100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Freedom of Speech now a felony?!?! Incredulous!! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
from aclu.org Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime. ..basically enforcing the ignorance of the law doctrine,,,, So they claim a public street in my town as the site for some idiot protected by the SS (the initials fit!) as a rally point, he starts mouthing his rhetoric from his soap box, I yell he's a liar, and I'm arrested, It's ok they say I'm in the wrong?! Even though it is a public place!? THAT'S BS! except, you wouldnt be PERMITTED in that area in the first place, whether you were going to yell your opinion or not hence,,,restricted area,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from aclu.org Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime. ..basically enforcing the ignorance of the law doctrine,,,, So they claim a public street in my town as the site for some idiot protected by the SS (the initials fit!) as a rally point, he starts mouthing his rhetoric from his soap box, I yell he's a liar, and I'm arrested, It's ok they say I'm in the wrong?! Even though it is a public place!? THAT'S BS! except, you wouldnt be PERMITTED in that area in the first place, whether you were going to yell your opinion or not hence,,,restricted area,,, Any area occupied by someone protected by the secret service! So if they come to my house it is a restricted area? They eat at a local restaurant...restricted area? Romney, and Grinch rallies are restricted areas? Obomber rallies are restricted areas? The GOP national convention will be a restricted area? The grocery store where they shop? GET REAL! IT'S OVER REACHING BS LAWS BY A DICTATOR WANNABE KING! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Im pretty real. I doubt they will have any reason to come to my or your house.
I doubt they will impede upon business to make something a 'restricted' area its all predictatory panic,, we will see how it is actually applied, Im sure the same objections were raised back when these laws were first passed, when I Was two years old,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm done with this! Call me crazy, but when my rights to free speech on ANY property I defended and offered my life for, and is deemed a "public" area, becomes a NO FREE SPEECH zone because some gov't (elected or protected) idiot a$$hole wants to go there...... he can kiss my war vet a$$! Old law or new! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next it will be illegal to vote....not that anyones vote has counted since Kennedy anyway...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there is no "real" difference......then why do they deem it nessessary to "enhance" it? lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue being what's restricted going to someone's home yeah that's stalking. Going to any public building or office to protest is over stepping the bounds of restrictions and such. The only safe haven fro peaceful protest they should be allowed is home and family gatherings. Other than that all public gala's, outings, etc should be fair game for protesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue being what's restricted going to someone's home yeah that's stalking. Going to any public building or office to protest is over stepping the bounds of restrictions and such. The only safe haven fro peaceful protest they should be allowed is home and family gatherings. Other than that all public gala's, outings, etc should be fair game for protesting. I think this depends on the exact nature of the protests - something which I don't think is being adequately discussed in specific terms. I think we already have more than enough laws addressing all of the forms of protests which might be objectionable. I could protest something by vandalizing it - and vandalizing is already illegal. I could protest something by getting a megaphone and shouting about it publicly - and we already have laws regulating this. I could protest something by getting a group of people to stand in the middle of the road and block traffic - and this action is already illegal. I could have a march - and there are already laws that deal with having marches with permits, and generally making it illegal to have marches without permits. On the quiet end of things - suppose I get together with 30 people and we all wear the same t-shirt with a message printed on it, and we want to go somewhere and stand or sit together. I feel that this kind of action should always be allowed anywhere or anytime that doing the same thing without the t-shirts would be allowed. For someone to say that people standing quietly wearing t-shirts are 'protesters' and therefore should not be allowed to attend an event - that's insane. That's offensive. That should never be allowed by a society that has the lease bit of concern for freedom of speech. Just for perspective - is it all all possible that such people qualify as 'protesters' under this legislation? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue being what's restricted going to someone's home yeah that's stalking. Going to any public building or office to protest is over stepping the bounds of restrictions and such. The only safe haven fro peaceful protest they should be allowed is home and family gatherings. Other than that all public gala's, outings, etc should be fair game for protesting. I think this depends on the exact nature of the protests - something which I don't think is being adequately discussed in specific terms. I think we already have more than enough laws addressing all of the forms of protests which might be objectionable. I could protest something by vandalizing it - and vandalizing is already illegal. I could protest something by getting a megaphone and shouting about it publicly - and we already have laws regulating this. I could protest something by getting a group of people to stand in the middle of the road and block traffic - and this action is already illegal. I could have a march - and there are already laws that deal with having marches with permits, and generally making it illegal to have marches without permits. On the quiet end of things - suppose I get together with 30 people and we all wear the same t-shirt with a message printed on it, and we want to go somewhere and stand or sit together. I feel that this kind of action should always be allowed anywhere or anytime that doing the same thing without the t-shirts would be allowed. For someone to say that people standing quietly wearing t-shirts are 'protesters' and therefore should not be allowed to attend an event - that's insane. That's offensive. That should never be allowed by a society that has the lease bit of concern for freedom of speech. Just for perspective - is it all all possible that such people qualify as 'protesters' under this legislation? from what I read, it was more about 'restricted areas' than protestors,,, secret service have to do a job and its reasonable to give them the determined space they need to do it,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue being what's restricted going to someone's home yeah that's stalking. Going to any public building or office to protest is over stepping the bounds of restrictions and such. The only safe haven fro peaceful protest they should be allowed is home and family gatherings. Other than that all public gala's, outings, etc should be fair game for protesting. I think this depends on the exact nature of the protests - something which I don't think is being adequately discussed in specific terms. I think we already have more than enough laws addressing all of the forms of protests which might be objectionable. I could protest something by vandalizing it - and vandalizing is already illegal. I could protest something by getting a megaphone and shouting about it publicly - and we already have laws regulating this. I could protest something by getting a group of people to stand in the middle of the road and block traffic - and this action is already illegal. I could have a march - and there are already laws that deal with having marches with permits, and generally making it illegal to have marches without permits. On the quiet end of things - suppose I get together with 30 people and we all wear the same t-shirt with a message printed on it, and we want to go somewhere and stand or sit together. I feel that this kind of action should always be allowed anywhere or anytime that doing the same thing without the t-shirts would be allowed. For someone to say that people standing quietly wearing t-shirts are 'protesters' and therefore should not be allowed to attend an event - that's insane. That's offensive. That should never be allowed by a society that has the lease bit of concern for freedom of speech. Just for perspective - is it all all possible that such people qualify as 'protesters' under this legislation? If it is determined by officials that you can not silent protest with sign and shirts even a mild chant of belief near where they say you cannot. It's illegal just because someone comes out and says you can't they haven't determined what parameters that meets. So, wherever they say and when they say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a blog post, Gabe Rottman, a legislative counsel and policy advisor in the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, wrote that "it's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures from politifact.com take it as you will, as I said though,, this particular 'right' is not one I have personally EVERY had,,being born in 1969 If there is no "real" difference......then why do they deem it nessessary to "enhance" it? Just let another morsel slide.....soon we will be out of morsels! Truer words were never spoken! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a blog post, Gabe Rottman, a legislative counsel and policy advisor in the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, wrote that "it's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures from politifact.com take it as you will, as I said though,, this particular 'right' is not one I have personally EVERY had,,being born in 1969 If there is no "real" difference......then why do they deem it nessessary to "enhance" it? Just let another morsel slide.....soon we will be out of morsels! Truer words were never spoken!  
|
|
|
|
|
