The efforts have started to surpress ...

The efforts have started to surpress free speech

Posted in the Caruthersville Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
John Doe

Poplar Bluff, MO

#1 Nov 8, 2012
When I stumbled upon this, I immediately thought that this was a violation of the First Amendment. I shall post URL's from the left and the right that seem to be in agreement that this is suppression of the first amendment. I shall let you read it for yourself and decided.

http://salem-news.com/articles/february292012...

http://americansunitedforfreedom.org/alerts/2...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanine-molloff...

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/hr-347

http://www.dailypaul.com/217158/hr-347-just-p...

LAst and not least is the actual bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3...

Now, before either side jumps here, note that I have given sites from the left and the right and these agree. I have given the actual bill for you to read and decide for yourself.
John Doe

Poplar Bluff, MO

#2 Nov 9, 2012
I guess that the freedom of speech isn't important. I guess it's more important to point fingers at each over what is doing wrong than it is to keep our free speech. Stay in that mind set and wait until it becomes a crime to speak you opinion anywhere and that includes on here.
John Doe

Poplar Bluff, MO

#3 Nov 9, 2012
Sorry for trying to bring something of importance to your attention. All of you, left and right, go back to your bickering now.
John Doe

Poplar Bluff, MO

#4 Nov 9, 2012
I give up, no one cares.
guesT

De Soto, KS

#5 Nov 9, 2012
John, I have read your post and it is bad. I posted anything about it because I am "speechless"
which soon will be everybody...
guesT

De Soto, KS

#6 Nov 9, 2012
Last post should have read "I have not posted..."
John Doe

Poplar Bluff, MO

#7 Nov 9, 2012
guesT wrote:
Last post should have read "I have not posted..."
What is really scary is that when ever the government wants to shut down a protest all the President has to do is declare the area a NSSE and afterward the Secret Service can go in, arresting people who are then subject to 1 to 10 years in federal prison. It could be a perfectly legitimate protest and people right to free speech are gone because an NSSE
Gene

Caruthersville, MO

#8 Nov 10, 2012
If it shuts up racist bigots hypocrites like you and Comrade are.....I'm all for it then.
well

Amherst, OH

#9 Nov 10, 2012
Q: Did President Obama secretly sign a law that makes it a crime to protest against him or ask him a question he doesn’t like?

A: No. He openly announced the signing of a bill overwhelmingly passed by Congress that slightly revises a 1971 law against trespassing into areas under Secret Service protection.

FULL QUESTION

Is this true?


Subject: Obama quietly tramples the first amendment

I truly thought this was a joke until I watched the short video of Judge Napolitano. Here is another law that separates citizens from the President.

New law makes it illegal to protest in Obama’s presence (or whomever he chooses)

This means that, wherever Obama is at, you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn’t like. Sound like he’s more like Hitler than Lincoln to you?


FULL ANSWER

We have received numerous inquiries about HR 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” but many of the claims made in this email and elsewhere are simply untrue.

The law merely updates a measure that has been on the books since it was signed by then-President Richard Nixon in 1971, making it a federal crime to trespass on grounds secured by the Secret Service. No new penalties were added, and the bill was not signed “secretly” as some claim. The White House announced the signing publicly just as it does for other such routine measures.

Manufactured Controversy

This was about as routine and noncontroversial as a federal law can get, at least until false claims started to circulate, drumming up a manufactured controversy. The law was sponsored by a Republican, Rep. Thomas Rooney of Florida. In fact, the bill has been around for years. Rooney first introduced it in 2009 and spoke about it on the House floor in 2010. The current Congress passed it overwhelmingly — by “unanimous consent” in the Senate, and with only three House members voting against it.

It merely amended Title 18, Chapter 84, Section 1752 of the U.S. Code — just as then-President George W. Bush did in 2006 when he signed the Patriot Act.(Click on the link to the U.S. Code and you can see how it was amended in 1982, 1984, 1994 and 2006.)

According to the official report of the full House Judiciary Committee (which approved it on a voice vote, without recorded opposition), the bill adds two things to previously existing law:
■It specifies that it is unlawful to enter secured areas of the White House and its grounds, or the vice president’s official residence and grounds. Previously, according to the report, the law prohibited unlawful entry to any building or ground, secured by the Secret Service, where the president or vice president is “temporarily” visiting. That forced the Secret Service to rely on a District of Columbia law that “addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions” even if somebody were to breach the White House residence itself.
■The new law revises the standard that prosecutors must meet to gain a conviction, from proving that a violation was committed “willfully and knowingly” to merely proving that it was committed “knowingly.”

The bill reached the House floor on Feb. 28, 2011, but not a single member spoke out against it during the seven minutes of debate. The House then passed it by a vote of 399 to 3. Only Reps. Ron Paul of Texas, Justin Amash of Michigan and Paul Broun of Georgia, all Republicans, voted against it. The Senate didn’t take it up until nearly a year later, when it reached the floor on Feb. 6, 2012. With no debate whatsoever, the Senate passed a slightly amended version by “unanimous consent,” meaning that not a single senator voiced any opposition.


well

Amherst, OH

#10 Nov 10, 2012
Bogus Claims

So how did such an innocuous measure come to be described as an assault on the First Amendment and a criminalizing of any protest against Barack Obama? The emails we have seen usually include a link to a video of a Fox News’ report criticizing the law as an unprecedented attack on free speech, and claiming that the law makes it a crime to protest and imposes stiff new penalties — including making it a felony for merely asking Obama a question he doesn’t like or protesting peacefully in his presence.

