crime, including simple trespass, actions in or near the restricted area that would "disrupt the orderly conduct of Government," and blocking the entrance or exit to the restricted area.

H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law.

I assume you are aware of who presented this bill in the first place. The article you pointed to says this....

"Michael Mahaffey, Representative Tom Rooney’s (R-Fla. and the man responsible for introducing the bill to the House) communication director dismissed concerns that the bill violates civil liberties by saying, that the protests against H.R. 347 are, “a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This (HR 347) doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever. ” He went on to say that, “… right now it’s not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn, this bill makes it a federal violation.”

This bill passed the house with only three dissenting votes. The HOUSE! The Senate passed this bill. Now this bill is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Protect both the President and any other public official from harm in this political climate. You yourself are pointing directly at Obama and implying that he is the one that made this happen. He only signed the bill into law because both the House and Senate approved it. And the bill's sponsor is a republican.

This whole bill came about as a result of some person standing outside the gates of the Whitehouse and shooting at it. Regardless of who the President is, in this day and age, he must be protected. It does not effect anyone's right to free speech. It makes it a federal crime to attack a public official and that is what this country has come to.

I have seen countless e-mails like this that are either completely false or stretch the truth to suit the authors agenda and it is getting disgusting.