Obama's new law, Shut Up By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
|
|
|||||
|
18 votes
|
|
13% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
1% | |||
|
120 votes
|
|
86% | |||
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.
Top Opinion
-
This is an outrage and a violation of my First Amendement Rights+24I gave my word that I would defend the Constitution from enemies both forien and domestic. I will complete my vow.






















Liberals may cheer now but some future conservative president more interested in payback than Constitutional law could just as easily use it against Leftists.
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...
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...
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.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/20...
This always seems to work....
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...
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."
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.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/20...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wor...
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.
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.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...