Passed by both houses and signed in secret

[Gaspar]

Signed Yesterday. . .now law!

Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 H.R. 347
This modifies Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code.

This bill gives the president (or anyone under secret service protection) the right to limit free speech in any area they deem "restricted."  

Anyone who mounts a protest, or exhibits "disruptive" behavior in these areas can be arrested, fined, and imprisoned.

The bill dictates no rules on the designation of "Restricted" areas, nor does it establish a differentiation between public or private property.  It offers no interpretation of behavior deemed "disruptive."  

The bill gives the president the broad power to shut down any protest for any reason, or have protesters arrested.

The Constitution is an old crusty piece of paper, but it says this: 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.

Some are calling it the anti-occupy bill.  It is the largest direct assault on the constitution ever mounted. . .and it is now law.  Passed quietly, signed behind closed doors with little or no media attention.  

I ask my liberal friends, is this something you can support?  What if Santorum is elected, and he designates the streets around the Whitehouse as "restricted grounds as he strips away the rights of women?"  What if President Gingrich and congress move to repeal Obamacare and "in the spirit of public safety" establish the parks surrounding the capital as "restricted grounds?"  What if President Romney grants secret service protection to his favorite lobbyist, campaign manager, or international visitor therefore insulating them from protest?

This is exactly the kind of power that our founders sought to restrict.  The genie is out of the lamp now.

The first amendment has been essentially altered to say:
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.

Meanwhile the STOCK act still sits awaiting a signature.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

[nathanm]

You weren't aware that this bill amends a 1970s law that applied to appearances by Secret Service protectees (the "restricted areas") to the grounds of the White House and VP's house at the Naval Observatory? Apparently the Secret Service was lobbying for it because of the vast number of threats made against the current President.

So don't go climbing the White House fence if you don't want to be charged with trespassing.

Keep on crying wolf. Someday there will actually be one.

Out of curiosity, did you hear that interpretation from someone else?

[Hoss]

You weren't aware that this bill amends a 1970s law that applied to appearances by Secret Service protectees (the "restricted areas") to the grounds of the White House and VP's house at the Naval Observatory? Apparently the Secret Service was lobbying for it because of the vast number of threats made against the current President.

So don't go climbing the White House fence if you don't want to be charged with trespassing.

Keep on crying wolf. Someday there will actually be one.

Out of curiosity, did you hear that interpretation from someone else?

Likley not.  Noticed he brought out the red font this time.

[Gaspar]

You weren't aware that this bill amends a 1970s law that applied to appearances by Secret Service protectees (the "restricted areas") to the grounds of the White House and VP's house at the Naval Observatory? Apparently the Secret Service was lobbying for it because of the vast number of threats made against the current President.

So don't go climbing the White House fence if you don't want to be charged with trespassing.

Keep on crying wolf. Someday there will actually be one.

Out of curiosity, did you hear that interpretation from someone else?

Very much aware. . .


The powers are now extended to any property deemed "restricted."  This makes interpretation so broad, as to give unrestricted authority to the secret service, president, or other individual under secret service protection to designate any property as restricted.

''(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

Nate, do you agree with this law?

I have no doubt with the election coming up that you will get to see it exercised very soon.

[nathanm]

Yeah, I do agree with trespass law.

And no, you have it backwards. The law already applied to "restricted areas", which is the cordoned off area immediately surrounding a location where the President or other secret service protectee is appearing. As I said before, this amendment extends the law to apply to the grounds of the White House and the VP's residence.

I find it hard to believe that you are seriously arguing against trespass law, of all things. I take it you wouldn't have a problem if I decided to camp out on your lawn for a while?

[Gaspar]

Yeah, I do agree with trespass law.

And no, you have it backwards. The law already applied to "restricted areas", which is the cordoned off area immediately surrounding a location where the President or other secret service protectee is appearing. As I said before, this amendment extends the law to apply to the grounds of the White House and the VP's residence.

I find it hard to believe that you are seriously arguing against trespass law, of all things. I take it you wouldn't have a problem if I decided to camp out on your lawn for a while?

Come on man. . .you know it's more than that.  I know that this president can do no wrong in your eyes, but people have been protesting conventions, speeches, and public buildings since this country was founded.  It's part of the fabric of our nation.  The very fact that our leaders have little or no power to limit the free speech and assembly of their constituency is something to be proud of.

I can't believe that you would brush this off as a simple trespass law.  The ACLU views it as more than that.  The Occupy protesters view it as more than that.  The Tea-Party views it as more than that.  Every activist organization in the country views it as more than that.

From your very own news sources: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/07/1071828/--Congress-moves-to-criminalize-protest-Occupiers-beware-
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/the_inside_scoop_on_hr_347/

[nathanm]

I can't believe that you would brush this off as a simple trespass law.  The ACLU views it as more than that.  The Occupy protesters view it as more than that.  The Tea-Party views it as more than that.  Every activist organization in the country views it as more than that.

I don't quite understand why they should be upset they can't jump the White House fence?

If you want to see suppression of protest, you might look at the previous resident. In the 2004 campaign, quite a few folks doing nothing more than wearing T-shirts critical of the President were arrested. Maybe I haven't paid close enough attention, but I haven't seen anything like that out of the present resident.

Edited to add: Let me guess, this is an assault on freedom as well:

E.  Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the Governor's Mansion and its grounds and appurtenances shall not be required to be posted with signs warning against trespass.  Any person who shall willfully or maliciously enter the grounds of the Governor's Mansion within the State Capitol Park, as defined in Section 1811.4 of Title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes, except at a place where entry to the property is normally expected shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined in a sum not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by confinement in the county jail for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than six (6) months, or by both fine and imprisonment.

