Lunch Break: Obama signs latest assault on the Bill of Rights (HR 347)
by LauraLoo
The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Speech is language and other forms of expression; and association and petition connote physical presence in reasonable proximity to those of like mind and to government officials, so as to make your opinions known to them.
The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as stemming from our humanity. So, what happens if you can speak freely, but the government officials at whom your speech is aimed refuse to hear you? And what happens if your right to associate and to petition the government is confined to areas where those of like mind and the government are not present? This is coming to a street corner near you.
Last month President Obama signed into law HR347 (and its companion Senate bill S1794), a.k.a. 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.
Political speech is in the highest category of protected speech. This is not about drowning out the President in the Oval Office. This is about letting him know what we think of his work when he leaves the White House. This is speech intended to influence the political process.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqYUdZfE5Ww[/youtube]
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
[HT: Ken the Birther]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Congress has gone bat-sh|t crazy. Can’t blame Obama for this one (he’ll sign anything that increases executive power). What’s wrong with these loons?
ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING!! Especially with the performance put on by some of the SS agents recently.
In January of 2010, I was videoed by WA state police officers assigned to protect the capitol building in Olympia. My crime? I was carrying my sign that reads “I regret abortion.” When I asked the officer why he was video taping me, he replied that I “might vandalize the capitol building”. WHAT?
It is “them versus the people” (our governor, Christine Gregoire is a staunch democrat in the worst sense) in most areas of the United States now and it is not such a good thing.
First Reaction: How the he|| did this get through Congress?!? Because I have to agree with rasqual: Obama deserves some hefty blame for signing this, but it had to make it through Congress first to get to his desk. Whiskey. Tango. Hotel. I smell another Supreme Court challenge in the offing.
Next Reaction: This is from Huffington Post, though. The text of the bill (number seven on the list) does not seem to indicate such broad, sweeping permission as HuffPo alleges. In fact, it would seem that “speech” (signage, language, non-violent protests, etc.) does not fall under the purview of this law at all. IANAL, and if this law, does in fact do everything it is alleged to do, then it is a clear violation of the Constitution. But…well, HuffPo may be flying off the handle a bit, here. (Wouldn’t be the first time…)
I read the text of the bill. Unless you are obstructing or impeding ingress or egress, or being violent or disorderly, I think you still have your first amendment rights. I’m as much as a card-carrying ACLU member as anyone, but I’m not outraged by the text of the law. Like many laws, it has the potential for abuse, but that’s what the courts are there for, to keep the government in line.
HAL,
Pretend it was ‘W’ who signed this bill into law, then re-calculate.
Suggest you check in with the mother ship/ACLU hdqtrs.
They don’t share your cavalier attiude on this one.
The president and all the members of both houses take an oath to uphold the constitution.
I not at all surprised that mr. bo-jangles signed this one into law, but only 2 House republicans and only one House democrat [the lone muslim] voted against this bill.
Now, that is dis-concerting.
How do you convince the vast majority of congress to approve a bill that will chill ‘political speech’? The very kind of speech which the first ammendment was intended to guarantee and protect. [We’re not talkin here about ’screamin fire in a crowded theatre’.]
Now that is disconcerting.
I hope this law will be overturned by SCOTUS, but it proably won’t happen until some unfortunate citizen violates the ambiguos ever shifting bubble of SS protection and communicates something which displeases a ‘privelged person’ under the SS’s care or maybe just a single SS agent who is having a bad hair day.
My goodness, if law enforcement in Arizona will stop you for ‘driving while Mexican’, who’s to say a coked up, hungover SS agent who has been whoring all night, wouldn’t arbitrarily charge a ‘protestor’ with impeding egress or ingress if she/he didn’t like the content of your ‘speech’.
Ask Robert F. Williams [See ‘Negoes with Guns’] or Randy Weaver [See ‘Ruby Ridge’] if law enforcement, even federal law enforcement, won’t trump up charges against you if they don’t like your ‘attitude.
Ken, glad to see you’re becoming a civil libertarian. I will check to see what the ACLU thinks. Perhaps they can illustrate the danger of this law in a way I can understand better. I will say it appears to be a solution in search of a problem.
Just went to the ACLU site. Looks like this law was passed in response to protests against Bush.
