[PAA-Discuss] Goodbye, First Amendment: 'Trespass Bill' will make protest illegal

[Bart Boyce]

 "the chip" will make the need for this law obsolete  ....


Barton Comly Boyce

 



  
Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal 
Get short URL 
email story to a friend print version 
Published: 29 February, 2012, 02:13 
Washington: US park police detains a Christian religious activist during a 
pro-life demonstration in front of the White House in Washington on February 16, 
2012. (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)
TRENDS: Defense Authorization Act 
TAGS: Crime, Politics, Law, USA 
 
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. 

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, makin! g 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. For the American protester, this indeed means that 
glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, 
but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service 
began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving 
such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last 
week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret 
Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed 
protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party 
nod. 

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. Entering 
such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of 
“official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” 
the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that 
verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech 
would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of 
national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list 
of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for 
guarding an array of politicians, ! even those from outside America. George W 
Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 
2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally 
funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the 
events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up 
to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. 
While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded 
the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National 
Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President 
Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, 
the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses 
and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions. 

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, 
for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against 
any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as 
it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for 
the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a 
National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever 
court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able 
to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the 
police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like 
the country will really try to enforce it — right? 

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement 
officers reprim! anded for using excessive force on protesters at political 
events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to 
keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on 
par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this 
act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three 
lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. 
Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, 
Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or 
remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know 
it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”
“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their 
safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that 
activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds 
the representative. 

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of 
hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the 
US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months 
ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could 
the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of 
Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of 
the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a 
constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he 
accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that! 
, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean 
he thought it was right. 

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect 
another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the 
very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t 
take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity 
is, of course, covered under this act. 

 
 
“The military budget is not on the table. The military is at the table, and it 
is eating everybody else's lunch."  -- Barney Frank
 
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic 
Messages in this topic (1) 

Recent Activity: 
Visit Your Group 
Houston premiere screening of "9/11 Explosive Evidence:  Experts Speak Out" 

When:  Sunday, SEPTEMBER 11, 4:00 pm

Where:  SHAPE Community Center,  3815 Live Oak   (Houston, 77004)

 
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
. 

__,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20120229/95beba92/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 44072 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20120229/95beba92/attachment.jpg>