HR347 - Speech No Longer Free in the United States

[youtube:vehjo49e][/youtube:vehjo49e]

The usual FauxNews interpretation of something that isn't nearly as serious as they try to make it sound...

The law, signed by the president in mid-March, expands an existing statute that criminalizes certain activity in and around areas that are restricted by the Secret Service.

Given the approaching protests, it may be worth providing a more detail on how exactly the law works, and what protesters can expect. Preliminarily, it's important to define one particular term in the law: "restricted buildings or grounds." These are specific geographic zones that have been designated by the Secret Service, and can be located under H.R. 347 in three places:

• The White House or the vice president's residence.
• A building or area where any individual under Secret Service protection is visiting.
• A building or area at which a National Special Security Event (or "NSSE") is taking place.

Under the existing statute, four types of activities were illegal with respect to these zones, and remain so under the new law:

• You cannot "knowingly" enter or remain in a restricted zone without lawful authority.
• You cannot "knowingly" engage in "disorderly or disruptive" conduct in or near a restricted zone. A prosecutor would have to show, however, that you intended to disrupt government business and that your conduct actually did cause a disruption. Troublingly, the term "disorderly or disruptive conduct" is undefined.
• You cannot "knowingly" block the entrance or exit of one of these restricted zones. Again, however, the prosecutor would have to show that you did so with the intent to disrupt government business.
• Finally, you cannot "knowingly" engage in an act of physical violence against person or property in one of these restricted zones.

You'll notice that "knowingly" is in quotation marks above. This is one of the two major changes to existing law (the other is the extension of the statute to the White House and VP's residence). Previously, the law required someone to act "willfully and knowingly." This is the state of mind the government has to prove you had to establish your guilt (the "intent standard"). "Willfully and knowingly" means that you need to know you're committing a crime. "Knowingly" just means you need to be aware you're in a restricted zone, but not necessarily that it's unlawful.

Oh, this is from that right-wing organization, the ACLU... http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/re ... rotest-law

Under the existing statute, four types of activities were illegal with respect to these zones, and remain so under the new law...

Translation for the hysteria-seekers: These four things were ALREADY illegal, and they still are. What's changed is the fact that the government doesn't need to prove "willfully" now.

So, what's new?

• The White House or the vice president's residence.
• A building or area where any individual under Secret Service protection is visiting.
• A building or area at which a National Special Security Event (or "NSSE") is taking place.

Yes, it does appear that there appears to be some troubling "discretion" in the terms "knowingly"...But those same troubling issues were already there. Nobody is "making free speech a felony. They are saying that if it's an area under Secret Service protection, there are prohibitions.

I think before the usual hacks start screaming about their "free speech rights" being under attack, it might bear some watching to see how this comes down first.

As usual, there is the TRUTH, and there is the FauxNews interpretation of the law for the rest.

I have an idea: only people who vote can protest or be afforded free speech.

I think there is plenty to be alarmed about here. Removing the "willful" part and eases the burden of proof and again our rights are slowly being legislated away.

What about those geographic "zones" (yes, I know; this was already part of the law)? How large might those be designated? Supposed the Secret Service designates a security zone around, say, a five-mile radius of a point (except of course for their hos who are exempt). That effectively shuts down the right to have a meaningful dissention that can be heard. Now, how about if a known dissident enters that vast area with no real intent to protest (since they're not gonna be heard anyway from that distance) but to, say, go to a place of business or a home on the inside edge of that area. Can that individual effectively be busted for "knowingly" being in that restricted zone? How will that "disorderly or disruptive conduct" be construed in that case given the individual has been known in the past to be a dissident?

How are those zones going to be designated? Will the average citizen be able to "knowingly" determine that they should not enter that zone? There doesn't seem to be any meaningful specification of how one is to determine those zones.

We are slowly losing our rights, and the majority of people out there don't seem to give a damn. I don't know this country anymore.

cydl wrote: Supposed the Secret Service designates a security zone around, say, a five-mile radius of a point (except of course for their hos who are exempt). That effectively shuts down the right to have a meaningful dissention that can be heard.

More people "hear" you on the Internet than if you stand yelling a block away from something, just for the sake of yelling. You don't have to be near something anymore to effectively protest. However, if you just want to get yourself in pictures battling police, you'd need to be there.

JSG wrote: More people "hear" you on the Internet than if you stand yelling a block away from something, just for the sake of yelling. You don't have to be near something anymore to effectively protest. However, if you just want to get yourself in pictures battling police, you'd need to be there.

That is certainly true if your intended audience is on a particular forum or blog or whathaveyou. Sometimes that good 'ol right to assemble and display numbers and opinions to a public figure has much more influence than a forum or blog. Personal interfacing and all that! I don't know where battling police fits in. I made no mention of rioting; just assembling to voice a differing opinion. But you make a good point there - seems it doesn't take too much for those in power to sic their guards on folks anymore - just showing up seems to be enough in some cases. Again, erosion of rights.

Here's an honest question: Do you think standing behind a barricade with a sign, yelling, really affects any kind of change? Do you think public figures even notice or would consider changing a policy because of it?

I think that when enough folks care about an issue to show up and peacefully assemble it can make a difference. Witness the freedom marches and (peaceful) anti-war marches of the past as well as the recent public outcry in Florida over the Trayvon Martin case - the community people in this case, not Sharpton and his gang of clowns or the media. I do believe that everyone is more jaded now and are less likely to take notice. Seems that more often than not notice is only taken when things turn ugly. But I still believe in our rights to freely assemble and voice our opinions peacefully.

In the end whether public figures pay attention or not, I do not want to see our rights of free assembly and speech curtailed. And laws like this, in my opinion, threaten those rights.

Here's a question in return: Do you think public figures notice or would change a policy due to internet postings? And by postings I mean forums, blogs, etc.; not direct emails to office holders. I think they're a lot easier to ignore than an assembly of people.

I think the Internet allows people to reach more people and gather a groundswell of support. I do think they pay attention to Internet postings, particularly if they are read by their constituents and are sent to them by their constiuents. I think protests outside a venue are very easy to ignore. You go in a back way and never see them.

In either case, I think it does NO good for someone outside their district to complain to them.

I do agree with the internet facilitating the gathering of people for a common cause. I also agree that emails from constituents will influence elected officials. I'll bet mine are sick of me!

I still don't discount good ol' masses in the streets though, given a specific, focused purpose and a well-organized and civil assembly. Maybe I'm just a Luddite, but I still like to believe that face-to-face interaction is more important than anonymous prose.