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/free-speech-under-fire-aclu-challenge-protest-zones
Hal, the fact sheet you linked above is from 2003…
Do you know the ACLU response to the bill discussed in this post?
Here’s a more recent ACLU post -
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill
HAL,
The SS has enjoyed a pretty good reputation until recently. It seems they tried to stay above the political fray and concern themselves with the saftey of the person[s] they are responsible to protect.
After 911 I can see where at least the perceived threat level was higher.
If I was the director I would want more latitude in how protestors were handled.
But as an elected official sworn to uphold the constitution it would be difficult to reconcile voting for HB347 and honoring that oath.
There is constantly a balance being struck between the competing interests.
Perhaps the SS made an argument that the ‘bad guys’ could use ‘protestors’ to compromise the security of their ‘charges’ by slowing, delaying or re-routing ingress and egress.
Getting from one fairway to the next can be very risky business, unless b o plays the holes out of order.
The good news is mr. bojangles will not be the SS’s headache for much longer.
It must be enough to drive an agent to drink, drug and carouse with loose women.
Seriously… this isn’t anything new. I was upset about it when I first read about it. But after looking into it I think the press reports are just more fear-mongering than anything. Like the ACLU article states, the only real difference from the old trespassing statute that that individuals only have to know that they are trespassing restricted areas, they don’t have to know that it’s criminal. Which I don’t LIKE, but it’s a far cry from “outlawing protest” and all that. Most of the statute has basically been on the books since the seventies, it’s not really changing much.
Jack, on one hand I agree it seems the bulk of the law has been on the books since the seventies. On the other hand I wonder why tweak it now, unless one is planning to use it more often? I read the ACLU blog post, and also agree that questions remain as to why it’s good law in the first place. And why it carries a felony charge, etc.
I think one would be hard pressed to claim this recent change to the law is moving in a good direction concerning our freedoms as Americans.
Also, if the administration wanted to claim this as a good thing, why wasn’t it done with more media attention, explanation, and overall Transparency? Doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Does this mean they can finally arrest the glitter bomber? Seriously it is a bad idea to give the government the right to suppress free speech for political purposes. It will be abused.
Jack: Yes, it is new. It’s not the new some folks are saying, which may lead to the confusion we’ve seen.
It’s difficult to believe an analysis better than the ACLUs would be available, but their treatment really is sketchy. Try this instead.
A couple more thoughts:
The bill’s history is easy to find. While the headline of the article paints it like the Obama administration just willed it into being, it was brought up by the house where it passed 399-3. It then went to the Senate where it passed by unanimous consent.
The bill was also passed by the house a year ago – in the senate earlier this year, and then had the differences resolved in late February.
The bill was introduced to the house by Thomas Rooney, a Republican from the state of Florida. He said about this:
“…dismissed concerns that the bill violates civil liberties by saying, that the protests against H.R. 347 are, “a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This (HR 347) doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever. ” He went on to say that, “… 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.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/206017/president-obama-signs-anti-protest-bill-h-r-347/
“It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom, freedom of expression, … the freedom to organize and assemble…”
-Reichstag Fire Decree, 1933
The law was written ambiguously enough to allow national level police to arrest people based on the content of any speech or protest.
Ex citing Rooney: “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”
True. And it does more than that.
It’s like a burglar saying “this lockpick permits me to enter your house and water your cat while you’re gone.”
Gee, thanks! I’m so comforted, now, to know you’re sufficiently equipped!
At any rate, Ex, the brief link you cite describes the law almost as if it only affects DC. The way it’s expressed, it’s almost disinformation. Please follow the link I supplied for more reliable information.
I smelled a rat every time a national Democratic candidate campaigned in my old hometown of Hannibal, and we pro-lifers were roped off in the “free speech zone” far enough away from the politicians to see/hear us. My immediate thought was “this can’t be constitutional.” The Secret Service informed us that the rally was a private event; even though, it took place in our public parks and streets. They would not let us through with our own homemade signs either. If we wanted to hold a sign, it had to be one of the candidates. Talk about communist China like tactics. To be fair, a Republican candidate may have done the same thing. I can’t speak from experience on that. This tells me that government leaders are truly afraid of the people, so they try to restrict our rights.