Anti-Protest Law Passes Nearly Unanimously And Is Signed By The President

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Hahaha.... shit.

"I'm referring to the bill H.R. 347 that was signed by President Obama the other day, passed unanimously in the Senate, and 388-3 in the House. That's nearly EVERY SINGLE lawmaker. The last time they agreed that closely on something, it was a bill raising monthly Congressional pay to include a box of Ding Dongs, two erotic cakes featuring Bonanza star Pernell Roberts, and a gentle yet inquisitive prostate exam every Tuesday. "

Not to get all alarmist or anything. BUT WHAT THE FUCK?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/anti-occupy-law-passes-nea_b_1343728.html

[Tgo01]

I think that guy is reading too much into the law. First of all unless I'm totally missing it the law doesn't mention protests at all. The law talks about places as being "off limits" as the White House (obviously), the vice president's residence and any place where the secret service is protecting someone, not just any place a secret service member is standing around scratching his balls like the article states.

It says it's a crime to enter these places knowingly and to either physically attack someone (this is a good thing) or to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business.

I know the founders wanted to give us the right to free speech and all but I don't think they meant for that to impede our government. The government impedes itself just fine.

[Gelston]

This was also over a year ago.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not sure 89.2% counts as "nearly every".

The point is, why now? Why are they signing this now? Isn't it obvious? They are on the ropes. American Spring here we come.

[Tgo01]

I'm not sure 89.2% counts as "nearly every".

Shouldn't that be 92.1%?

[Tisket]

This was also over a year ago.

Why does that matter? Is there a time limit on discussing questionable legislation now?

[Tgo01]

I just read the article again, I take back my previous comment. The guy isn't reading too much into the law, he is purposefully taking shit out of context in order to get the masses riled up (okay maybe I made that last part up, but the former part is true.)

Here he says:


Well some are calling it the anti-Occupy law and it allows the government to bring charges against Americans involved in many kinds of political protest at any location the secret service, quote, "is or will be temporarily visiting." So basically if the government wants to shut down a protest, they just send a secret service officer down there to scratch his balls, and then they can start putting people in jail for a year or more.

Yet the actual law says:


the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any
posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—

...

of a building or grounds where the President or
other person protected by the Secret Service is or will
be temporarily visiting

Unless this guy totally fails at reading comprehension I think it's pretty obvious it's referring to the person the secret service is protecting will be temporarily visiting, not that any place a secret service agent is temporarily visiting.

[Latrinsorm]

Shouldn't that be 92.1%?388/435 = 89.2%, or you could do 488/535 = 91.2% but there's no telling if "unanimous" means 100-0 or 73-0.

[Tisket]

I think that guy is reading too much into the law. First of all unless I'm totally missing it the law doesn't mention protests at all. The law talks about places as being "off limits" as the White House (obviously), the vice president's residence and any place where the secret service is protecting someone, not just any place a secret service member is standing around scratching his balls like the article states.

It says it's a crime to enter these places knowingly and to either physically attack someone (this is a good thing) or to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business.

From what I understand, they've removed the phrase "willingly and knowingly" and replaced it with just "knowingly." So if you accidentally wander into a restricted area without realizing it is illegal to be there, you could be charged.

Regardless of any of that, I think that we always need to beware any time the government wants to lower the intent requirements for a potential crime.

[AnticorRifling]

From what I understand, they've removed the phrase "willingly and knowingly" and replaced it with just "knowingly." So if you accidentally wander into a restricted area without realizing it is illegal to be there, you could be charged.

Regardless of any of that, I think that we always need to beware any time the government wants to lower the intent requirements for a potential crime.

Wouldn't that be the opposite. If you didn't know it was restricted then you're not knowingly going into a restricted area....

[Androidpk]

American Spring here we come.

Surely you jest. That just isn't possible.

[Tisket]

Wouldn't that be the opposite. If you didn't know it was restricted then you're not knowingly going into a restricted area....

I guess it's all about interpretation. This is a pretty good explanation:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/01/does-hr-347-the-trespass-bill-change-any

[AnticorRifling]

That website is not available. YOU SIT ON A THRONE OF LIES!

