Quantcast

Obama's new law, Shut Up By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

KCurtis 2012/03/15 23:53:36
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Last week, President Obama
signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds
Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to
designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association
and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret
Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.



Thus, federal agents whose work is to
protect public officials and their friends may prohibit the speech and
the gatherings of folks who disagree with those officials or permit the
speech and the gatherings of those who would praise them, even though
the First Amendment condemns content-based speech discrimination by the
government.



The new law also provides that anyone who
gathers in a “restricted” area may be prosecuted. And because the
statute does not require the government to prove intent, a person
accidentally in a restricted area can be charged and prosecuted, as
well.



Permitting people to express publicly their
opinions to the president only at a time and in a place and manner such
that he cannot hear them violates the First Amendment because it
guarantees the right to useful speech; and unheard political speech is
politically useless. The same may be said of the rights to associate and
to petition. If peaceful public assembly and public expression of
political demands on the government can be restricted to places where
government officials cannot be confronted, then those rights, too, have
been neutered.



Political speech is in the highest category
of protected speech. This is not about drowning out the president in the
Oval Office. This is about letting him know what we think of his work
when he leaves the White House. This is speech intended to influence the political process.

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • cap3m 2012/03/16 01:15:05 (edited)
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    cap3m
    +24
    I gave my word that I would defend the Constitution from enemies both forien and domestic. I will complete my vow.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • teachaman~PWCM~JLA 2012/03/20 14:51:12
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    teachaman~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    can anyone say "impeachable offense"?
  • Annette 2012/03/19 01:01:50
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    Annette
    +2
    However this is not something to be shocked at. We all knew it was just a matter of time. He is running out of time before the election, and this along with his newest Exec. Order to declare Martial Law during peace time just shows you how desperate he is and the lengths he will go to in order to remain in power. So when the revolution starts, nobody should be surprised either!
  • Oltom 2012/03/18 23:49:15
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    Oltom
    +3
    I don't care if I disagree with what you say,but I will defend your right to say it and Dam it I demand the same!
  • Charles E 2012/03/18 23:47:50
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    Charles E
    +5
    This is an outrage and a violation of EVERYONES First Amendment Rights.
    Liberals may cheer now but some future conservative president more interested in payback than Constitutional law could just as easily use it against Leftists.
  • Hawk 2012/03/18 15:10:03
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    Hawk
    +5
    This is just another attempt to take our first amendment rights away from us. The American people have to get rid of this arrogant usless clueless anti american out of office.And I`m confident the true Americans will step forward.
  • Aqua Surf BTO-t-BCRA-F 2012/03/17 22:51:34
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    Aqua Surf BTO-t-BCRA-F
    +4
    Just try it, Maobama. You've already bitten off more than you can chew, dumbass.
  • mal 2012/03/17 12:37:52
    What? Obama can chose to whom and where I can speak freely?
    mal
    Are the secret service now corrupt.........!
  • KCurtis mal 2012/03/17 18:46:25
    KCurtis
    Are you going to take a chance?
  • Charles E KCurtis 2012/03/18 23:49:58
    Charles E
    +1
    Any police force claiming to protect an elected or appointed official could use this travesty of a law to elect anyone they want.
  • WankerBait 2012/03/17 08:19:01
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    WankerBait
    How Big a Deal is H.R. 347, That “Criminalizing Protest” Bill?

    Excerpt: "Recent days have seen 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."

    More: http://www.aclu.org/blog/free...
  • KCurtis WankerBait 2012/03/17 12:11:05
    KCurtis
    +1
    Isn't that funny, the ACLU's blog sounds strikingly familiar to this blog
    http://www.lawfareblog.com/20...
    I wonder if they know the penalty for plagerism?

    So how important is the elimination of the “willfully” requirement? The answer will depend on how the revised statute is enforced, but, on first glance, the change is not obviously trivial.

