Quiet time: New federal law expands anti-free speech powers
Tired of 2,000-page bills heaping tyranny upon us? Well, how about just a 2-page bill instead? That’s right, H.R. 347 is here to prove that size doesn’t matter: government can squash your rights as easily with a few words as it can with the whole federal register.
Last week, Obama quietly signed H.R. 347, a bill innocuously titled, “An Act, To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.” Zzzz. . . .
Well, wake up America. The President just put new teeth into a law that creates roving “restricted ground” around himself and anyone else protected by the secret service—at their discretion. The restriction can apply at the Secret Service’s discretion whether the protected person is actually there or not. The law defines “restricted buildings or grounds” as, “a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.”
And now, you don’t even have to be violating it “willfully” in order to be arrested and convicted of a felony.
Judge Napolitano joined Fox News to comment upon the law very few mainstream media outlets covered.
“It puts a lot of unbridled discretion in the hands of secret service agents,” he criticized. This discretion can easily lead to “suppressing speech on the basis of it’s content,” under the guise of public safety.
“This is a slow, creeping destruction of some of our basic liberties, and the President signed it in secret.”
And Obama by no means deserves all the blame for this: the bill passed the House 399 to 3, and passed the Senate by “unanimous consent.”
Ironically, the secrete service is providing protection for some political candidates during the campaigns. This means, unequivocally, that it is now, technically, a felony to protest or shout at any such political candidate, because wherever they go under such protection will automatically be considered “restricted ground” by the law.
So the question will be enforcement. To that Napolitano argues, it is “going to be enforced when the government wants it enforced.”
Napolitano argued there are at least three constitutional infractions in this bill: against 1) free speech, 2) freedom of assembly, 3) right to petition the government for redress of grievances. He asks, “What good is free speech if the people in the government are so far away from you that they can’t hear you?”
But as an article at Salem-News.com points out, the restrictions in this bill have actually been on the books since 2006. What’s new and particularly egregious is the removal of the “willfully” requirement. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund,writes,
Fact: What is new about the H.R. 347 amendments?
1. The existing law required that for a person to be prosecuted under it, they would have had to carry out those described acts both “willfully” and “knowingly.” The requirement of “willfulness” generally means that a conviction requires proof that the person knew his conduct was unlawful. H.R. 347 strikes the “willfully” requirement. The new amendments appear to intend for a person to be convicted only by “knowingly” taking the actions described even if the person does not know that the actions are unlawful. As amended, a conviction arguably only requires proof that a person “knowingly entered” a certain area.
This is an effort to lower the bar for prosecutors who would, arguably, no longer have to prove that a person knew his conduct was unlawful.
2. The other major change is the inclusion of the White House and grounds and the Vice President’s residence and grounds as fixed zones of designation. You might wonder why this is even necessary. Of course, entering into the White House and its fenced-in grounds is already a federal violation. We think this particular change is to target demonstration activity, specifically that which occurs on the White House sidewalk just outside the perimeter fence (as detailed in 36 C.F.R. §7.96 it is lawful to protest on the White House sidewalk, which is under National Park Service jurisdiction). We think that the Government wishes to make it easier to prosecute protestors who step up off of the White House sidewalk and stand on the concrete ledge supporting the fence, something which tourists can be seen doing all the time.
We are also concerned that the Secret Service seeks to be able to expand its jurisdiction and authority to create pop-up cordoned off restriction zones in front of the White House extending to areas where demonstrators lawfully assemble.
Someone on Sean Hannity’s forums commented, “I am a staunch conservative, but I would vote for a liberal democrat before I voted for a republican that supported this measure.” Well, you don’t have to. While not present for the final vote due to campaigning, one GOP candidate was among thethree Representatives who opposed this expansion of powers. During a previous roll call vote on the same bill last year, Ron Paul stood firm against this “creeping destruction.”
There is a conservative who has opposed this kind of expansion of federal power in Congress for decades, and he is running for President.
Categories:
BureaucracyCivil GovernmentCommunityComment (1)
"There is a conservative who has opposed this kind of expansion of federal power in Congress for decades, and he is running for President." I like Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is blah blah blah blah.... They'll make any excuse to justify their choice because they don't want to be wrong. That and they can't seem to make the connection that the same decision makers who put up these bills are the same people that make decisions on current foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment