H.R. 347 FRBGIA " The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act" - Polidicks

They say you can't trespass into a government building and disrupt operations there. How on earth is that 'outlawing protesting'? I'm allowed to protest on the steps, I just can't break in and make sure no work goes on.

[QUOTE=scout1;35452042]The video in the OP is more russia today bullshit, people need to stop citing them.[/QUOTE] yeah russia today has an anti-west bias on p. much everything, they'd happily sensationalise this bill to make america look unfree (coming from russia lol).

[B]HOLY SHIT A BILL WAS PASSED IT WAS PROBABLY HORRIBLE[/B] Oh shit, so I can't protest on the president's coffee table? So ~opressive~ [editline]6th April 2012[/editline] Jokes aside, I don't see how this is as horrible as some make it out to be. It reeks of sensationalism. Do enlighten me if you think otherwise though, I may or may not have entirely or partially missed the point. :v:

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;35452343]They say you can't trespass into a government building and disrupt operations there. How on earth is that 'outlawing protesting'? I'm allowed to protest on the steps, I just can't break in and make sure no work goes on.[/QUOTE] You should stop and read the bill. [editline]6th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=matrix_1995;35452978][B]HOLY SHIT A BILL WAS PASSED IT WAS PROBABLY HORRIBLE[/B] Oh shit, so I can't protest on the president's coffee table? So ~opressive~ [editline]6th April 2012[/editline] Jokes aside, I don't see how this is as horrible as some make it out to be. It reeks of sensationalism. Do enlighten me if you think otherwise though, I may or may not have entirely or partially missed the point. :v:[/QUOTE] It outlaws protesting whenever the administration deems it too close and disruptive. It is not specifically stated in the bill, nor are there even any guidelines as to what could be considered disruptive and too close, nor are there any specific guidelines as to what is not disurptive or not too close. It is entirely up to the discretion of the administration, so a protest 10 blocks away could be forced to disperse because they are deemed to be too close, or because they may be even just slightly noisy, when they were actually fine. It's a bill that can and probably will be abused my future administrations. This is the kind of stuff people get paid to pass.

Hold on a second You can't assemble and protest on individually owned private property (good) You can't assemble and protest on corporately owned private property (ehh) You can't assemble and protest on public owned roads You can assemble and protest on public property, unless - It needs to be cleaned (and then in some cases they won't let you back in like that one thing) - It's conveniently classified as "restricted" [quote]‘‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—[/quote] ^ Assumedly these means law enforcement can cordon off a park as I'm seeing no guidelines as to when something can be "posted, cordoned off or otherwise restricted". - You're being disorderly - You're in the way of someone getting to/from a place of work Doesn't this basically mean that if the government doesn't like you they can just "restrict" a public space and kick you out? Before anyone thinks I'm trying to inflame or anything, I'm legitimately asking the question. That isn't to say though, if the answer is "yes" and cops can do that, then yeah, freedom of protest is pretty fucked for you yanks.

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;35454003] ‘‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area— ^ Assumedly these means law enforcement can cordon off a park as I'm seeing no guidelines as to when something can be "posted, cordoned off or otherwise restricted". [/QUOTE] This bill only covers the president and others protected by secret service (the VP and major presidential candidates). [QUOTE]‘‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any [B]posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—[/B] ‘‘(A) [B]of the White House or its grounds[/B], or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds; ‘‘(B) [B]of a building or grounds[/B] where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or ‘‘(C)[B] of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event [/B]designated as a special event of national significance; and ‘‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’’. [/QUOTE] Notice here that the bill only deals with restricted areas inside buildings or on grounds where protected persons are. The entire building/grounds are not classified as restricted, except the WH, only areas within. For example, wherever on the grounds/building the president/presidential candidate prepares before he gives a speech would be restricted. This is my understanding of it.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;35454624]This bill only covers the president and others protected by secret service (the VP and major presidential candidates). Notice here that the bill only deals with restricted areas inside buildings or on grounds where protected persons are. The entire building/grounds are not classified as restricted, except the WH, only areas within. For example, wherever on the grounds/building the president/presidential candidate prepares before he gives a speech would be restricted. This is my understanding of it.[/QUOTE] ‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions; It clearly talks about proximity, not just the grounds the president and secret service resides on.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35451709]Planes aren't public property. Anyways, I'll just leave you with the constitution. This bill effectively squashes one of the rights guaranteed to us in the constitution. Just because you don't believe the current administration will abuse it, doesn't mean they wont, and it definitely doesn't mean a future administration wouldn't. [editline]6th April 2012[/editline] I love how everyone on facepunch is afraid to criticize Obama and his administration. If Romney or Santorum proposed a bill like this, facepunch would be up in arms and raising hell.[/QUOTE] The government stopped caring about the Constitution a long time ago. Anyway, this bill probably only means places like inside the White House, etc etc, which I agree with. President should have a peaceful area space around him because some protestors could sometimes have a few crazies in them, not to mention the Secret Service would probably take someone down at the slightest suspicious movement from a protestor around Obama.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35451709]Planes aren't public property. Anyways, I'll just leave you with the constitution. This bill effectively squashes one of the rights guaranteed to us in the constitution. Just because you don't believe the current administration will abuse it, doesn't mean they wont, and it definitely doesn't mean a future administration wouldn't. [/QUOTE] I read the bill in it's entirety and saw nowhere where it abridged anyone's right to peacefully asemble and petition the government regarding grievances. All it does is give the police power to ensure the safety of government officials when rowdy protesters forget about the 'peacefully' part and decide to storm government buildings. Again. You're still allowed to protest on the sidewalk. You just can't chain yourself to the door of the white house. Good god people. Stop spazzing out. Read the fucking bill, it's right there. I don't trust this government any more than you do, but holy shit guys. They're not outlawing protesting by any stretch and any attempts to abuse this will get shot to hell in court.