    H.R. 347’s far more blogo-controversial innovation is this: the bill also would make it easier for a person to violate § 1752. Right now the statute applies to individuals who, among other things, “willfully and knowingly” cause disruptions in and around federal facilities, or other areas temporarily restricted because of official visits. H.R. 347 would drop “willfully” and leave “knowingly” as the lone mens rea requirement, and thus impose criminal liability on any person who:

    (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

    (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

    (3) k...













    Isn't that funny, the ACLU's blog sounds strikingly familiar to this blog
    http://www.lawfareblog.com/20...
    I wonder if they know the penalty for plagerism?

    So how important is the elimination of the “willfully” requirement? The answer will depend on how the revised statute is enforced, but, on first glance, the change is not obviously trivial.

    H.R. 347’s far more blogo-controversial innovation is this: the bill also would make it easier for a person to violate § 1752. Right now the statute applies to individuals who, among other things, “willfully and knowingly” cause disruptions in and around federal facilities, or other areas temporarily restricted because of official visits. H.R. 347 would drop “willfully” and leave “knowingly” as the lone mens rea requirement, and thus impose criminal liability on any person who:

    (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

    (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

    (3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

    (4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds.

    Add in the following definitional language, and the outlines of a civil liberties complaint begin to suggest themselves:

    (1) the term “restricted buildings or grounds” means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—

    (A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

    (B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

    (C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.

    (2) the term “other person protected by the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.
    (more)
  • WankerBait KCurtis 2012/03/17 23:29:11
    WankerBait
    Arriving at the same conclusion doesn't infer plagiarism... There does appear to be consensus between the two opinions.
  • KCurtis WankerBait 2012/03/18 02:23:27
    KCurtis
    Until the last part about how the minor change makes a major difference.
  • Sawdust_128 2012/03/17 06:13:11
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    Sawdust_128
    +2
    Hello! ACLU yoooo whoooooo! Anybody home?
  • WankerBait Sawdust... 2012/03/17 08:19:34
  • KCurtis Sawdust... 2012/03/17 12:12:24
    KCurtis
    +1
    And get this the ACLU Blog has verbatim part of the definition from this blog
    http://www.lawfareblog.com/20...
  • gldynmd BTO-t-BCRA-F 2012/03/17 06:06:16
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    gldynmd BTO-t-BCRA-F
    +4
    obama has no regard for the Constitution. In fact he wants to destroy it and is doing a good job at it. We have to vote him out!
  • william 2012/03/17 03:48:56
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    william
    +2
    It is time to take back our country from the British ounce again!!!!
  • KCurtis william 2012/03/17 12:12:57
    KCurtis
    +1
    replace British with DEMOCRATS
  • voice_m... william 2012/03/17 21:09:54
    voice_matters
    +1
    funny lib how you are fighting for criminals and terrorists
  • James 2012/03/17 02:27:43
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    James
    +1
    This is the kissing cousin to the Alien and Sedition Act of 1803!
  • RicardoCabeza 2012/03/17 00:39:50
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    RicardoCabeza
    +1
    I guess it is time to adopt none verbal communication or go to jail.
  • James Ricardo... 2012/03/17 02:28:35
    James
    +4
    mass mooning

    This always seems to work....
  • Charles E Ricardo... 2012/03/18 23:57:39
    Charles E
    +2
    Communication is not required. Mere presence can be a criminal violation.
  • Bill 2012/03/16 20:17:56
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    Bill
    +2
    Today Geo Clooney ,his dad 2 congressmen MLK III were arrested for a peaceful protesrt in DC today by the SS
  • 2468 2012/03/16 19:04:36
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    2468
    +5
    This is an extension of the policies started by W. Bush.

    I didn't agree with them then and I don't agree with them now.

    As long as it is just speech and not any kind of violence then the old adage of sticks and stones seems appropriate.

    No politician is going to make everyone happy at all times but shutting down their chance to speak will only cause them to escalate to more violent or destructive methods. Letting people speak is a fundamental right.


