Free Speech = A Felony ?

[lawgator1]

Here is an article at the ACLU website that explains it better than I can. It really is no big deal.

Ready to Occupy? What You Need to Know about H.R. 347, the "Criminalizing Protest" Law

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

What I mean is that it just rewrites existing law and specifies that we are talking about areas designated by the Secret Service as part of their area of protection of the POTUS, the VP, and candidates. Its narrow, very narrow, and enables them to keep people from crowding areas where they are bringing or housing protectees.

The part quoted by OP leaves all that out. And subsequent posts by others make it seem like the law would ban getting close to government buildings, just generally. That is not true, its a Secret Service thing, only.

Regarding these laws, I have to think that protesting and disrupting the State of the Union Address would fall under them; do you think disrupting the State of the Union Address should be punished with ten years of imprisonment?

Further, from the article you referenced, you do not find the following troublesome:

• 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.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Here is an article at the ACLU website that explains it better than I can. It really is no big deal.

Ready to Occupy? What You Need to Know about H.R. 347, the "Criminalizing Protest" Law

I don't see how this helps your case. If someone disrupts a Romney campaign event they could be guilty under this law. They just have to have knowingly disrupted it.

[utvolpj]

some other quotes from the ACLU website

The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.

H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by therealUT

Regarding these laws, I have to think that protesting and disrupting the State of the Union Address would fall under them; do you think disrupting the State of the Union Address should be punished with ten years of imprisonment?

Further, from the article you referenced, you do not find the following troublesome:

Originally Posted by volinbham

I don't see how this helps your case. If someone disrupts a Romney campaign event they could be guilty under this law. They just have to have knowingly disrupted it.

Originally Posted by utvolpj

some other quotes from the ACLU website

The ACLU says it is going to monitor the application of this. They say that so far there appears to be no misuse of it, no overreaching to get to political speech.

Government is permitted to make reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. One cannot, for example, in the name of free speech stand behind the podium as POTUS gives a State of the Union speech and waive signs around. It is a security concern.

Similarly, you can go to the Republican National Convention if you want and protest, but they are allowed to regulate where you do it. It has to be reasonable, i.e. they can't designate a 6 inch square for you to all stand and waive your signs 20 miles away from the convention.

On the other hand, I think you are making too big a deal of this if you think it really changes anything from the status quo.

The lingo about undefined terms is a problem in any such statute. If some group wants to challenge it, fine, but I really don't think it is all that outrageous to allow the Secret Service some type of buffer zone around protectees.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

The ACLU says it is going to monitor the application of this. They say that so far there appears to be no misuse of it, no overreaching to get to political speech.

Government is permitted to make reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. One cannot, for example, in the name of free speech stand behind the podium as POTUS gives a State of the Union speech and waive signs around. It is a security concern.

Similarly, you can go to the Republican National Convention if you want and protest, but they are allowed to regulate where you do it. It has to be reasonable, i.e. they can't designate a 6 inch square for you to all stand and waive your signs 20 miles away from the convention.

On the other hand, I think you are making too big a deal of this if you think it really changes anything from the status quo.

The lingo about undefined terms is a problem in any such statute. If some group wants to challenge it, fine, but I really don't think it is all that outrageous to allow the Secret Service some type of buffer zone around protectees.

I might be able to swallow the restriction of free-speech in designated restricted areas; however, the fact that this bill states that it is limited near restricted areas should be a cause of concern.

[Gramps]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

The ACLU says it is going to monitor the application of this. They say that so far there appears to be no misuse of it, no overreaching to get to political speech.

Government is permitted to make reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. One cannot, for example, in the name of free speech stand behind the podium as POTUS gives a State of the Union speech and waive signs around. It is a security concern.

Similarly, you can go to the Republican National Convention if you want and protest, but they are allowed to regulate where you do it. It has to be reasonable, i.e. they can't designate a 6 inch square for you to all stand and waive your signs 20 miles away from the convention.On the other hand, I think you are making too big a deal

of this if you think it really changes anything from the status quo.

The lingo about undefined terms is a problem in any such statute. If some group wants to challenge it, fine, but I really don't think it is all that outrageous to allow the Secret Service some type of buffer zone around protectees.

IIRC during the Bush 2 presidency protesters were kept x feet away from any event and the route his motorcade was taking.

Obama my be doing the same thing. I just remeber our non bias media reporting this while Bush 2 was in office.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by Gramps

IIRC during the Bush 2 presidency protesters were kept x feet away from any event and the route his motorcade was taking.

Obama my be doing the same thing. I just remeber our non bias media reporting this while Bush 2 was in office.

This isn't Obama doing anything. It is a statute that the Secret Service wanted passed so that they had some authority to do what they were already doing at certain buildings when protectees were there.

It really is much ado about nothing. And if it ever developed into something, then the ACLU would jump all over it.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

This isn't Obama doing anything. It is a statute that the Secret Service wanted passed so that they had some authority to do what they were already doing at certain buildings when protectees were there.

It really is much ado about nothing. And if it ever developed into something, then the ACLU would jump all over it.

If it develops into something, i.e. if individuals are imprisoned for protesting near restricted areas, it may be too late for the ACLU to do anything.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by therealUT

If it develops into something, i.e. if individuals are imprisoned for protesting near restricted areas, it may be too late for the ACLU to do anything.

That's the point.

I also don't see why it's a felony to disrupt - so if Obama was having a "town hall" meeting and one of the attendees behaved like we saw all over the country at town hall meetings (forcefully arguing a point and shouting) that's a felony? According to the law it could be charged as such if the party knew he was disrupting the proceedings.

Escorting them out and possibly a small (ticket) fine would be appropriate.

[Gramps]

Originally Posted by volinbham

That's the point.

I also don't see why it's a felony to disrupt - so if Obama was having a "town hall" meeting and one of the attendees behaved like we saw all over the country at town hall meetings (forcefully arguing a point and shouting) that's a felony? According to the law it could be charged as such if the party knew he was disrupting the proceedings.

Escorting them out and possibly a small (ticket) fine would be appropriate.

This.

This should not be a felony.