Export thread
HR 347 Slips by us and makes protesting illegal
#1
Krisken
Krisken
Holy fuck how did we not hear about this? Oh yeah, we've been distracted by a bunch of crazy fuck-heads shouting about regulating women's hoo hoos.
The bill, all two pages of it, can be found here.
Fuck it, it's so short I'll just paste it
The bill, all two pages of it, can be found here.
Fuck it, it's so short I'll just paste it
Does anyone else see a problem with this?SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.
Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘§ 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.’
#2
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
They just try and enforce that and it'll be tossed out.
#3
Krisken
Krisken
That's what I think too. It's still very disturbing, though!They just try and enforce that and it'll be tossed out.
#4
Dave
Dave
Aren't most of these things illegal already in other statutes?
#5
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I think most of this is just to lean on people caught during Occupy style events. They want to wave that ten year prison sentence in the face of people to convince them to squeal on organizers and instigators.
#6
Dave
Dave
But as read this is only for government functions, not private. So it would not apply to Occupy unless they were storming courthouses.
#7
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
... which is exactly the kind of thing they are afraid of happening now.But as read this is only for government functions, not private. So it would not apply to Occupy unless they were storming courthouses.
#8
Dave
Dave
But it's already illegal to do these things. Trespassing and kidnapping (illegally impeding) come immediately to mind. What makes this statute different than those?
#9
Krisken
Krisken
Not quite, Dave.But as read this is only for government functions, not private. So it would not apply to Occupy unless they were storming courthouses.
That bolded part right there is the important bit. NSSE's include some really stupid shit.‘‘(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
Protest at the super bowl? That's up to 10 years in federal prison. Make a disruptive speech at the Academy Awards? That's a possible prison sentence. See how problematic this is?Typical types of NSSEs are state funerals, major political conventions, the Academy Awards, major sporting events (e.g., the Olympic Games and the Super Bowl), and the State of the Union addresses.[5]
#10
Dave
Dave
Ah! That's the difference, then. Carry on.
#11
Gared
Gared
Most of them are, but where a lot of my concern (I can't speak for anyone else) comes in is that this re-codifying of the statutes would make it illegal to protest at, say, the RNC - because Santorum has requested Secret Service protection due to all the glitter-bombs, or the DNC if Pres. Obama was there; or if Pres. Obama were to visit ground zero, it would be illegal to protest against the continuing war in Afghanistan while he was there; or even if someone wanted to stage an occupy protest on Wall Street and Biden was going to ring the opening bell, it would be illegal to protest on the sidewalk outside the NYSE building.
It's a knee-jerk reaction to all of the recent protesting, which could prevent any and all peaceful protesting near these "protected buildings". Hell, this bill would have made the Million Man March even more illegal than it probably already was at the time, because they marched through parts of Washington DC that are "protected buildings." Members of MADD could be arrested for picketing too close to the White House fence, teachers could be prevented from protesting outside of a federal court house, the list goes on. And, while police in riot gear lining a parade route is nothing new around here (it was certainly a common enough sight during the Civil Rights Movement days that the images were burned into my brain by my history books), it certainly does seem ridiculous to be sending riot police and SWAT teams to apprehend the "dangerous criminals" demonstrating against, say, banning birth control.
Then too, there's the issue of the punishments that the bill levies against people. Simply being at a protest can net you a fine and an up-to-one year prison sentence. Now, in order for them to send you to prison or even to levy a fine against you, they have to charge you with some sort of offense. If it carries a possible prison sentence, that usually makes it a criminal offense. There are a lot of jobs out there where having anything at all on your criminal record makes it impossible to have that job - for instance, teaching in Washington state requires a clean record. So what if you're a teacher, you're sick of wage cuts and having to pay for school supplies out of your own pocket, and you decide to go picket out in front of the state capital building in Olympia, and Michelle Obama is in town for a fundraiser, or to give her support to Jay Inslee, a democrat running for Governor? Bam! Immediately you can wind up with a criminal record that could (and probably would, in this state) cost you your job, for walking on a sidewalk in front of a building while holding a sign. I'm not even going to get into what would happen if you had a concealed carry permit and were carrying a handgun while you protested.
Edit: Krisken beat me to it, and in a much more concise way, but I'ma leave this here anyway.
It's a knee-jerk reaction to all of the recent protesting, which could prevent any and all peaceful protesting near these "protected buildings". Hell, this bill would have made the Million Man March even more illegal than it probably already was at the time, because they marched through parts of Washington DC that are "protected buildings." Members of MADD could be arrested for picketing too close to the White House fence, teachers could be prevented from protesting outside of a federal court house, the list goes on. And, while police in riot gear lining a parade route is nothing new around here (it was certainly a common enough sight during the Civil Rights Movement days that the images were burned into my brain by my history books), it certainly does seem ridiculous to be sending riot police and SWAT teams to apprehend the "dangerous criminals" demonstrating against, say, banning birth control.
Then too, there's the issue of the punishments that the bill levies against people. Simply being at a protest can net you a fine and an up-to-one year prison sentence. Now, in order for them to send you to prison or even to levy a fine against you, they have to charge you with some sort of offense. If it carries a possible prison sentence, that usually makes it a criminal offense. There are a lot of jobs out there where having anything at all on your criminal record makes it impossible to have that job - for instance, teaching in Washington state requires a clean record. So what if you're a teacher, you're sick of wage cuts and having to pay for school supplies out of your own pocket, and you decide to go picket out in front of the state capital building in Olympia, and Michelle Obama is in town for a fundraiser, or to give her support to Jay Inslee, a democrat running for Governor? Bam! Immediately you can wind up with a criminal record that could (and probably would, in this state) cost you your job, for walking on a sidewalk in front of a building while holding a sign. I'm not even going to get into what would happen if you had a concealed carry permit and were carrying a handgun while you protested.
Edit: Krisken beat me to it, and in a much more concise way, but I'ma leave this here anyway.
#12
Krisken
Krisken
Great expansion, Gared, and spot on.
#13
GasBandit
GasBandit
And note it's bipartisan - an R is championing the house version, and a D in the senate. Jack Johnson and John Jackson both want us to sit down and take it, whatever they decide.
#14
Necronic
Necronic
When I read that the exact same thing came to my mind about a "special event of national significance" including RNC/DNC.
I have a significant problem with this.
I have a significant problem with this.
#15
Krisken
Krisken
When our choices are the jack-asses who want to take away our freedoms and the jack-asses who want to fuck up our economy with a thought experiment, none of us win.And note it's bipartisan - an R is championing the house version, and a D in the senate. Jack Johnson and John Jackson both want us to sit down and take it, whatever they decide.
#16
GasBandit
GasBandit
When our choices are the jack-asses who want to take away our freedoms and the jack-asses who want to fuck up our economy with a thought experiment, none of us win.
#17
Gared
Gared
Actually, I'm more concerned with this portion, which I missed earlier:
So, under this clause, if I'm part of a group that's organizing a protest which is illegal under this bill, I can be arrested and would be subject to the same penalties as people who actually showed up, even if I didn't actually show up.or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided
in subsection
#18
jwhouk
jwhouk
Oh great, this gives Walker even more reason to clamp down on protesters at the State Capitol.
#19
@Li3n
@Li3n
Yup, ask Canada for help, exactly what i was thinking too.