[Tgo01]

I guess it's all about interpretation. This is a pretty good explanation:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/01/does-hr-347-the-trespass-bill-change-any

That's all very confusing. It keeps saying someone can be arrested for entering a restricted area without knowing it's a restricted area yet the law says "knowingly." Where are all of our PC lawyers to guide us?

[Tgo01]

Regardless of any of that, I think that we always need to beware any time the government wants to lower the intent requirements for a potential crime.

I agree. Purposefully misreading the law like the guy in this article did in an attempt to scare people is the wrong way to go about it. It just makes people like me roll my eyes and want to run him over with a bicycle.

[Tisket]

You have my blessing.

[Tgo01]

I think that guy is reading too much into the law. First of all unless I'm totally missing it the law doesn't mention protests at all. The law talks about places as being "off limits" as the White House (obviously), the vice president's residence and any place where the secret service is protecting someone, not just any place a secret service member is standing around scratching his balls like the article states.

It says it's a crime to enter these places knowingly and to either physically attack someone (this is a good thing) or to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business.

I know the founders wanted to give us the right to free speech and all but I don't think they meant for that to impede our government. The government impedes itself just fine.



Thread: Anti-Protest Law Passes Nearly Unanimously And Is Signed By The President

You are fool who doesnt understand how the Govt works. They take seemingly innocous Laws and interpret them as they see fit. fucking zombie

Someone's tin foil hat is cutting off the circulation to their brain.

[Tisket]

That website is not available. YOU SIT ON A THRONE OF LIES!

You have some hardcore internet nannies at your work. Here's the full copy. Sorry about the formatting:

Does H.R. 347 Change Anything About Your Right to Protest Politicians Under Secret Service Protection? It's All In the Word Change. (http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/01/does-hr-347-the-trespass-bill-change-any)

Lucy Steigerwald (http://reason.com/people/lucy-steigerwald/all)|Mar. 1, 2012 7:48 pm

As Brian Doherty noted below (http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/01/bill-passes-house-protests-near-secret-s#comments), on Tuesday the House passed H.R. 347 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf) [pdf], officially known as The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. Now all it needs to become law is President Obama's approving signage.
Contrarian standbys Congressmen Justin Amash (R-MI) and Ron Paul (R-TX) voted nay, but the bill passed 388-3. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-149) Rep. Amash wrote that the the bill "violates our rights", but Michael Mahassey, the communications director for the bill's sponsor, Rep. Thomas J.Rooney (R-Florida), sounding irritated on Wednesday (while he implied that I was not the first person to call and ask about it). Mahassey called the reaction to the bill "a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever.”
H.R. 347, said Mahassey, is simply a DC-centric update of already existing law. Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, already protects those under Secret Service protection — except in Washington D.C. where these protections fall under local laws against trespassing, etc. Mahassey said that the Secret Service requested the changes to this law because "right now it’s not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn, this bill makes it a federal violation.”
Not exactly the abolition of the First Amendment, is it? RT (http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/) and The New American's (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/11043-congress-passes-bill-severely-curtailing-first-amendment-liberties) warnings are hopefully an exaggeration.
But there's reason to worry says Will Adams, the deputy chief of staff for Congressman Amash. Yes, the law updates as Mahssey said. It brings the DC trespassing violations under the federal umbrella and "Amash has no issue with that." But also does imply something else which inspired Amash to vote "nay."
Adams, who is a lawyer by trade, like his boss, explained the changes in updates from the previous statute in layman's terms. It all comes down the words "willfully" and "knowingly". As Amash wrote on his facebook (https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash?sk=wall) (and Doherty noted):
Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal. (It expands the law by changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)

To elaborate on what seems to be subtle legal stuff, the current law being amended, Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, would be here. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752) Note that the words are "willfully" and "knowingly" are there. H.R. 347 is here (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf). The word "willfully" is indeed gone. What does that mean exactly?
Adams pointed me towards U.S. v. Bursey (http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/044832.P.pdf) in which:
Brett Bursey was convicted in early 2004 — after a bench trial conducted by a magistrate judge in the District of South Carolina — of willfully and knowingly entering and remaining in a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area where the President was temporarily visiting

