New "Trespass" Bill

**scottishranger** · 03-02-2012, 02:15

Hello all, first post in the backroom but I've been a lurker for a long time. Thought I would bring this up to the forum

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books.

In 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, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

To me this seems like a direct infringement on our first amendment rights to organize peaceful protests. This bill would make the act of protesting near an important figure illegal, which kind of defeats the purpose of protesting right?

Any thoughts? Am i blowing this out of proportion?

**InsaneApache** · 03-02-2012, 02:21

I'm not surprised. Since 9/11, the politicians wet dream, the west in particular is determined to curb freedoms and liberties.

**scottishranger** · 03-02-2012, 02:33

Yes, being a relatively young person I and a group of people are actually now planning our first actual protest action to fight this bill. A bit ironic I suppose!

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 03-02-2012, 02:37

Originally Posted by scottishranger

Hello all, first post in the backroom but I've been a lurker for a long time. Thought I would bring this up to the forum

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

To me this seems like a direct infringement on our first amendment rights to organize peaceful protests. This bill would make the act of protesting near an important figure illegal, which kind of defeats the purpose of protesting right?

Any thoughts? Am i blowing this out of proportion?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/01/do...ill-change-any

According to this, this is already a law all over the country, and this is just an update that includes washington DC, except for a word change from "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly".

I found the bit where they talk about the legal difference a bit confusing though. Why is it bad that if you knowingly cross the line that the secret service says you can't you get fined?

**scottishranger** · 03-02-2012, 03:08

Hmm interesting article Sasaki. It does seem to downplay the true effects of the bill. Some of the articles written on it have been positvely sensationalist. But it does seem to set a dangerous precedent that the secret service can shutdown a protest at any time across the country if they are present there to protect a candidate.

**Lemur** · 03-02-2012, 03:09

scottishranger, you just shut your mouth until we hustle you to the fenced-in free speech zone under the highway overpass. Then, and ONLY THEN may you speak your mind.

Oh, and welcome to the backroom!

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 03-02-2012, 04:06

Originally Posted by scottishranger

Hmm interesting article Sasaki. It does seem to downplay the true effects of the bill. Some of the articles written on it have been positvely sensationalist. But it does seem to set a dangerous precedent that the secret service can shutdown a protest at any time across the country if they are present there to protect a candidate.

I don't see anything dangerous...it's clearly going to be enacted in a normal way, and if it somehow wasn't it would be in the news...if the news is willing to report the bill as "goodbye, first amendment" then you can figure they'll be all over an abuse of it...

**ICantSpellDawg** · 03-02-2012, 05:43

Arm yourselves, guys. How many more warnings do we need?

**rory_20_uk** · 03-02-2012, 10:06

What is the area? If the President is driving down a street, can the street then be cleared? Could most areas of Washington DC be cleared due to the high density of politicians, all with their legally allowed bubble of privacy from the Great Unwashed.

It'll make getting items in a sale easier - get the police to remove everyone else from the Mall...

**Vladimir** · 03-02-2012, 18:33

Welcome!

**Graphic** · 03-02-2012, 20:58

Some of you honestly see something sinister here?

**InsaneApache** · 03-02-2012, 23:49

Originally Posted by Graphic

Some of you honestly see something sinister here?

All governments are force.

I'd like direct democracy. Not this charade.

**scottishranger** · 03-03-2012, 19:55

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

All governments are force.

I'd like direct democracy. Not this charade.

See I disagree with you here. Direct Democracy, in this day and age, would destroy our country. The people dont know what they want, and when they do it is often the wrong thing the country needs at the moment. The Founding Fathers knew this, and that is why our government is a Federal Republic. Now I would argue that this has worked fairly well over the past 200 years. Compare this to California (which has the most direct democracy of the states as far as I know) with its initiatives proposed and passed by the people. The initiative system has wrecked their state government with its cap of property taxes and produced confusing and contradictive social legislation.