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

[rug]

Published: 29 February, 2012, 02:13

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.

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

388 - 3 ?

[rustydog]

1. No not goodbye. One has to be willing to go to jail and challenge the law

Just because it is law now, does not mean it is Constitutionally sound.
People have to be willing to "sit at the counter" and be arrested and charged..

[AndyTiedye]

7. And the Supreme Court Has to be Willing to Overturn It

That is the hard part.

[AsahinaKimi]

56. or put up with this..

[a simple pattern]

2. More like goodbye Representatives.

Time to throw the bums out.

[Bjorn Against]

3. I would like to see another source on this one

I have seen this article posted all over the place the last couple of days, if it is true it is deeply concerning but I am not so sure rt.com is a credible source. A quick glance through the site makes it pretty clear that it is a pro-Ron Paul site. Now if what they wrote is true then I will quickly speak out on such a massive assault on our civil liberties, I just want to hear the facts from a source I can trust rather than a Ron Paul fan site.

[rug]

9. I doubt Russia Today is a Ron Paul fan site.

http://rt.com/

You can go to Thomas and read the bill yourself.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.347:

[Bjorn Against]

12. I read the bill, there are some concerns but the article is greatly exagerated

I do have some concerns that some of the language is overly broad and could potentially be used against protesters, but nowhere in the bill does it even mention political protest much less ban it. Most of the bill deals with restricted federal buildings that were already illegal to protest on the grounds of, I do have concerns about the parts that refer to people with secret service protection as that section is overly broad and could be abused but I am not even convinced the intent of that section had anything to do with targeting protesters.

If a trusted source can show me what I am not seeing I will listen, but I don't think rt.com looks like a credible site and I don't see the same things they see in this bill. I did not even know they were a russian site, but this crappy "journalism" that focused on one poll that came out in Ron Paul's favor while ignoring literally every single other poll taken which give very different results than this one is what led me to believe it was a Ron Paul fan site:
http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-obama-rasmussen-555/

[rug]

13. Here's the problem.

This is the anything:

9 ‘‘§ 1752. Restricted buildings or grounds
10 ‘‘(a) Whoever—
1 ‘‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any re2
stricted building or grounds without lawful authority
3 to do so;
4 ‘‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or
5 disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business
6 or official functions, engages in disorderly or disrup7
tive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any re8
stricted building or grounds when, or so that, such
9 conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly con10
duct of Government business or official functions;
11 ‘‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede
12 or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government busi13
ness or official functions, obstructs or impedes in14
gress or egress to or from any restricted building or
15 grounds; or
16 ‘‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical
17 violence against any person or property in any re18
stricted building or grounds;
19 or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as
20 provided in subsection (b).

And this is the anywhere:

8 ‘‘(c) In this section—
9 ‘‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’
10 means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise re11
stricted area—
12 ‘‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or
13 the Vice President’s official residence or its
14 grounds;
15 ‘‘(B) of a building or grounds where the
16 President or other person protected by the Se17
cret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
18 ‘‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted
19 in conjunction with an event designated as a
20 special event of national significance; and
21 ‘‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the
22 Secret Service’ means any person whom the United
23 States Secret Service is authorized to protect under
1 section 3056 of this title when such person has not
2 declined such protection.’’.

It would be well to keep these sections in mind throughout this year's campaigns.

Occupy Wall Street is a stone's throw from the federal buildings at Foley Square. Were this law six months ago, hundreds could have been run through federal courts on federal charges instead of state courts on loitering and disorderly conduct.

[Bjorn Against]

14. I see the concern, but this still does not ban protest

I think there are legitimate concerns with this bill, but we are going to fail at addressing those legitimate concerns if we exagerate too much. To say this bill bans protests is quite simply not true. To say this bill is written with overly broad language that could easily be abused is true and I think we would be more effective if we focused on the real problems rather than pretending this bill is something it is not.

[onenote]

25. Explain how this could have been used against OWS? And why couldn't the prior law have been used?

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2012, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Wouldn't it have required the federal buildings at Foley Square to have been deemed restricted "in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance"?

And how does this law make it easier to go after OWS than the law in its form before this amendment? The law dates back to 1982 and was most recently amended in 2006. Under the 2006 amendment, it provided that it was unlaful to "willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance".

There is a reason that folks like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders didn't object to HR 347. Its that it really doesn't change things that much. Certainly not enough to justify the hysteria and hyperbole in the article cited in the OP.

[rudycantfail]

32. Is it taking us in the right or wrong direction

when it comes to our civil liberties? It seems like another brick in the wall.

[onenote]

40. Arguably, if it does anything, it probably improves the existing law

I suspect that virtually no one labelling this bill as "killing the first amendment" has bothered to take the time to compare the bill to existing law. I have. And here is what this bill does.

