Congress passes bill that would make it illegal to protest at events ...

[CptStern]

..attended by the Secret Service.

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 new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection...

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/houses-passes-new-bill-that-would-make.html

 

[[Dragoon]]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Where convenient for the government"

 

[Mr Stabby]

RON PAUL 2012!

 

[CptStern]

that's your answer for everything!

"Hey Stabby what's for dinner?

RON PAUL 2012!!!"

 

[Shem]

I see no wrong in this.

 

[Tyguy]

That's no big deal, just shut your mouth whenever you see somebody wearing a suit and sunglasses. Can't believe it's taken this long.

 

[Mr Stabby]

that's your answer for everything!

"Hey Stabby what's for dinner?

RON PAUL 2012!!!"

Wittiest. retort. ever.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Eh, I give it a Ron Paul out of 2012.

 

[Mr Stabby]

you gonna have that for dinner or sumtin. tsssssss

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Depending on the enforcement this will be overturned in the courts quickly. Someone of course has to be actually charged first before it can be overturned in court. Making a law that's never enforced just ends up with it being just that.

And yes, Ron Paul 2012 because he obviously would veto this as soon as it hit his desk. Along with most of the laws Congress passes. Just because Congress is in session does not mean they need to be constantly churning out regulation and new laws. Only as issues arise or is necessary should they be.

 

[Shem]

And yes, Ron Paul 2012 because he obviously would veto this as soon as it hit his desk. Along with most of the laws Congress passes. Just because Congress is in session does not mean they need to be constantly churning out regulation and new laws. Only as issues arise or is necessary should they be.

Pretty sure the safety of government officials is necessary.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Pretty sure the safety of government officials is necessary.

Well, the word "disrupt" needs to be defined in this legislation. Usually legislation does have a section that specifically defines terms like that within the legal writing. I can't find it here. What do they consider 'disruption?' and aren't there already existing laws regarding disrupting events? Disorderly conduct, inciting a riot, assaulting an individual, etc. All seem to cover things like glitter bombs, etc. What is the need for new legislation? I think he'd veto it because it's clearly intended to block protesting as other laws in place already sufficiently protect candidates. If 'disrupt' is defined only as things like assaults or disorderly conduct then all this would do is add an additional charge on someone who would already be arrested on other charges, which makes little sense (although they do things like that all the time)