Just in time for the conventions

[El Barto]

They kinda slipped this one right on by everybody.  I seem to recall people giving Dumbass a good deal of grief (and rightly so) for putting protestors in secluded areas far removed.  This asshole takes it a step further and nobody seems to mind.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/15/can-secret-service-tell-to-shut-up/?intcmp=obnetwork

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.

Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/15/can-secret-service-tell-to-shut-up/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1pK0z5oiy

[antigoon]

dear leader is just looking out for our best interests.

But really, why was this necessary?

[Progmetty]

But really, why was this necessary?

Seems obvious to me that Wall Street commanded him to do it.

[Rathma]

Uuuuuughhhhhh wtf bro

[Sigz]

the statute does not require the government to prove intent

As usual, Fox just makes shit up:

‘(a) Whoever--


‘(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;

But either way, yeah, it's pretty fucking ridiculous.

[Progmetty]

It's one fucked up law though, whoever is taking over office after Obama is gonna be super happy they didn't have to pass it themselves and will definitely be happy about it being there.

[El Barto]

But really, why was this necessary?

I don't think necessity factors into it.  It's something that'll help maintain the status quo and now's a good time to do it since Americans still think they're free.  Why not do it? 

That doesn't necessarily imply some huge conspiracy, however.  It could easily be as simple as the Secret Service told a congressman that protestors were a pain in their ass and they'd like permission to due away with them.  I'm sure it's something they've been wanting for the last 100 years, and now it's something they can have.

the statute does not require the government to prove intent

As usual, Fox just makes shit up:

‘(a) Whoever--


‘(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;

But either way, yeah, it's pretty fucking ridiculous.

First off, it's sub-section 1 that's the trouble spot, since it's the SS that gets to determine what's restricted.  Much was made of the removal of "with intent" from that section.  Secondly, that article was an op-ed piece written by a retired Superior Court judge from New Jersey.

[snapple]

>2012
>thinking foxnews.com is the same shit as the Fox News television channel

Srsly.

[Sigz]

the statute does not require the government to prove intent

As usual, Fox just makes shit up:

‘(a) Whoever--


‘(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;

But either way, yeah, it's pretty fucking ridiculous.

First off, it's sub-section 1 that's the trouble spot, since it's the SS that gets to determine what's restricted.  Much was made of the removal of "with intent" from that section.  Secondly, that article was an op-ed piece written by a retired Superior Court judge from New Jersey.

Maybe I'm just not knowledgeable enough in legal matters, but how does adding 'with intent' to section 1 change it at all, or even make sense? You enter a restricted area knowing it's restricted - what would you ostensibly be intending to do? I'm not disputing the fact that arbitrarily restricting areas is bad at all (and that's certainly the larger issue here), I just don't see how someone could get caught up accidentally by this law.

[rumborak]

The question is really, how easy and arbitrary can those areas be?I mean, setting apart areas with restricted access isn't anything new. The question, how easily or not can this be abused?

rumborak

[Dr. DTVT]

The question is really, how easy and arbitrary can those areas be?I mean, setting apart areas with restricted access isn't anything new. The question, how easily or not can this be abused?

rumborak

Furthermore - how easy will it be to determine where these designated areas are?  If, for example, it was posted on every enterence that the 4th floor of Federal Building A was a restricted zone - that's one thing.  The thing that really gets me would be a snap decision to make a building and it's perimeter restricted at the drop of the hat.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of this law, but hopefully they use it sparingly and with discretion, i.e. a Westboro BC protest, and not anytime someone wants to protest something the government is doing.

[rumborak]

Ideally I would hope that kind of "rezoning" would require court approval.

rumborak

[El Barto]

I'm not saying I'm in favor of this law, but hopefully they use it sparingly and with discretion, i.e. a Westboro BC protest, and not anytime someone wants to protest something the government is doing.

Aye carumba.  Those Westboro assholes are exactly who the Bill of Rights is there to protect.

[Dr. DTVT]

But what the hell is the WBC actually "protesting"?  They're just delivering hate speech, or to use the parlance of our time, epicly trolling.  They aren't protesting for change like trying to make abortion illegal or trying to keep it legal, or trying to generate a discussion about the financial practices about our country; they're just assembling and yelling that god hates this group and god hates that group.

Crap...misread the OP.  But I'm of the mind that hate speech shouldn't be protected, just like inciting a panic by yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire also isn't protected.

[ReaPsTA]

Go back and read the first amendment:

Congress shall make no politically incorrect law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the politically correct free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech within designated areas, or of the press to say what is implicitly allowed by the political class; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble for a period of time deemed appropriate by the Government, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances without expectation of the aforementioned redress being carried out.

It's right there guys, just how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it.

[rumborak]

"Deemed appropriate by the government" though.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I'll wait to hear it from another source, given the obvious misgivings about Fox News.

[antigoon]

I'll admit my exposure to him is limited but I've never heard Judge Napolitano say anything Fox News-ish before. And besides, this seems like a wet dream of theirs. 