First, it clarifies that it applies that the protections apply not only to "posted, cordoned off or otherwise restricted areas of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" but also applies to "posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas" of the White House and the Vice President's residence. This change was deemed necessary because the current wording of the statute could be read as only applying to places where the President or VP are "temporarily" visiting and not to their permanent residences. Maybe I'm naieve, but this change doesn't strike me as killing the first amendment.

Second, it changes the current law, under which it is unlawful for any person or gropu of persons to knowingly enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restriced area where the President or other Secret Service-protected person is temporarily visiting or any "building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event desiganted as a special event of national significance" to add the further requirement that the person entering/remaining in the restricted area be doing so "without lawful authority".

In short, the bill adds restricted areas of the White House and VP mansion to areas that are protected from entry, damage, etc. and it ADDS the express requirement that the entry/presence in a restricted area be "without lawful authority."

So, I would argue that if anything the bill does move in the correct direction by adding a new element to what is required to constitute an offense. And even if the added language doesn't really change the current law (beyond making it applicable to the WH and VP residences), it sure as hell doesn't make any signficant substantive change in the law that would justify the hysterical and hyperbolic claim that this law will kill the first amendment.

[Justice wanted]

4. THIS is so sad.

[Honeycombe8]

5. So the politicians are going to further elevate their level above the rest of the people?

I'm not liking this.

[bayareamike]

6. Read the bill, people.

It's not as ominous as it sounds.

[TBF]

10. Really? And what do you think it says ...

Welcome to DU.

[bayareamike]

15. I think that it establishes certain areas where people can't trespass. It is not outlawing protest.

The bill says that trespassing on restricted areas -- including buildings designated as such -- is illegal. These restricted areas include:

a) the WH (we can all agree that this makes sense)
b) a designated area where the Secret Service is protecting someone

- Note: Section 3056 of USC lists specific people who are covered in this definition (this includes the President, VP, heads of state, etc.)

c) an area/building designated as being for an event of "national significance"

Nowhere in this bill is the right to assembly outlawed. In fact, federal law allows the government to determine specific areas where people can protest (see: free speech zones) but they cannot control the content of the protests.

[The Genealogist]

16. Could you point out where in the US Constitution, one finds the words "free speech zones?" n/t

[bayareamike]

17. I amended my post; I rushed through it :)

"free speech zones" were established through a series of court decisions. Point is, this bill isn't outlawing free speech.

That's not to say that I am very comfortable with this bill. I'm pointing out that this whole "protesting is being outlawed" bit is unnecessary. This bill isn't doing anything to outlaw protest.

EDIT: I want to add one more thing.

Here's my case in point

According to this law, people cannot enter a building where Rick Santorum is giving a speech (or where President Obama is giving a speech, for that matter) with the intent of disrupting the activities taking place therein.

Note that in the bill, the word knowingly is key; this is to clarify that there must be an intent to disrupt the activity in the restricted area.

However, this bill in no way prevents those same protesters from gathering outside the building and protesting Rick Santorum (or the President). Thus, it is not outlawing protest. This bill is consistent with several Supreme Court decisions regarding so-called "time, manner, place" rules that are imposed on the right to assembly.

[The Genealogist]

18. I just have a knee-jerk reaction to the concept of "free speech zone"

The college I went to had a "free speech zone," which was an approximately 12X12 foot raised concrete platform tucked neatly between the health center and a residence hall, with a bus lane going past to drown out sound. Technically, free speech was NOT allowed anyplace on campus, outside of that 144 square foot area. One could be arrested, removed from campus, kicked out of school, etc for speaking opinions outside of it. Speak an opinion the university president disagreed with outside the area, and it was purely up to the president what your fate was. I was in more than one protest outside the area, which was well away from the admin building, and there were opinions being expressed in those protests that the university president did not like. He never had any of the protests I participated in broken up, though. To this day, though, the idea that free speech could be stifled outside of a 144 square foot space "free speech area" simply at the whim of one man rankles me.

[bayareamike]

19. Oh I hear you completely.

I'm not advocating FOR "free speech zones"...the term makes me uncomfortable as well.

I just think that, in the case of this particular bill, the "grab our guns time for r3volution!" reaction should be left to the Ron Paul types...

[TBF]

23. Who was saying "grab our guns" bayareamike?

Encroaching on the first amendment is a serious topic and I will not have you compare it to the fucking Paulites in order to diminish our concerns. Have you ever heard of the ACLU? Good grief.

[bayareamike]

31. Uh...

Have you googled this? Most of the results are Ron Paul-esque websites.

Of course I've heard of the ACLU; I interned there before law school.

I'll say this once more: I am not comfortable with this bill. However, to say that it is outlawing protest or the freedom of assembly is misleading and incorrect.

Anyone who thinks that this bill is outlawing the right to protest is sadly misinformed and doesn't understand what the text of it is stating.

[TBF]

33. I know all about Ron Paul - I live in the bastard's district

but one thing he does understand is the Bill of Rights (of course he may not apply them to anyone but male land-owners ... ).

At any rate, I've also read the bill - and think it's something worth talking about. Perhaps since you have legal training (I don't - just married to one) you can tell us how this is going to apply to folks like Occupy. How do you see it playing out? How far away from events (like G20 or the conventions) will protesters have to be?

When we disagree with the status quo in this country we can protest or strike, that's about it. Anytime those are encroached upon I'd like to know why.

[bayareamike]

38. How it will affect Occupy

depends on what is designated as a "restricted" area.

I could see this bill being used to outlaw "mic checks" insofar as the mic check is occurring, say, in a room where the President is speaking. However, that is consistent with -- as I pointed out earlier -- "time, manner, place" laws.

I mentioned this earlier, but I'll say it again: "time, manner, place" laws -- and, as a result, free speech zones -- were established through a series of court decisions. Point is, if one is worried about the loss of free speech or the loss of assembly, this bill is hardly the tipping point. Federal law has long held that the government CAN direct the "time, manner, and place" of a protest; they cannot, however, restrict the content of that protest.

[onenote]

46. In that regard, it doesn't change the current (pre HR 347) law.

As I've pointed out, this bill makes two substantive changes in the law (while reorganizing the provisions of the current law to simplify and avoid repetition). First, it adds the WH and VP's residences and grounds the areas where "posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas" are protected. Second, it adds the express requirement that a person who enters or remains in a protected area had "no lawful authority" to do so. The current law doesn't require a showing that the accused was without lawful authority to be where they were.

So, I'll ask again -- how do these changes to current law impact Occupy?

[TheKentuckian]

26. Yup, a meek request for less restrictive language is the ticket here

We don't want to rile or insult or betters, especially our lord and master the President or any potential President.

Everyone knows you don't even get edgy unless drumheads are being made from babies and mass graves start popping up like Walmarts.

[Robb]

30. You want people to riot in the streets every time the HOUSE passes goofy shit?

Talk about needing comfortable shoes. Or reinforced doilies for that armchair.

[rudycantfail]

35. Why

would you mock someone's concern for a bill that you define as "goofy shit" passes 388-3?

[rudycantfail]

34. The term "free speech zones" makes you uncomfortable?

What about the concept?

Your hyperbole and Ron Paul references weaken your pro-establishment argument.

[bayareamike]

36. Haha.

I'm not making a pro-establishment argument. In fact the bill is disconcerting. The only thing I have been pointing out this entire time is that this bill does NOT outlaw protest or the right to assemble, as all of the headlines -- including that of this thread -- suggest. Period. That's it.

If you think it does, prove it. Fair warning though, it's not in the bill.

[rudycantfail]

42. Point made that a headline

is overly simplistic and hyperbolic. But why hammer the small point home that the camels back isn't broken yet? The large point and cause for great concern is that in the context of the past twelve years, and I'm including the past three, our civil liberties have been shredded. Let's acknowledge that both parties keep piling on the straw and focus on that.

Do you object to the concept of free speech zones or just the term?

[bayareamike]

43. Fair enough.

I completely agree that our civil liberties have been chipped away, if not outright shredded, over the past several years.

I object to the concept.

[rudycantfail]

45. We're going to have to

agree to agree

[sabrina 1]

37. So when OWS mic-checked politicians, or people like Karl Rove, had this law been in effect

they would have been breaking it?

I am reading that to mean (and codify btw) the Bush administration's refusals to allow people wearing the 'wrong' tee shirts to attend any of his speeches. So now Bush's 'rules' have become law?

[bayareamike]

39. Yes and no.

First question:

The short answer is yes. Had OWS mic checked a politician (or Rove) in a restricted zone in the presence of the Secret Service, they could've been arrested. As much as I personally dislike this concept, it is consistent with several Supreme Court cases that upheld the right of the government to determine the "time, manner, and place" of a protest.

Protesters are not guaranteed a 'captive' audience for their protests. Those same folks can protest all they want outside of the building and nothing would happen to them.

Second question:

No. The government cannot arrest someone based on the content of their protest. This is something that was also decided via the series of court decisions that upheld "time, manner, place" rules.

If the person wearing the "wrong" tee shirt was not disrupting (say, mic checking) Bush or disturbing him in any way, they would not have been arrested, under this new law, simply because they were wearing a tee shirt that had a certain message. The charges against that person would have fallen apart in court, even under this bill.