Bursey visited a South Carolina airbase with the intention of protesting the then-imminent Iraq war. He remained in an area that the Secret Service had coordinated off for 20 or so minutes, arguing his right to stay there. His state trespassing charges were dismissed, but he was then charged under Section 1752 of title 18 above. According to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bursey argued:
first, he maintains that the trial court erred in finding that he was in a "restricted area" at the time of his October 2002 arrest; second, he contends that the court erred in finding that he possessed the requisite criminal intent

They also noted in their decision to reject his appeal, some of the finer points of the difference between "willfully" and "knowingly"":
As the Bryan Court observed... for a defendant to have acted willfully, he must merely have “acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.”...we focus our discussion on whether Bursey “willfully” violated the Statute, because, generally, “[m]ore is required” with respect to conduct performed willfully than conduct performed knowingly... requires “more culpable” mens rea than knowing violation).As a general proposition, the statutory term “knowingly” requires the Government to prove only that the defendant had knowledge of the facts underlying the offense

Bursey was fined a measly 500 dollars, but the precedent is there. And remember, the punishment under both the new and old versions of section 1752 are "not more than one year" in jail for the trespass, and "not more than ten years" if "the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm." However, as Adams summed it up an email:
The bill makes it illegal knowingly to enter or remain in a restricted building or grounds without legal authority to do so. A restricted building or grounds is defined as a “restricted area” where a person protected by the Secret Service “is or will be temporarily visiting.” According to federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3056), the Secret Service is authorized to protect “visiting heads of foreign states or foreign governments” and “other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States.”


So, let’s say a G-20 meeting is hosted in the U.S. and the Secret Service decides it wants a larger perimeter surrounding the event where only G-20 members and staff can be. A person could be arrested and found guilty of violating this law—with up to 10 years in prison if they’re carrying a weapon, one year in prison if they’re not—for merely walking into the restricted area, without even knowing walking into the area is illegal.

So it's hard to know the exact implications of this one-word change, especially when some very nasty, excessive crack-downs happen already in cases like G-20 summit protests. (http://reason.com/search?cx=000107342346889757597%3Ascm_knrboh8&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=g20&sa=Search) But law is precedent and interpretation. So in a world where the National Defense Authorization Act (http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/28/indefinite-detention) maybe allows for the indefiniate detainment of citizens (http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/28/congress-obama-codify-indefinite-detenti), but maybe not, but the President says he won't use the power so trust him, governments don't need one more inch – not one more word of excuse — to crack down on protest and speech.The cult of the presidency (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1933995157/reasonmagazineA/) has gone far enough.

[Whirlin]

You have some hardcore internet nannies
No... YOU have some Hardcore internet nannies!

http://i00.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/272/529/406/406529272_397.jpg

[Tisket]

If I was teetering on the edge of lesbianism, that picture would tip me over.

[Latrinsorm]

Surely you jest. That just isn't possible.Judging by ALoayza's 320 fans (and no doubt countless retweets), it is not only possible but imminent! Yes, on a day soon after 03/19/2012, America will experience revolution comparable to that of the Arab world.
As a general proposition, the statutory term “knowingly” requires the Government to prove only that the defendant had knowledge of the facts underlying the offenseI would think this totally deflates the concern of unknowingly entering a restricted area, right? It would certainly be a matter of fact whether the area was or was not restricted. I also think DCoS Adams is aware of this, note his phrasing:

"A person could be arrested and found guilty of violating this law ... for merely walking into the restricted area, without even knowing walking into the area is illegal."

He doesn't say "without even knowing the area is restricted", which would be a far more alarming situation. It sounds like he's talking about seeing a sign that says "restricted area", barging in anyway, and then being shocked (shocked!) that doing so was illegal.

[Tisket]

Okay, as I understand it, before the change, the law required someone to act "willfully and knowingly." This state of mind has to be proven by the government in order to establish guilt. "Willfully and knowingly" means that you need to know you're committing a criminal act by entering a restricted area. "Knowingly" just means you need to be aware you're in a restricted zone, but not necessarily that it's unlawful.

Confused yet?

[Latrinsorm]

So I was right, high fives all around!

[Gelston]

Accidentally walk into a restricted area that nuclear weapons are stored at, or at a sub base, you can legally be shot. My commwnt abput this being a year old is just that. If it was so terrible, why habe we not heard of any rammifications? Once again it is media scare tactics trying to create a story out of nothing.

[Tisket]

I believe it is never out of line to question the erosion of our rights. Being smugly dismissive of that kind of dialogue is not in anyone's best interest.

edit: Why does my spell check dislike the way I spelled "dialogue"? I even looked it up.

[Tisket]

Also, just how easy is it to wander into a military restricted nuclear storage area anyway? That is not apples and oranges.

[Gnome Rage]

Also, just how easy is it to wander into a military restricted nuclear storage area anyway? That is not apples and oranges.

I was just thinking this... There HAVE to be signs

[Gelston]

I believe it is never out of line to question the erosion of our rights. Being smugly dismissive of that kind of dialogue is not in anyone's best interest.edit: Why does my spell check dislike the way I spelled "dialogue"? I even looked it up.But it isn't an erosion. This has always existed since at least the 1940s. It is further clarification.

[Gelston]

And honestly, how is any of this wrong in your opinion?

- ‘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)

"Oh, I know I wasn't supposed to be here, but I'mma do it anyways."

Add to that the punishments...

‘(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.

So you really only get into trouble if you are carrying a weapon and/or hurt someone. Other than that, you can face only up to a year in jail.

So... Lets play out a scenario where this is invoked for the average human being.

-Man is walking around and sorta lost. Secret Service comes up and says it is a restricted area and he needs to go. He complies and they escort him out. No trouble, no issue, no charges.

-Man is walking around. Secret Service comes up and says it is a restricted area and he needs to go. He refuses and is arrested. He is unarmed. He could face up to a year in jail and fines.

-Man is walking around. Secret Service comes up and says it is a restricted area and he needs to go. He refuses and punches and agent in the face, breaking his nose. He is arrested and faces up to 10 years and fines.

[Tisket]

But it isn't an erosion. This has always existed since at least the 1940s. It is further clarification.

The law was enacted originally in 1971. Not sure what law you are referencing. And no, it's not "clarification", it's a change of intent.


And honestly, how is any of this wrong in your opinion?

- ‘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)

"Oh, I know I wasn't supposed to be here, but I'mma do it anyways."

Add to that the punishments...

‘(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.

Here are the lines immediately after what you quoted from the bill:


(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.’.

Basically this covers anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone. Think about all the events where Secret Service protection is used, The Olympics, concerts, sporting events, etc.

Protesters outside these events could now conceivably be imprisoned under this provision since it effectively outlaws protests near people who are protected by the Secret Service.

You are naive if you believe that relegating demonstrators to distant locations is about safety, it's about muzzling and neutering opposition.

So yes, I believe it is indeed an erosion of our rights. The change in the law makes it much easier for our government to criminalize peaceful protests. I'm not sure how you can say that is not an erosion.

[Gelston]

If you are outside the restricted area this law doesnt cover it. You can protest outside the white house, for example, but not on the lawn.

[Tisket]

Except that law, as written, does not delineate what would be considered outside. It's left up to law enforcement (and presumably the person they are "protecting") to decide what is an acceptable distance from the protectee.

[Tisket]

Imprecise and vague language in a law leaves too much room for those in power to abuse the law.

[Latrinsorm]

Protesters outside these events could now conceivably be imprisoned under this provision since it effectively outlaws protests near people who are protected by the Secret Service.Only if they are in an area clearly labeled or otherwise communicated as restricted. You can't knowingly be in a restricted area if you don't know it's a restricted area - that hasn't changed. All that's changed is that you can no longer defend yourself by claiming you didn't know that doing so was illegal.

Whether this is an erosion of a right or closing an unintended loophole is up to you. Keep in mind that decreasing one right almost always increases another: in this case your (ability to exercise your) right to run up to the President with a gun in an area the Secret Service has explicitly forbidden you from doing so in has decreased while the President's (ability to exercise his) right to not get shot has increased. People talk about freedom vs. security but the truth is they're both rights, just in different directions.
You are naive if you believe that relegating demonstrators to distant locations is about safety, it's about muzzling and neutering opposition.I'm not sure anyone can honestly claim to be muzzled in the Internet age.

[Gelston]

You do realize when the Secret Service takes someone somewhere, the pre planned areas are investigated and secured at least the day before and there are local PD there as well? They don't just spring up out of the blue.

And no, it is a scare tactic the media used to try and drum up a story. It obviously failed. There ARE some troubling things they have passed that have worried me, such as the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. This law, however, is basically a "No Trespassing" law.

[Tisket]

At work on iPhone so my response to your posts will have to wait until late tonight. I know you will wait with bated breath.

[Latrinsorm]

Breath isn't the only thing I bate when thinking about you. I've wallpapered my canoe with your art to bring some joy and beauty to the monotonous task of baiting fish hooks.

[Paradii]

"Come back later, baiting"

[Tisket]

I'm not sure anyone can honestly claim to be muzzled in the Internet age.

Once again I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic, ironic, or sincere here. Comparing the media value of being front and center on camera, with a protest sign to instead doing what? Blogging about one's dissatisfaction online? Posting on a forum? Starting an online petition?


You do realize when the Secret Service takes someone somewhere, the pre planned areas are investigated and secured at least the day before and there are local PD there as well? They don't just spring up out of the blue.

What does their preparation have to do with the discussion at hand? Of course they prepare and investigate. What is your point? Because I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being intentionally obtuse and that you do actually have a point.

The law was designed to create a buffer that will shield government officials from protesters. You have blinders on if you believe it to be a simple trespass law.

Listen, I'm not a bang the drums kinda person at all. I seldom post in the politics folder. Not because I don't hold strong opinions, I obviously do, but because most of the time I don't much care if other people are wrong. Like I don't much care that you are wrong here.

But you are.


And no, it is a scare tactic the media used to try and drum up a story.

This oft-used, flippant response is banal and hackneyed. Besides, most of the concerns about the change that I've read about have come from lawyers.


"Come back later, baiting"

I used it right!!

Bastard.

[Gelston]

Certain people are under the impression that a restricted area will just appear instantly and they'll get arrested or something. The restricted areas will be known, you can protest right outside that. It isn't like they will restrict 10 city blocks for someone, and even if protesters couldn't get into sight of the person they are protesting, cameras exist. Protests will be on the news. They'll be on YouTube.

It isn't as important to be in the person's face as it used to be. It isn't suppression and it isn't new. This exact same policy has existed for a long time, heck, when I worked shortly with the Department of State's Diplomatic Security Service they had very similar policies and practices.

In short, it is about safety and this is further codifying the penalties.

[Latrinsorm]

Once again I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic, ironic, or sincere here. Comparing the media value of being front and center on camera, with a protest sign to instead doing what? Blogging about one's dissatisfaction online? Posting on a forum? Starting an online petition?The Internet provides you an avenue to reach the entire world, and arguably a more effective one than traditional news: the Kony 2012 video doesn't happen in 1962 (for better or worse).

Even putting that aside, if your complaint is deemed newsworthy by the media, their cameras will come to you. The government doesn't bolt them to the ground and then yell "restricted area! hahaha, screw you, protestors!"

[Tisket]

I wonder how the civil rights movement would've gone had it used youtube instead of marches and protests.

And poor Gandhi, fuck the Salt March, he should have just blogged about the issue..

[Gelston]

It is hard to say. The stuff didn't exist back then. Both movements involved a lot of police actions and breaking of laws of the time though and they were still fairly successful.

[Tisket]

I'm just curious, Gelston. You are military. Do you believe that the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to continue to protest on publicly owned land near military funerals?

