Protesting at the NATO/G8 event in Chicago now to be illegal

[truedelphi]

Last edited Wed Feb 29, 2012, 06:05 AM - Edit history (2)

Tuesday, Feb 28th, 2012, our Illustrious House of Representatives, fearing that all of us prodded, poked, foreclosed on, and jobless Americans have simply too many freedoms, voted to put in place the House Bill 347.

Basically the law provides for two separate things:

One: It will be a federal offense to protest near any Federal Building, or any public space or location where the Secret Service is operating to protect a government official. Since Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Governor Mitt Romney and as of a few hours ago, Rick Santorum, are all under Secret Service protection, anyone protesting anything needs to be mindful of this new law.
I expect both Hillary and Obama will be at the NATO/G8 event.

Two: Persons who are deemed to possibly be disruptive can be arrested, regardless of where they are!

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/houses-passes-new-bill-that-would-make.html

From the article:
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?

The actual text of the bill -





H.R.347 -- Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)

HR 347 EAS

In the Senate of the United States,

February 6, 2012.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 347) entitled `An Act to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.', do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--

`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

`(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;

`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--

`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

`(c) In this section--

`(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; 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.'.

Attest:

Secretary.

112th CONGRESS

2d Session

H.R. 347

AMENDMENT

[truedelphi]

1. Oh and by the way, this offensive bit of legislation was passed

388 in favor with 3 representatives opposing it.

[sabrina 1]

5. Well, if that doesn't tell us who they work for, nothing does. Even people who lived under

Kings could get closer to them. This country is badly in need of some kind of outside intervention.

Maybe those tens of thousands of people of people should foil their plans, and not show up where they are expected to. What's the use anyhow, 'they' will be protected from even seeing the lowly people they are supposed to be serving. Why not hold the protest somewhere else while their 'security forces' are occupied guarding the precious rulers of the world?

Imagine them having all that security and no one is there? And what are they afraid of? What are they hiding?

And we had a Revolution that supposedly ended royalty ruling over the people!

[Magoo48]

7. The only way to override this repressive legislation is with massive numbers.

Sadly, I don't think we are there yet. Of course, there is the creativity displayed by Occypy in the past; we'll have to see what shakes out...

[truedelphi]

12. In Cromwell's time, people were so pissed off against certain legislative matters, that

A mob made their way to one of the top official's home. And they created such a clamor, with such a loud and boisterous voice, and since in those days, the Crown didn't possess more fire power than the commoners, the odious law as repealed.

Now, in the 21st Century, here in the USA, the government holds the power. They have a huge arsenal of "non-lethal" weaponry, including electronic equipment that can heat and blister the skin of those that have it beamed at them.

[sabrina 1]

15. And people could petition monarchs, go right to the castle and present their grievances.

This grand experiment we are supposedly living in, would be the envy of those monarchs of old. Which we supposedly found so oppressive, and they were, that we needed a revolution to ensure never being subject to such oppression again. And the FFs put the 1st Amendment into the Constitution to emphasize the rights of the people to speak out, presumably not into the wind, or to sound-proofed fortresses where they could not be heard, but in the public square where they could be heard by their elected officials.

I'm wondering, since now they have passed laws to make protests that CAN be seen and heard by the rulers, illegal, if there is a need to become more creative. Maybe the people need to form committees who are designated to deal with different tasks. Eg, a huge Committee from across the country, to go directly to Congress to state the grievances of the people, agreed upon in advance.

And perhaps a Global People's Committee that demands to be allowed inside these Global meetings where the fate of the world's people is apparently discussed with zero representation BY the people? Look at the mess they've made around the Globe, which might have prevented if there had been some people's representatives at their meetings to put a stop to their foolish policies?

Or would they need bags of money to get such a hearing? And that raises another question for me, are there any restrictions on Corporate Lobbyists similar to those in effect against the people, to prevent them from getting close to the 'Representatives of the People'?

Maybe we the people need to appoint Lobbyists? They actually do pay for Elected Reps, salaries, health care, travel etc, so they could carry briefcases, empty of course, except for a receipt for the amount of taxes they pay to demonstrate that they do pay these people.

However it's done, they should not be allowed to escape hearing from the people who are the most effected by their decisions.

[truedelphi]

16. As so often, in your posts, much

Wisdom to consider.

Thanks for this input and all the carefully thought out insights it entailed.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

14. Which means it will sail through the Senate and be signed by Obama.

I'm speechless.

[truedelphi]

17. Now that HR 347 will become the law of the land -we

all are speechless!

[msongs]

2. our freedom loving president will veto it lol nt

[ellisonz]

3. Ridiculous. n/t

[patrick t. cakes]

4. Teabaggers come to protests weilding machine guns

and no one bats an eye.

sad and sickening

[truedelphi]

6. And even if only five tea baggers show up,

The media will report on it like it is a world changing event.

In Feb and March of 2003, we had seven hundred thousand people in the streets of San Francisco Calif to oppose the Bush Iraq War II, and the media barely covered it.

[2pooped2pop]

8. On that video taping law

I thought I read where the actual problem is not the video that there is no law on video, it's the sound. THe recording of the word that must be agreed upon by all parties being recorded.

I am going to try to find out more. Now filming the police themselves may be different, but I need to find out if photos are acceptable and if video without sound is recorded.

Also if I am recording you, standing in front of me, and I have your permission, then what happens if my recording picks up things behind you. At what point is it public access? I mean, I can't record my children at the park because I might accidently record other people?

Where is the cut off?

found this at first glance

http://photocinenews.com/2010/06/03/videotaping-law-enforcement-illegal-in-3-states/

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland), it is now illegal to record an on-duty police officer even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

[truedelphi]

9. Thank you for all this fine information.

I forget where I saw it, it was on TV I think, but some officer who was video recorded during a traffic pull over was recorded by the individual he had stopped.

He offered up his badge number, slowly reciting the number so it could be heard when the video was played back. And he congratulated himself and the car driver on the fact that we live in a free nation.
he also offered up that as a police officer serving the public, he thought of his inter actions to be actions deserving of being recorded. Why not? If you are serving the public, then your conduct is not really "private" it is public, and should be as the officer pointed out, something that is up for grabs, including being up for grabs by a recording device. (Just as you and I don't expect privacy when we go into a bank. We know we are going to be surveilled.)

[2pooped2pop]

10. thanks

I'm sure I can find better. I still am not sure about a still camera. It seems like if the police are involved it is straight up illegal. THAT should be illegal.

Exactly as you say, the police should not be shy of the camera. As they say, "if they aren't doing anything wrong..."

[Luminous Animal]

11. H.R. 347 Makes this dream illegal...

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2012, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)

https://twitter.com/#!/Angela_Barber/status/175019471277268992/photo/1

[truedelphi]

13. That it does, Luminous. That it does.

It would be nice if JFK King and Bobby could all come back vampire-like and put some things in order.

if ever I would for a Night of The Dead Undead, it would be for that re-alignment.