    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
    When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

    When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

    The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of...



    This is an extension of the policies started by W. Bush.

    I didn't agree with them then and I don't agree with them now.

    As long as it is just speech and not any kind of violence then the old adage of sticks and stones seems appropriate.

    No politician is going to make everyone happy at all times but shutting down their chance to speak will only cause them to escalate to more violent or destructive methods. Letting people speak is a fundamental right.


    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
    When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

    When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

    The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

    The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

    Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."
    (more)
  • Thom Payne 2012/03/16 18:17:33
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    Thom Payne
    +1
    However, this is nothing new. Actually it was George W Bush who imposed 'free speech zones' miles away from everything where people could go to protest against him, but where he wouldn't have to see it.

    http://www.theamericanconserv...
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
    http://www.aclu.org/free-spee...
    http://www.netrootsmass.net/2...
    http://www.thefreespeechzone....

    Unfortunately, it seems as though President Obama has continued the practice. Regardless of party affiliation or political bent, all elected officials should have to see those who have grievances against them.

    With that being said, however, I would like to point out the hypocrisy of the reichwing GOPerCONs taking exception to President Obama continuing the practice started by their darling, Dumbya.
  • KCurtis Thom Payne 2012/03/16 18:57:46 (edited)
    KCurtis
    +1
    The new plan removes the willful statements which make it anything that the POTUS or his Secret Service agents determine eligible for arrest.
    http://www.lawfareblog.com/20...
  • Thom Payne KCurtis 2012/03/16 23:56:52
    Thom Payne
    Interesting, but I am not sure it changed anything.
  • KCurtis Thom Payne 2012/03/17 00:02:23
  • Thom Payne KCurtis 2012/03/17 00:04:03
    Thom Payne
    Not my hero, and I saw that earlier. Still doesn't change the fact that The Lord's Army needs to be dealt with.
  • ducdodger 2012/03/16 18:05:33
    This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights
    ducdodger
    +2
    This man is slowly taking all of our rights away step by step. Its time for him to voted out of office and to fire all of his cronies.
  • Thom Payne ducdodger 2012/03/16 18:18:49
    Thom Payne
    +1
    This is a practice started by GW Bush. Google 'free speech zones Bush' - then read and weep.

    It doesn't make it any more right, but this isn't Obama taking away your rights...it was Bush. Place blame where it belongs.
  • ducdodger Thom Payne 2012/03/16 18:53:18
    ducdodger
    +2
    Bush never signed any free speech zones law.


    Last week, H.R. 347, otherwise known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, Thursday it was signed into law by President Obama.

    Look like you can't blame Bush for this one.
  • 2468 ducdodger 2012/03/16 19:05:32
  • ducdodger 2468 2012/03/16 23:37:31
    ducdodger
    +3
    That has been done by every president that I can remember, But it was never a law its was done for the protection of the Pres and VP. To violate that ment nothing more than being held until the president left. No that will get you jail time and a fine. Like I said above the Law was signed by Obama not Bush.
  • Thom Payne ducdodger 2012/03/16 23:57:17
    Thom Payne
    +1
    He had people arrested who protested outside those zones.
  • ducdodger Thom Payne 2012/03/17 00:07:57
    ducdodger
    +3
    and they were arrested for disordely conduct, not for being outside of their zone.
  • Thom Payne ducdodger 2012/03/17 00:41:54
    Thom Payne
    +1
    They were considered one in the same. How can you protest something and NOT be disorderly?

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
  • ducdodger Thom Payne 2012/03/17 00:47:25 (edited)
    ducdodger
    +3
    very easily the Tea party did many times and never was one of them arrested for anything. I read the article the first time you posted it. And its not the same thing the law Obama signed is considered a class A misdemeanor while disorderly conduct is an infraction which carries no jail time i9n most states.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/25 06:03:55

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals