The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26961)

classicman 02-28-2012 11:11 PM

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal
 
Quote:

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
Quote:

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?
much more here

Griff 02-29-2012 05:35 AM

Good times... good times.

ZenGum 02-29-2012 05:51 AM

That link is to a satire site like the onion, right?


RIGHT????

Spexxvet 02-29-2012 08:22 AM

You have to love the House.:rolleyes:

Stormieweather 02-29-2012 08:29 AM

Frogs in a pot. That's what we are. Oblivious and indifferent as our rights are slowly and insiduously removed.

Next, it will be illegal to write something negative online. Subversive, they'll call it. Traitorous, seditious libel, treasonous...

See, they have to do this FIRST, so when the pot really starts boiling and people try to speak up, they'll (we'll) be crushed and silenced.

Quote:

“The more there are riots, the more repressive action will take place, and the more we face the danger of a right-wing takeover and eventually a fascist society.”
Martin Luther King, Jr
Quote:

“This is a deeply uncanny and very troubling development, it exists, and it wants to take us back. It wants to take us, I mean, way back. I mean sure, they want to go back before the 70’s and the 60’s to the 50’s, no doubt about that. They also want to go back before the New Deal to the 20’s, well they also want to go back before the Progressive Era to the Gilded Age. Well, not quite, they also want to go back before the Emancipation Proclamation to the days of slavery, not even, what they want to do is take us back to a moment prior to the Enlightenment; they want to take us back to a moment when faith registered more than reason. They want to take us back to an imaginary age of absolute moral clarity, when good was good and evil was evil and everyone could see the difference. They want to take us back to an imaginary Manichean age when you’re either with us or against us, which means you either are us or we’ll exterminate you because we can only tolerate ourselves, we can only tolerate those who share our values. If this movement were to be given a name, I think it would most appropriate to call it Christo-Fascism, and if anyone objects to my using the word fascism, because it seems so redolent of the Axis powers, and after all we valiantly defeated fascism once, well understand this about fascism, when it arrives it never shows up in the discarded costume of some other country, and when fascism comes here, its not going to be wearing a toothbrush mustache with a luger in his belt and go goose-stepping around the mall, because that’s Germany. And its precisely characteristic of fascism, that it seems absolutely, totally expressive of the homeland, it seems completely familiar, it’s when 150% America puts a flag on it’s lapel and a cross around it’s neck and a real folksy way a talkin’, but just because it’s red, white and blue, doesn’t mean it’s American.”
A Patriot Act
Mark Crispin Miller

glatt 02-29-2012 08:30 AM

This is the worst part.
Quote:

voted 388-to-3
I want to know who the 3 were.

Spexxvet 02-29-2012 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 798419)

I want to know who the 3 were.

Broun, Paul [R]
Amash, Justin [R]
Paul, Ronald [R]

classicman 02-29-2012 11:26 AM

At least three R's got it right - All the D's voted for this BS.

Spexxvet 02-29-2012 11:44 AM

223 Rs voted yea = 93%

176 Ds voted yea = 92%

classicman 02-29-2012 11:52 AM

The vote was 388 to 3
The ONLY three who voted against were
Broun, Paul [R]
Amash, Justin [R]
Paul, Ronald [R]

glatt 02-29-2012 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 798456)
176 Ds voted yea = 92%

How do you get 92% when every D voted for it? That would be 100%.

piercehawkeye45 02-29-2012 12:05 PM

Didn't vote?

Spexxvet 02-29-2012 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 798468)
How do you get 92% when every D voted for it? That would be 100%.

16 Ds didn't vote

Spexxvet 02-29-2012 12:10 PM

223 Rs voted yea = 93%

176 Ds voted yea = 92%

infinite monkey 02-29-2012 12:14 PM

Where's Boehner? He's not listed at all.

infinite monkey 02-29-2012 12:16 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Howdy, I'm Trespass Bill, and I'm the rootinest tootinest cowboy this side of the Pecos. Yeeeeehaaaaaa! Tell y'all whut I'm gonna...duh-huh...

Spexxvet 02-29-2012 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 798474)
Where's Boehner? He's not listed at all.

Good question.

infinite monkey 02-29-2012 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 798474)
Where's Boehner? He's not listed at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 798478)
Good question.

I'll wait patiently for one of these political geniuses to answer that question.

*crickets chirping*

"Oh look, there's a bird over in a cooking thread. Run!"

classicman 02-29-2012 01:59 PM

I've found conflicting info on who voted against this here
This shows two R's and one D voted against.



ETA - I also found that the two bills are identical = H.R.347 & S.1794
Still nothing on Boehner. Perhaps its because he is the speaker?

infinite monkey 02-29-2012 02:05 PM

Nope. Speaker can vote. I wasn't sure either (though that didn't make sense I thought maybe...) so I looked it up.

He's only voted twice in 2012:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote...&person=400036

Weird. I really do wonder what the explanation is. They just totally left Ohio's 8th district off the list.

classicman 02-29-2012 02:12 PM

I've got about 20 tabs open and no one has shit on this... grrrrrrrrr.
See what YOU started!

classicman 02-29-2012 02:14 PM

Govtrack doesn't have anything on H.R. 347 since 2/6/12
the link I posted is from clerk.house.gov - which is usually correct...
(shrug)

classicman 02-29-2012 02:18 PM

I wonder why so many didn't vote on this. That is their job, after all.
I never really understood why we vote someone in to represent us and
then when its time to make a decision, they don't.
I'm sure this had nothing to do with it being an election year.

glatt 02-29-2012 03:27 PM

Well, Giffords took a bullet in the brain, so I'll give her a pass. But I though she had resigned? I'm confused.

classicman 02-29-2012 03:29 PM

No replacement yet.

Ibby 03-01-2012 10:31 PM

I just read a point by point debunking of this that I can't link to on my phone (and my landlords a dick and unplugged the Internet so no computer Internet, thank god for 3G), but, when I can go back and cite next week, remind me to put up the data. The gist is, this only slightly changes the language of EXISTING legislation. It is a little bit worse than what's on the books, and expands what's on the books to include the white house and vp's residence. As he put it, " if I were in congress I'd vote against it", but it's not egregious. At least compared to what's already law.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.