[onenote]

47. This law already is in effect and has been since 2006 (actually some parts go back to 1982).

The hypothetical you pose (mic checking a secret service protected politician in an area they are temporily visiting) might well have served as the basis of a prosecution under this law since 1982. Since 2006, its applied not just to areas where a secret service protected politician is present, but also to areas restricted in conjunction with the specific designation of an event as a "special event of national significance." And with the new amendments, it now applies to your hypothetical if it somehow managed to occur in the WH or the VP's official residence or on the grounds of those buildings.

If that sounds like a pretty innocuous change in the law -- one that would not be opposed by folks like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders -- its because it is a pretty innocuous change in the law.

[bayareamike]

48. Thanks.

I wasn't aware of that history. It's quite illuminating.

[sabrina 1]

55. So all elected Representatives have to do in order not to have to listen to the people

is to solicit Secret Service protection, FROM the people? What are the possibilities eg, of someone like Rove eg, being able to get that kind of protection?

Protesters are not guaranteed a 'captive' audience for their protests.

Doesn't that conflict with the right of the people to be able to air their grievances where they are assured they will be heard? I mean if our elected reps are now going to be protected, as Bush was eg, behind fortress-like walls to separate them from the people, how do the people get heard?

No such rules appear to be in place for Corporate Lobbyists, eg. There is no point in protesting if there is no one there to hear you.

Maybe it's time to move on to some creative ways to make sure the people have as much access to their representatives as Corporate Lobbyists, without need bags of money to gain access to them.

Clearly every effort is being made, regardless of how 'legal' they make it, to keep the people from having access to their elected officials.

[Justice wanted]

8. Here is the TEXT of the bill. A lot say struck out beside it. If anyone understand legal talk and

can translate it PLEase do.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-347

[rug]

11. The definition of restricted area is the problem.

‘(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), as of last week, includes Santorum.

[onenote]

41. The only difference between that definition and what the law currently covers (and has since 2006)

Is that it now makes clear that the law applies to posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas of the White House and the VP's residence (and the grounds of the WH and the VP's residenc). The substance of the rest of the definition has been part of the law since at least 2006 (when the events of national significance language was added -- the temporarily visiting language has been part of the law since 1982).

Maybe that's why this amendment sailed through with virtually no opposition.

[bayareamike]

44. A very important point. n/t

[Arctic Dave]

20. Sounds like a preemptive strike so Obama doesn't

get mike checked at the convention.

But I'm sure we have more then enough people here to point out how I'm wrong and the Ds would never, ever do something like that.

[KG]

22. +

[onenote]

50. Actually its a preemptive strike to prevent someone from unlawfully entering the White House

or the VP's residence.

The bill essentially restates existing law, while filling a gap -- namely that it covered buildings/grounds where the President or other secret service protected individuals were "temporarily visiting." It didn't cover the White House or the VP's residence. That is one of two changes made in current law by this bill. The other is to add an express requirement that someone charged with entering or remaining in a restricted area be in that area "without lawful authority" -- three not so unimportant words that weren't previously part of the statute.

If a bill passes with the support of every member of the Senate and with folks like Dennis Kucinich and Maxine Waters, its probably wise to take claims that the bill is going to kill the first amendment with a very large grain of salt -- and to check out what the bill actually does.

[2pooped2pop]

21. my problem with this is

that it was fucking ok for teabaggers to go to Dem town squares with guns. But now that the occupiers are the protesters, we need to not allow people in to protest the good congressmen. I say Bull fucking shit.

[TBF]

24. I completely agree - and I will not have folks telling us that we have to be calm and rational

while serious rights are being threatened.

[onenote]

27. So are Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders stupid or evil? Or is there a third possibility?

DK voted for this bill. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, which means Bernie had the opportunity but chose not to voice any opposition.

So are they willing participants in an evil scheme to destroy the First Amendment? Or are they just too stupid to understand what the bill does.

Or, just maybe, the hysteria in the article in the OP about the bill is wee bit overblown?

[Robb]

29. Well, it is from Russia Today.

Let's not panic until we hear what PressTV has to say about it.

[Courtesy Flush]

28. 388-to-3

That's the most disturbing part of the story. Both sides support it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Holding the government accountable is soooo 1776.

And, "..a government of the people, by the people, and for the people" is sooo1863.

C'mon folks, get with the program....or, you'll get locked up.

[onenote]

51. And not reading legislation and finding out its history is soooo 2012.

I recommend that you check out what this bill actually does vis-a-vis existing law and whether it actually is some new effort to kill the first amendment. You might be surprised.

[woo me with science]

52. K&R

[woo me with science]

53. Kick

[woo me with science]

54. Kick