General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law [View all]onenote
(46,147 posts)You seem to have overlooked (presumably by accident) the introductory language to the definition of "restricteed buidlings or grounds": "any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area" of the WH, the VP's residence, a building where the President or other secret service protected person is temporarily visiting, or of a building or grounds in conjuction with a an event formally designated as a special event of national significance (a term of art referring to a specific process for designating areas where the Secret Service is in control over security measures established by President Clinton in 1997).
So its not the entire building and grounds unless the perimeter of the building or grounds is "cordoned off, posted" or other clearly "restricted" from public access.
And it doesn't outlaw protest. It outlaws disorderly conduct. You can engage in disorderly conduct as a matter of civil disobedience but just like most such activities, if you're trespassing or otherwise breaking the law, you can get arrested for doing so and the first amendment doesn't protect you.
You can quote the First Amendment a dozen more times and its not going to change the fact that the law in this country has long provided that the right to free speech isn't absolute and certainly doesn't mean that those entitled to secret service protection are not entitled to it when they are outside the WH or the VP's residence.