I don't mean that to be an inflammatory question, I am genuinely curious.

[Latrinsorm]

I wonder how the civil rights movement would've gone had it used youtube instead of marches and protests.

And poor Gandhi, fuck the Salt March, he should have just blogged about the issue..This law at most changes where you can protest, not whether. I only brought up the Internet because you said the where mattered for media exposure.

We had video news media since the 20s, and it still took 40 years for people as charismatic and eloquent as MLK and Malcolm X to get the ball rolling. Compare that to someone taking a cell phone video of a lynching and posting it on youtube.

For Gandhi, a youtube video of thousands of Indians lying on train tracks would be incredibly impactful, or one of those one-picture-a-day videos of him slowly starving during a hunger strike.

[Tisket]

Used as a tool in conjunction with protests, yes, it is a powerful addition. But not if you mean it should replace the importance of being in the same physical locale as the object of a protest.

I would ask you as well, Latrinsorm, the same question I asked (and has yet to be answered) of Gelston: Do you believe that the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to continue to protest on publicly owned land near military funerals?

[Latrinsorm]

If someone could present me with evidence that the danger to human life and well-being posed by such protests was significant, certainly I would agree that their right to protest in that particular area is trumped by the higher right to life. With that said, I don't think such evidence exists, because the protests are specifically engineered to provoke angry but not lethal reactions: you can't make money suing somebody with a bullet in your head.

I think the "physical locale" idea is a bit of a stretch. When I read Backlash's recent post about how Goldman-Sachs were being dicks, I didn't need to know where their headquarters was, or their resplendent aluminum warehouses (probably not as impressive in person). This could be because I am a soulless cybernetic organism, but I don't need to see Backlash standing outside said buildings to take his information seriously, and seeing him as such wouldn't make me do so if I wasn't already. Information (and its standard deviation) is all that matters.

.

But here's the thing, I'm still not convinced how this law has actually changed anything in that regard. My reading of the old law is this situation:
1. You go into a clearly labeled restricted area.
2. You claim you didn't know that was illegal.
3. Therefore it wasn't willful.
4. Therefore you aren't punished.

My reading of the new law is this situation:
1. You go into a clearly labeled restricted area.
2. You claim you didn't know that was illegal.
3. But you did know it was a restricted area.
4. Therefore you are punished.

I really think this is just closing a scummy defense lawyer loophole, and the fact that the only primary published comments of outrage happen to come from possibly scummy lawyers seems to buttress that thought.

[Tisket]

If someone could present me with evidence that the danger to human life and well-being posed by such protests was significant, certainly I would agree that their right to protest in that particular area is trumped by the higher right to life. With that said, I don't think such evidence exists, because the protests are specifically engineered to provoke angry but not lethal reactions: you can't make money suing somebody with a bullet in your head.

I think the "physical locale" idea is a bit of a stretch. When I read Backlash's recent post about how Goldman-Sachs were being dicks, I didn't need to know where their headquarters was, or their resplendent aluminum warehouses (probably not as impressive in person). This could be because I am a soulless cybernetic organism, but I don't need to see Backlash standing outside said buildings to take his information seriously, and seeing him as such wouldn't make me do so if I wasn't already. Information (and its standard deviation) is all that matters.

.

But here's the thing, I'm still not convinced how this law has actually changed anything in that regard. My reading of the old law is this situation:
1. You go into a clearly labeled restricted area.
2. You claim you didn't know that was illegal.
3. Therefore it wasn't willful.
4. Therefore you aren't punished.

My reading of the new law is this situation:
1. You go into a clearly labeled restricted area.
2. You claim you didn't know that was illegal.
3. But you did know it was a restricted area.
4. Therefore you are punished.

I really think this is just closing a scummy defense lawyer loophole, and the fact that the only primary published comments of outrage happen to come from possibly scummy lawyers seems to buttress that thought.

Here's the thing though, you don't have to pose a security risk in order to be banished to some distant locale. The Westboro Baptist Church is a vile organization. That's probably the one thing most Americans agree on. But, although their message is violently disgusting, they themselves have never been violent.