[QUOTE=TestECull;35456194]I read the bill in it's entirety and saw nowhere where it abridged anyone's right to peacefully asemble and petition the government regarding grievances. All it does is give the police power to ensure the safety of government officials when rowdy protesters forget about the 'peacefully' part and decide to storm government buildings. Again. You're still allowed to protest on the sidewalk. You just can't chain yourself to the door of the white house.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you read. It clearly states in the bill that you are not allowed to protest within a certain [b]proximity[/b]. It suggests nowhere in the bill what is an appropriate proximity, nor does it state was is considered disruptive or impedance. This bill leaves it up entirely to the administration holding office as to what is too close and what is considered disruptive. It leaves tons of room to be abused. Again, if Santorum or Romney suggested a bill such as this, facepunch would be up in arms saying that they are just trying to the protesters they are sure to get with their crazy ideas, but since it is Obama in office, facepunch will simply ignore how dangerous a bill like this actually is. Way to be progressive facepunch. [quote]Good god people. Stop spazzing out. Read the fucking bill, it's right there. I don't trust this government any more than you do, but holy shit guys. They're not outlawing protesting by any stretch and any attempts to abuse this will get shot to hell in court.[/quote] You obviously have a comprehension problem. I did read the bill. I am not as extreme and saying that the government is intent on outlawing protesting, but I am pointing out how flawed the bill is and how easily it can be abused. Stop ignoring what I am saying and pretending I'm some crazy libertarian who's assuming the government is out to get all of this. I'm simply pointing out how poorly this bill is written and easily it can be taken advantage of. Also, I would stop having faith in the same court system that rules that corporations are people.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35456253]I don't know what you read. It clearly states in the bill that you are not allowed to protest within a certain [b]proximity[/b]. It suggests nowhere in the bill what is an appropriate proximity, nor does it state was is considered disruptive or impedance. This bill leaves it up entirely to the administration holding office as to what is too close and what is considered disruptive. It leaves tons of room to be abused.[/quote] And any attempts to abuse it will be shot to hell by the courts. You're overly paranoid. This isn't something like SOPA. They're not going to invoke this bill on random protesters lining the sidewalks outside the white house. They're aiming this at crazy sods that storm public offices and try to genuinely cause harm. [quote]Again, if Santorum or Romney suggested a bill such as this, facepunch would be up in arms saying that they are just trying to the protesters they are sure to get with their crazy ideas, but since it is Obama in office, facepunch will simply ignore how dangerous a bill like this actually is. Way to be progressive facepunch.[/quote] I'm not Facepunch. I have my own opinions. And my own opinions, after reading the bill in it's entirety, are that this isn't anything to be getting up in arms over. I don't care who signed it into law. [quote]Also, I would stop having faith in the same court system that rules that corporations are people.[/QUOTE] I'm not the one spazzing out and assuming the government is going to abuse the shit out of some slightly vague wording.