All those claims are bogus.

As we’ve seen, the law has been around since Richard Nixon’s time, and the changes Congress approved don’t impose new penalties or even address the issues of speech or protest.

The Fox News report, for example, claimed that the new law makes it a felony to protest against the president, and the emails circulating about it say you can be put in prison “for more than a YEAR if you ask him something he [Obama] doesn’t like.” But even before the law was amended this year, it provided for penalties of up to 10 years — if the person in a restricted area carries a deadly weapon or causes “significant bodily injury.” Nothing new.

Some civil libertarians do see a danger that the law can be abused — but that was true before and is also nothing new. Gabe Rottman, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote a blog post in response to some of the wild claims that have been made about the new law.



New Legal Standard
But the 2006 version of the law contained the same undefined phrases:
■The 2006 version says it is unlawful for a person or group to “willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds.”
■The 2012 version says it is unlawful if someone “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.”

One last thing: Critics of the president are using the law to scare people into thinking that the law will be used against his critics. Maybe it will be. But the law doesn’t cover just the president and vice president and it hasn’t since it was amended in 1982. It covers anyone under Secret Service protection, including past presidents of both parties and the Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees.

So, to recap: The law isn’t new; it merely amends existing law. The law doesn’t impose new penalties, although the ACLU is concerned that it may make it easier for the government to prove its case against someone who knowingly enters a restricted area or causes a disturbance in areas under Secret Service protection. The law doesn’t criminalize free speech any more than it did when Bush revised the same law in 2006.

– Eugene Kiely and Brooks Jackson

Sources

U.S. House.“H.R. 347, Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds
well

Amherst, OH

#11 Nov 10, 2012
This is an old scared tatic going around again.

I guess the ""chicken lttle" the right winger nuts

Can't come up with something new.

THE SKY IS FALLING - THE SKY IS FALLING
Doug E

Caruthersville, MO

#12 Nov 10, 2012
The new "Blame Obama" topic for this month. Just a couple of sour grape attitudes from two common friends who happen to share a common ground goal. They hate Obama because of his skin color. Lets forget the atrociousness of privacy violated by the Bush administration and let them fall of deaf ears.

So Mr Karnes and Mr Edwards, when are you two going to begin to compromise and get along? When hell freezes over?
well

Amherst, OH

#13 Nov 10, 2012
H.R.347

One Hundred Twelfth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

An Act

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

-‘Sec. 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--

‘(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.’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
well

Amherst, OH

#14 Nov 10, 2012

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#15 Nov 10, 2012
So this bill has realy nothing to do with freedom of speech.

The bill has to do with helping the sercet service do their jobs

It's just a bill that has been revised

It was Prolly needed with all the threats

The secret srvice has to deal with

Remeber what doe said

You don't have the right to yell fire in a theater
John Doe

Poplar Bluff, MO

#16 Nov 10, 2012
I never saw anything on Fox about. However, when I searched on HR347 I got all of the references that I did post including the govtrack URL. I have been trying to shift through it but there is an old saying where there is smoke there is fire and there has to be something wrong if both the left and the right oppose this bill. At least that was my thinking. To be honest I can think of ways that this law could be used to terminate protests. It could be done through the issuing of an executive order declaring one of the NSSE's. The National Security Special Event.

Catfish, indirect it does have a great deal to do with infringement on freedom of speech. If there were an ongoing protest and one of these NSSE's was declared, the Secret Service could go in and terminate the protest.

Douggie, grow up. If you read my initial post, I did not blame either side, I blamed both sides because it would require a majority of the House to pass this law and that is a GOP controlled house.
Doug E

Caruthersville, MO

#17 Nov 10, 2012
At least you dont deny who you are.
John Doe

Poplar Bluff, MO

#18 Nov 10, 2012
Doug E wrote:
At least you dont deny who you are.
If you are here to start your usual crap, take a hike. This is a serious matter.
well

Amherst, OH

#19 Nov 10, 2012
John Doe wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are here to start your usual crap, take a hike. This is a serious matter.
It's only a serious matter

In ur conspiracy theory world

True facts r important 2 the American people

They proved that on NOV.6 2012
John Doe

Poplar Bluff, MO

#20 Nov 10, 2012
well wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only a serious matter
In ur conspiracy theory world
True facts r important 2 the American people
They proved that on NOV.6 2012
I don't live in a conspiracy world and the truth is that this could be used in ways it was never meant to be use. Okay, so your candidate won. I get that. I'm simply looking for people who can intelligently discuss things with. People that realized that posts on here are not a twitter post.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Caruthersville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
police 2 hr Juicey22 5
Local Contractors Thu Guest 10
Kristen Wright Thu been there 11
thief Thu hoss 24
free kittens Jun 22 guest 3
Military Convoys Jun 21 Evan 4
divorce attorney Jun 21 guest 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Caruthersville Mortgages