gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
BOTH parties passed it, Obama signed it, and there was little to no fanfare or notice.
"‘‘§ 1752. Restricted building or grounds
‘‘(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; or
‘‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence
against any person or property in any restricted building or
grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided
in subsection (b).
‘‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—
‘‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 10 years, or both, if—
‘‘(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense,
uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm;
or
‘‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as
defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
‘‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than one year, or both, in any other case.
‘‘(c) In this section—
H. R. 347—2
‘‘(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; and
‘‘(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.’’.
So, essentially, they can say, "This area is off limits to protest", and you can be jailed for a FELONY if you go there. Are we REALLY willing to let them have this much control?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Why not , you thought it was great when ole GW was arresting demonstrators left & right .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
It does not restrict orderly protests in proper locations. It restricts such protests (and violence) in restricted areas. Free speech is allowed, but it has always had limitations.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
Hey, BOTH parties passed this, this is NOT a partisan issue.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"It does not restrict orderly protests in proper locations."
No, but it DOES allow them to define "proper areas" without any oversight. In other words, theoretically, they could say, "Okay, for a five miles radius, this is a no pretest zone." And tada, they can now arrest anyone protesting.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
There is always oversight. If it appears that the law is being used to overly constrain legitimate speech, it can be challenged as overbroad in its application where the standard of review is likely to be strict scrutiny.
That is generally how the process would work for any restrictions on speech.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
If it appears that the law is being used to overly constrain legitimate speech, it can be challenged as overbroad in its application where the standard of review is likely to be strict scrutiny.
---> Such as the law that was passed that prohibited teachers from have FB contact with minors.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"If it appears that the law is being used to overly constrain legitimate speech, it can be challenged as overbroad in its application where the standard of review is likely to be strict scrutiny."
See, THAT is the problem. We have to come to the mentality that if a LAW is wrong, we can look at it LATER. When in reality, it is during the DISCUSSION phase that such things should be discussed. Because once it is a LAW, during the time it is being challenged, those suffering under the law will continue to suffer, because it is still in effect.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
The law, as written, is not wrong. Constraining speech to proper venues has always been a legitimate government interest. However, it must be narrowly tailored to a significant government interest and use the least restrictive alternative.
It is only when the application of the otherwise valid law oversteps constitutional bounds - it is challenged in a judicial forum.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
How can this law NOT overstep its bounds? The law gives the PEOPLE BEING PROTESTED AGAINST, the ability to determine WHERE the protestors may not protest, regardless of whether it is a public or private location.
This is UNPRECEDENTED power, and it is also absolute. We all know what absolute power does. But at a MINIMUM, it removes a person's RIGHT to be in a PUBLIC place and to protest, unless the person or thing they are protesting AGREES with letting them there. This is a DANGEROUS law.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