[QUOTE=TestECull;35456432]And any attempts to abuse it will be shot to hell by the courts. You're overly paranoid. This isn't something like SOPA. They're not going to invoke this bill on random protesters lining the sidewalks outside the white house. They're aiming this at crazy sods that storm public offices and try to genuinely cause harm. I'm not Facepunch. I have my own opinions. And my own opinions, after reading the bill in it's entirety, are that this isn't anything to be getting up in arms over. I don't care who signed it into law. I'm not the one spazzing out and assuming the government is going to abuse the shit out of some slightly vague wording.[/QUOTE] I am overly paranoid because I want a bill with more specific wording as to what protesters are and are not allowed to do and where they are allowed to do it? This bill is not [b]slightly[/b] vague, it is vague. If you are within a certain proximity of us and are doing something we consider disruptive, we are going to force you to disperse. It does not even suggest what is considered disruptive or too close. That is completely up to the administration, which can easily abuse the vagueness of this bill. I am sorry, but you cannot predict the future. You do not know if the courts will shoot these cases down or not. Based on recent events, I would guess they wouldn't, but neither of us know. The fact that you are okay with such a poorly worded bill going through is deplorable. You know there is room for abuse and you are simply putting full faith in the government to not abuse it. You don't know what the administration is going to be like years from now. I don't think Obama is going to squash protests, it's the people after Obama I am worried about, personally. But that doesn't make this bill any less prone to abuse.

People dont realize how much leniency a bill like this gives to impose force upon protesters. No shit you cant protests on POTUS' Coffee table, but any politician who doesnt like a protest can basically walk past it an make it be broken up. The rules of Restriction are completely subjective, the Government could declare any place a place of "national importance" and disperse any protest.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35451825]The bill takes into account proximity, but sets no specific guidelines for it.[/QUOTE] Too bad there's no existing legal precedents for keeping people far enough away from a structure to allow access to it. Oh, wait. There are.

RT is such a fucking sensationalist rag. Stop posting stories from it, everyone.

[QUOTE=Spooter;35458651]RT is such a fucking sensationalist rag. Stop posting stories from it, everyone.[/QUOTE] And a bias piece of shit. One RT segment I watched said America would break into 6 different countries and the EU would have to send a contingent to peacekeep. Isn't that the premise for the game Shattered Union?

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35451602]It's their right to peacefully assemble in a public area. Stopping protesters from exercising their rights because, "they might do something bad!" is stupid.[/QUOTE] And peaceful assembly is nonproblematic under the bill. Making a cordon around the white house and refusing to let Obama enter is. Quite a difference. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;35457002]People dont realize how much leniency a bill like this gives to impose force upon protesters. No shit you cant protests on POTUS' Coffee table, but any politician who doesnt like a protest can basically walk past it an make it be broken up. The rules of Restriction are completely subjective, the Government could declare any place a place of "national importance" and disperse any protest.[/QUOTE] No they are not. They're usually set forward by precedents.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;35459867]And peaceful assembly is nonproblematic under the bill. Making a cordon around the white house and refusing to let Obama enter is. Quite a difference. No they are not. They're usually set forward by precedents.[/QUOTE] Show me these precedents as detailed in law. Because more often that not this sort of thing is left to the judgement of the proper authorities.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35457572]Too bad there's no existing legal precedents for keeping people far enough away from a structure to allow access to it. Oh, wait. There are.[/QUOTE] The bill does not refer to the precedents, it leaves the rules of how close is deemed to close up to the administration in control. They can be within the past legal precedents, but still be too close according to the administration. [editline]6th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;35459867]And peaceful assembly is nonproblematic under the bill. Making a cordon around the white house and refusing to let Obama enter is. Quite a difference. No they are not. They're usually set forward by precedents.[/QUOTE] The bill makes no reference to the precedents, thus the bill is not bound to those precedents, instead it is up to the interpretation of the administration. And stop saying peaceful protesters will not be effected. This bill does not even suggest what is to be considered disruptive or impedance, that is also up to the administration. A a peaceful crowd 10 blocks away from an official event could be dispersed for simply being slightly loud under this bill. The vagueness of this bill allows for an administration to effectively disperse any protest it really wants to. I understand the people here trust Obama not to abuse it, but the fact is this bill stays on the books, even after Obama is gone. You don't think future administrations would abuse this? Get real!

Old news. Stick it up yer arse O-bomber. FP being social conservatives again, eh? You realize that shit like the G20 and RNC are national significant events, so this outlaws major protests.