[Gaspar]

I don't quite understand why they should be upset they can't jump the White House fence?

You didn't read it did you, it applies to any building or grounds DEEMED restricted.  This may be the Whit House lawn, it also may be the park across the street, the sidewalk, a private residence down the block deemed "otherwise restricted" because a motorcade may be passing by, the property adjacent a factory where the president may be visiting or giving a speech.

The legislation also strikes the requirement that violators must "Knowingly" be in violation.  This means that they can be prosecuted even if they are unaware they are violating the law!

[Conan71]

You didn't read it did you, it applies to any building or grounds DEEMED restricted.  This may be the Whit House lawn, it also may be the park across the street, the sidewalk, a private residence down the block deemed "otherwise restricted" because a motorcade may be passing by, the property adjacent a factory where the president may be visiting or giving a speech.

The legislation also strikes the requirement that violators must "Knowingly" be in violation.  This means that they can be prosecuted even if they are unaware they are violating the law!

Arguing with Nathan just leads to arthritis of the finger joints... You should have said this law was a great idea and see if he would have run in the opposite direction with it.

[nathanm]

You didn't read it did you, it applies to any building or grounds DEEMED restricted.  This may be the Whit House lawn, it also may be the park across the street, the sidewalk, a private residence down the block deemed "otherwise restricted" because a motorcade may be passing by, the property adjacent a factory where the president may be visiting or giving a speech.

The legislation also strikes the requirement that violators must "Knowingly" be in violation.  This means that they can be prosecuted even if they are unaware they are violating the law!

You still don't get it? That provision was in the original law. The bill you're complaining about added the White House and the VP's residence to the list. Sheesh.

And no, it doesn't strike knowingly. It strikes willfully. Instead of requiring that you intend to break the law to be in violation, you merely have to intend to be in a restricted area and know of the restriction. It's like you didn't even read the freakin' PDF you posted.

Edited to add: For reference, here's the original law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

[Gaspar]

You still don't get it? That provision was in the original law. The bill you're complaining about added the White House and the VP's residence to the list. Sheesh.

That is not correct!

You are correct about the "willfully" part, I got those confused.  The bill eliminates intent, allowing prosecution of individuals even if the government can't establish intent.  Fabulous!

I'll go ahead and take Conan's advice.  This is a wonderful bill.  It will help us to limit all of those scum that find it necessary to protest every little thing that our government does.  Yeah!

[nathanm]

That is not correct!

Check the reference if you don't believe me. It's been law since 1978.

You are correct about the "willfully" part, I got those confused.  The bill eliminates intent, allowing prosecution of individuals even if the government can't establish intent.  Fabulous!

No, it does not eliminate intent. It eliminates the need to prove that your intent was to break the law (i.e. an 'evil' mind). It does not eliminate the need to prove that you intended to enter the restricted area. Try Black's Law Dictionary. Seriously. This is getting completely ridiculous.

Edited to add: And a reference to the relevant section of the CFR implementing the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/408

[Gaspar]

You've convinced me.  I'm all for it now.  Yippee!

Some reality on how this great new bill helps us! From Professor Jonathan Turley a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

The root of the problem with this legislation lies in the omission of the word "willfully" to make the condition simply "knowingly" in conjunction with the phrase "or so that, such conduct, in fact".  The use of this conditional phrase effectively nullifies the intent component in the absence of "willfully" being explicitly stated.  You may not have willfully or knowingly done anything other than exercise your free speech and free assembly rights, but if you "in fact" "[impede] or [disrupt] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions", you can be arrested and charged under this proposed revision of 18 U.S.C. § 1752 whether the impediment or disruption was willful or not.  The reworded law as the bill is currently formulated effectively does away with intent as a requirement in addition to expanding the meaning of the term 'restricted buildings or grounds' to mean virtually any place in proximity to or place proper a government function or an "event of national interest" is taking place. This would allow for the arrest of protesters  just about anywhere.  Outside political rallies, near the hotels of visiting foreign dignitaries, outside sporting or other public events like the Super Bowl . . .  you get the idea.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/03/imprecise-language-and-the-risks-of-h-r-347/

[nathanm]

Ah, I see you're backpedaling now. The restrictions aren't new, it's now just the deletion of willfully. Good that we've all got the facts now.

Would have been nice if Mr. Howington (not Turley, check the byline) had noted the "..with intent to impede or disrupt.." part, which makes it quite clear that the statute only applies if you intend to and in fact succeed in impeding or disrupting government business or official functions. Or if he noted that the Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions that interpretations of law that render parts of the operative language of the statute superfluous are not Constitutionally sound.

Edited to correct attribution.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sea change in trespass laws around the nation.  In general, it seems to be that there is a personal responsibility issue that would maintain that the person doing the trespass should know that the place is not their property and not open to that presence.  I'm thinking that if one has gone beyond the boundary of the yellow barrier tape, then one should know - as in knowingly - that one has trespassed.

Law or no law, the protests at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 were strongly put down well before even the first law.  So the law is pretty much irrelevant, since it will be enforced even when it doesn't exist.  Similar to the Bonus Army of Veterans of WWI.  There really wasn't much trespass law at that point beyond McArthur and his machine guns and torches.

Oklahoma changed the trespass law a few years ago.  Previously, a property was required to be posted with No Trespassing signs.  Now, property is presumed to be posted, regardless of signage, and if you go over the fence, you are breaking the law - since you know that it isn't your property.