Isn’t the case now and has been for ages that a person cannot protest inside a building where the President is present? Don’t they remove hacklers when the President is giving a speech? I think the topic of discussion here is way overblown…
Do you not remember Code Pink and George Bush?
Even the commie-left “Occupy Wall Street” movement is concerned about this bill. However, with one of their own in the White House, I seriously doubt they’d have anything to worry about. “Somehow” their activities will be allowed/excused.
From a left-wing (”Progressive”) author...
HR 347 threatens freedom of assembly - restricts political protest
Michael Stone
Portland Progressive Examiner
U.S. House passes bill giving the federal government new and sweeping powers to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country. Critics claim the bill, HR 347, would make free speech a felony, and restrict political protest.
HR 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” also known as “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act,” was passed by the House on Tuesday. Some speculate the bill is an attempt, at least in part, to silence and intimidate the Occupy Movement that began with Occupy Wall Street.
The bill makes it a federal offense to disrupt or protest at any place or event attended by any person with secret service protection. The bill would make it a criminal offense to trespass on any “restricted buildings and grounds,” and would seriously hamper any future political protests near the White House. However, the bill goes much farther than simply protecting the president.
Advertisement
Salem-News reports the bill “will seriously diminish the right of American citizens to petition their Government for a redress of grievances by outlawing protests where key government officials or other VIP’s may be nearby. Federal law enforcement agents will be empowered to bring these charges against Americans engaged in political protests anywhere in the country, and violators will face criminal penalties that include imprisonment for up to 10 years.”
The Christian Post reports that supporters of this bill argue that extraordinary measures are necessary to protect the president and other major political figures.
According to Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the bill’s sponsor, “This bill will improve the law enforcement tools available to the Secret Service in its attempts to protect the President, the Vice President, and others on a day-to-day basis by closing loopholes in the current federal law. The new law should punish and deal more effectively with anyone who illegally enters restricted areas to threaten the President, Vice President, or other Secret Service protectees.”
HR 347 passed with overwhelming support. Only three House members voted against the bill: Paul Broun (R-GA), Justin Amash (R-MI), and Ron Paul (R-TX).
What do you think about HR 347? Is this bill a threat to first amendment freedoms? A reasonable response to a clear and present danger? Both? Neither? Leave a comment - express yourself.