But let's say the President, hoping to boost his dismal approval rating, decides to provide a Secret Service guard to the wife of a dead soldier during the soldier's funeral. The guard, after consultation with the understandably distraught family decides that the protesters across the street in a public park pose a security risk. The protesters get moved two miles away.

Part of me feels there should be high fives all around but, another part has to take a deep breath because, the President of the United States used a loophole to bypass the fucking first amendment. And we cheered.

That is what I find so fucked up about the bill.

[Latrinsorm]

I think that's an overreaction. In much the same way that crimes have a gradient, rights do as well. We don't have to choose between [absolutely unfettered right to yell whatever we want whenever we want wherever we want] and if any obstacle whatsoever is presented we have [Soviet 1984 East Germany]. In your example (which we will assume is possible), WBC is moved 2 miles away. I guarantee the idiot press will still flock breathlessly to them and give them all the attention they want. In what way have they lost freedom?

-They say exactly the same things.
-They receive exactly the same publicity.
-They receive exactly the same government sanction (that is, none).
-They increase their profits by suing the crap out of the government for alleged civil rights violations and settling out of court for $$$.

The problem with this scenario is not succumbing to the temptation to restrict speech we disagree with, it's encouraging those who would manipulate those rights for profit.

[Tisket]

I think that's an overreaction. In much the same way that crimes have a gradient, rights do as well. We don't have to choose between [absolutely unfettered right to yell whatever we want whenever we want wherever we want] and if any obstacle whatsoever is presented we have [Soviet 1984 East Germany]. In your example (which we will assume is possible), WBC is moved 2 miles away. I guarantee the idiot press will still flock breathlessly to them and give them all the attention they want. In what way have they lost freedom?

-They say exactly the same things.
-They receive exactly the same publicity.
-They receive exactly the same government sanction (that is, none).
-They increase their profits by suing the crap out of the government for alleged civil rights violations and settling out of court for $$$.

The problem with this scenario is not succumbing to the temptation to restrict speech we disagree with, it's encouraging those who would manipulate those rights for profit.

You mean like free speech zones as used at recent conventions and during some campaigns? The zones where media were not allowed to talk to protesters while they were inside the zones (and sometimes actual cages)?

Get real.

[Latrinsorm]

Then again, if you're dumb enough to willingly climb into a cage you probably aren't worth listening to anyway.

If you have a case to cite where the government explicitly forbade the media from speaking with protesters, that would interest me. If you have only wild-eyed bloggers claiming that might happen, that would not interest me.

[Tisket]

If you have a case to cite where the government explicitly forbade the media from speaking with protesters, that would interest me. If you have only wild-eyed bloggers claiming that might happen, that would not interest me.

http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/united-states-v.-brett-bursey

[Tisket]

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/free-speech-under-fire-aclu-challenge-protest-zones

[Latrinsorm]

http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/united-states-v.-brett-burseyI see "was convicted in January 2004 of entering a Secret Service restricted zone when he was peaceably protesting against President George W. Bush at a public airport in Columbia, South Carolina.", and allegations of selective prosecution. I do not see where the media was forbidden from speaking to Mr. Bursey. He may have had more success if his attorney wasn't the Pitts. Eh? eh???
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/free...-protest-zonesAgain, I see selective prosecution. That's a possibly big deal, but it's still not forbidding the media from talking to people. I say "possibly" because from a security perspective, I am not as worried about the people who love (or are indifferent to) my ward as the people who hate him/her/them. This could be an excuse to populate the President's path with supporters, but why? What person anywhere doesn't believe that the President has 100% support and would change their mind from a telecast? What person does believe that and would change their mind the other way? I am all for conspiracies, and I recognize that people do not necessarily make sense, but I really think we're jumping at shadows here.

I see a lot of comments from the ACLU that makes me think they think that a protest only counts if the person you are protesting sees it first hand. That is an antiquated and frankly silly view of protests. You brought up Gandi, do you think the Queen (King?) of England personally witnessed Gandhi starving to death and thought "lawks a mercy 'n' tupping liberty 'n' suchlike! Ey've gut to chaynge me fawrin policy, pips on a bonnet!!!"?