[rumborak]

Well, with FOX News it's the way that if the GOP is in power an increase in govt's responsibility is for your protection, when a Dem is in power it's Communism.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

"Deemed appropriate by the government" though.

rumborak

It's a fake quote...

[antigoon]

Well, with FOX News it's the way that if the GOP is in power an increase in govt's responsibility is for your protection, when a Dem is in power it's Communism.

rumborak

Perhaps. I guess I was seeing it more from the all-protests-not-named-the-tea-party-are-bad angle.

[Super Dude]

Except that it would be in Obama's interest actually to put down the Tea Party, not OWS.

[rumborak]

"Deemed appropriate by the government" though.

rumborak

It's a fake quote...

 

Crap. It struck me as rather weird wording....

rumborak

[antigoon]

Except that it would be in Obama's interest actually to put down the Tea Party, not OWS.

I was talking about Fox's interests. And anyway I would argue that it would be in his interest to put down both groups.

[ReaPsTA]

Except that it would be in Obama's interest actually to put down the Tea Party, not OWS.

OWS is in vocal opposition to Obama's agenda of supporting unethical and harmful corporate entities with government money.  They're not his friends in the strictest sense.

[Super Dude]

And yet, oddly enough, I distinctly remember in the first few months of the protests (haven't really been following it since) Obama used OWS in his speeches to say that there is a lot of discontent in this country and he wants to step up and solve it. I remember plenty of commentators lumping OWS and Dems together as well.

[ReaPsTA]

And yet, oddly enough, I distinctly remember in the first few months of the protests (haven't really been following it since) Obama used OWS in his speeches to say that there is a lot of discontent in this country and he wants to step up and solve it. I remember plenty of commentators lumping OWS and Dems together as well.

This speaks to the fundamental flaw of OWS - they purposefully didn't define their specific objectives.  Obama used OWS to his advantage because the movement let him.

[antigoon]

And yet, oddly enough, I distinctly remember in the first few months of the protests (haven't really been following it since) Obama used OWS in his speeches to say that there is a lot of discontent in this country and he wants to step up and solve it. I remember plenty of commentators lumping OWS and Dems together as well.

I see where you're coming from if all you're saying is that he might be able to use OWS rhetoric to his advantage, but the idea that the group is a Democrat/Obama support wing is absurd.

[ReaPsTA]

"Deemed appropriate by the government" though.

rumborak

This has gone to a weird, crazy new place.

[El Barto]

People need to be looking at this within the context of this century's free speech zones."  Areas get cordoned off, with supporters allowed right up front to hoot and holler, and protestors get relegated to a small, enclosed area a few blocks away.  The nature of the sign you're carrying determines whether or not you get to protest.  Two problems:  A. contrary to what some would like, you can't determine who get's to protest by judging the content of their speech, and this law bolsters the Secret Service's ability to do so.  B. I would suggest that the right to protest doesn't exist at all if you have to do it 3 blocks away and completely shielded from the object of your scorn. 

What I figure is that this law was just a tweaking of the existing one to make it hold up better in court.  I know quite a few people were busted during the '04 and '08 conventions for violating this law, which was the first time it had been used in such a manner.  My guess is that plenty of them walked, and this is an attempt to make sure the charges will stick this time around. 

[rumborak]

"Deemed appropriate by the government" though.

rumborak

This has gone to a weird, crazy new place.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't defending it. My point was merely that it's probably not unconstitutional.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

"Deemed appropriate by the government" though.

rumborak

This has gone to a weird, crazy new place.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't defending it. My point was merely that it's probably not unconstitutional.

rumborak

Read my quote of the first amendment again.

[El Barto]

Here's an analysis of the way the law is now written, with the removal of willfully. 

The problem with this is that the law was previously only used to keep people from breaking into the White House, or sneaking into Dumbass's Crawford ranch.  Over the last ten years, we've been seeing people get busted for straying from their authorized free speech cages.  This was a significant shift in the way the law was enforced.  In the past, protests were only governed by local ordinances concerning safety of the gatherings.  Don't block the street. Don't cram 10k people into a small area. Make sure rescue workers can get around, etc.  Most consider this reasonable.  The pattern lately is for the federal authorities, in this case the Secret Service, to dictate where people can congregate, and they base this determination on the message they're trying to convey.  A "no blood for oil" sign is going to get you moved into the penalty box down the street, while a "4 more years" sign will get you moved up front so the president and the cameras get to see you.  Cross the line, and now you can get charged with a federal crime, which is now more likely to hold up in court.

[ReaPsTA]

The construction of the law is genius.  By removing the willfully part, the secret service is making going to a rally to protest so risky that no one will do it.

[Super Dude]

And yet, oddly enough, I distinctly remember in the first few months of the protests (haven't really been following it since) Obama used OWS in his speeches to say that there is a lot of discontent in this country and he wants to step up and solve it. I remember plenty of commentators lumping OWS and Dems together as well.

I see where you're coming from if all you're saying is that he might be able to use OWS rhetoric to his advantage, but the idea that the group is a Democrat/Obama support wing is absurd.

I mean that was all I was saying. It's in Obama's interest to keep OWS around, even if he doesn't actually like them because he can at least pretend to.