Can the Secret Service Tell You To Shut Up?

Townhall.com ^ | March 15, 2012 | Judge Andrew Napolitano

[America_Right]

Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.

Thus, federal agents whose work is to protect public officials and their friends may prohibit the speech and the gatherings of folks who disagree with those officials or permit the speech and the gatherings of those who would praise them, even though the First Amendment condemns content-based speech discrimination by the government. The new law also provides that anyone who gathers in a "restricted" area may be prosecuted. And because the statute does not require the government to prove intent, a person accidentally in a restricted area can be charged and prosecuted, as well.

[America_Right]

Now O has the tools necessary to run a “Putin style” election. All this with the willing assistance of the Republicans. Is there any doubt this is aimed directly at the Tea Party? No doubt in my mind.

The Tea Party and the Occupy folks. Both sides got the crappy end of this stick. I just read another article about this called "The First Amendment Needs A Rape Kit". It went into more legal detail. Apparently, they just reworded an old statute to get rid of language that made it harder to convict people for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[MichaelCorleone]

Is there a Constitutional lawyer in the house?

[CONSERVE]

They CAN, if you will is your choice.

[Thorliveshere]

Not just a right, but a responsibility. I wonder what it is gonna take to get the ball rolling?

Invariably, it will be a death, or many deaths.

[Drill Thrawl]

Is there a Constitutional lawyer in the house?

You don't really need one for this case. It is beyond obviouse that it is a first amendment violation.

[Drill Thrawl]

variably, it will be a death, or many deaths.

Which will result in many, many deaths.

[Boogieman]

Of course the GOP supported this. They don’t want to ever have to answer to irate constituents at town halls again. Politicians united in perfidy.

[EdReform]

Police State ping

[Michael Barnes]

The GOP is for this due to the sch-lacking they took in 2010 from their constituents when they “went home”. This monstrosity keeps us “little people” in line so our beloved “leaders” don’t have to respond to actual problems we are dealing with out here and feel passionately about.

[Java4Jay]

ping

[JimRed]

Has the Supreme Court scheduled a review of this abomination yet?

[nathanbedford]

At some point constitutionalists-and evidently there are very few of them serving in the House or the Senate-will have to pause and rhetorically ask, what price the preservation of the physical person of the President of the United States?

How much of the Constitution are we willing to forfeit to protect the orderly working of the executive branch? An attack upon the person of the President of the United States is a very serious matter because it is an attempt to undo the results of elections. Elections which, not incidentally, are constitutionally provided for. As such, they are an unconstitutional act, that is, they are repugnant to the Constitution and they must not be permitted.

Recently we have seen a series of movies in which the hero is in the business of saving the President from bad guys or the President himself if he happens to be Harrison Ford saves his own life while saving the world. This has conditioned the public to accept the idea that the person of the president must be protected at all costs.

Moreover, we have seen the assassination of President Kennedy in my lifetime and the attempted assassinations of Presidents Truman, Ford and Reagan. In 1968 we witnessed the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King and at about that time we saw the attempted assassination of Gov. Wallace.

These crimes have further conditioned the country to accept the violations of the First Amendment represented by this statute. In this climate it is very difficult to raise the question I started this reply with, what price are we willing to pay to preserve the orderly functioning of government? In other words, is it more important to protect the President from physical harm than it is to facilitate the free expression of ideas, the right to petition the government, the right to associate? Is it a good idea for the President to be entirely free of concern about the mood of the public, or should the man who has so much power be subconsciously reminded that there are limits?

If we place the chief executive in an impervious bubble how can he learn his limits? As an individual, he is no more important than any other citizen. As a President he is the embodiment of one branch of government and that branch must be permitted to function without the will of the people being distorted by assassination. On the other hand, an isolated President is likely a tyrannical President, certainly an imperious President. While it is harmful to society to distort government by harming the person of the President, when does it become more harmful to society distort the President's psyche by isolating him from the people and their will?

Today we have come to the point at which if one is not careful in the very language he uses in addressing the issue, he might very well be visited by some very unsmiling men and women in sunglasses and with ear pieces who make a habit of talking into their cufflinks. I am sure the experience is daunting.

In short, free speech has already been chilled.

It is regrettable that the Congress the United States concerning this issue, as it has on so many issues lately, has failed its duty fully to debate and consider these questions.

[Skepolitic]

224 of the House bill’s 388 “aye” votes were Republicans.

Only three House Republicans voted “nay” on Roll Call Number 149 to suspend the rules and pass the bill on February 28, 2012. One of those US Representatives is running for the Republican nomination for President, and is particularly despised and ridiculed by most Freepers.

[onedoug]

Another bit of America gone, every day....

[Stat-boy]

The DOJ holds Texas and a few other states hostage on making changes to our voting laws or redistricting due to civil rights legislation that was extended in 2006, and this same legislation gives just about any group of liberals standing to sue the state. This is why our Texas primary is delayed. The power given to the left by this legislation is immense, and even impacts local elections.

Only 33 Republican Congressmen voted against this anti-states’ rights travesty in 2006. I think you know the rest of the story.

[Skepolitic]

Who sponsored the bill in the House?

US Representative Thomas Rooney (R-FL).

[Skepolitic]

It passed the Senate with unanimous consent. They didn’t even bother recording a vote.

[bayouranger]

“This abominable legislation enjoyed overwhelming support from both political parties in Congress because the establishment loves power, fears dissent and hates inconvenience, and it doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and only three members of the House voted against it. And the _resident signed it in secret.”

....

Vipers.

[Theoria]

Well, both the RNC and DNC will have ‘free speech zones’ setup. Where you can demonstrate and scream. Enjoy your cages, slave.

[itsahoot]

Now, now don’t get all worked up there were all of Two votes against it.