I also see a lot of cases where people refuse a polite order by police and make a scene, and then (by astonishing coincidence) get arrested for disorderly conduct. How is this a problem? We're not talking about being ordered into boxcars heading for Treblinka, we're not talking about lynch mobs, we're talking about moving "a third of a mile" away. ATTICA! ATTICA! Come on, now. The way to go is to comply with the order, then sue the pants off the city and live a life of leisure at the taxpayers' expense. It's the American way.

[Tgo01]

I also see a lot of cases where people refuse a polite order by police and make a scene, and then (by astonishing coincidence) get arrested for disorderly conduct.

Or they could go the occupy route, refuse a police order to move, get pepper sprayed in the face for not moving and then sue the college they were illegally protesting at against the greed in America and get a 25,000 dollar settlement.

America baby!

[Tisket]

I don't say this often because I like you but, you are a moron sometimes, Latrinsorm.

Absolute moron.

[tyrant-201]

I don't say this often because I like you but, you are a moron sometimes, Latrinsorm.

Absolute moron.

Facts or statistics to back this up please?

[Latrinsorm]

Or at least a bar graph???

[Tisket]

Facts or statistics to back this up please?

I'll give you five facts, bub. They form a fist when clenched.

[Tisket]

Jesus, I let myself be trolled by Latrinsorm.

Fucker.

[Latrinsorm]

Why do people never take me seriously when I am being serious? And how can an ace be worth one or eleven? What kind of God would allow that?

Well, I like Tisket very much, and I hope she has a lovely week (while impugning my rhetorical character).

[Tisket]

Baby, you just love to argue. You would argue the sky is filled with marshmallows instead of clouds if you couldn't find anything else to argue about.

[diethx]

That would rule - a sky filled with marshmallows. Holy fuck. Would it rain fluff?!?!?!?

[Latrinsorm]

Let us assume that is correct!

May I cite my one thousand most recent Sports sub-forum posts as evidence that I am well shy of running out of things to argue about? Not to mention that I did not see a single one of you at the last Kina Grannis live stream! :[

[Tisket]

Marshmallow peeps raining from the sky. I could go for that.

[Tisket]

Let us assume that is correct!

May I cite my one thousand most recent Sports sub-forum posts as evidence that I am well shy of running out of things to argue about? Not to mention that I did not see a single one of you at the last Kina Grannis live stream! :[

I don't read the sports folder because, well...sports.

[diethx]

Let us assume that is correct!

May I cite my one thousand most recent Sports sub-forum posts as evidence that I am well shy of running out of things to argue about? Not to mention that I did not see a single one of you at the last Kina Grannis live stream! :[

That's because we listen to good music, my dear.

[diethx]

Also, now I really want marshmallow-something. Fuck you, Tisket.

[Tisket]

My work here is complete.

[Latrinsorm]

What kind of God would allow you to live on in this torment that you don't even realize is, you know, tormentuous? CBS presents the Tormentalist.

I respect your dissenting opinion as evidence that Descartes' joke was right and we are subject to an omnipotent and capriciously malevolent deceiver that has (1) poisoned you against true happiness and (2) made it impossible for even such a ferociously masculine man as I to convince you otherwise. Ha! Ha! We are being slowly digested by an actively amoral universe.

[Gelston]

This is in response to Tisket's post of http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?84007-Anti-Protest-Law-Passes-Nearly-Unanimously-And-Is-Signed-By-The-President&p=1572491#post1572491

(My reply with quote crap isn't working for some reason.)

But yes, I believe they should be able to protest at a respectable distance from the funeral. As shitty as they are, it is their right. Of course, I also like the counter protesters that show up in block them from view.

Also, a sky of marshmellows makes me think of ghostbusters.

[diethx]

Also, a sky of marshmellows makes me think of ghostbusters.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

THE SKY WILL RAIN FLUFF. IT WILL RAIN FLUFF.