Home› A Moving Train

SIGNED IN SECRECY THAT FREE SPEECH IS A FELONY!!!

aerialaerial Posts: 2,319
edited February 2013 in A Moving Train
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=571556462855129&set=vb.100000023423531&type=2&theater

NOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT! OBAMMA SIGNED IN SECRECY THAT FREE SPEECH IS A FELONY!!!!!!
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • whgarrettwhgarrett Posts: 574
    I don't know about anybody else but a link to facebook and a clip from fox news doesn't seem all that legit to me.
    :D
  • WildsWilds Posts: 4,329
    http://factcheck.org/2012/05/obama-criminalize-free-speech/
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    aerial wrote:
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=571556462855129&set=vb.100000023423531&type=2&theater

    NOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT! OBAMMA SIGNED IN SECRECY THAT FREE SPEECH IS A FELONY!!!!!!

    do you ever research any of the nonsense you post?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    goddammit fox news is a haven for idiots.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
    whgarrett wrote:
    I don't know about anybody else but a link to facebook and a clip from fox news doesn't seem all that legit to me.
    :D

    Oh come on- you're not a fan of Canine News? :lol:
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
    Democracy Dies in Darkness- Washington Post













  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 10,781
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=571556462855129&set=vb.100000023423531&type=2&theater

    NOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT! OBAMMA SIGNED IN SECRECY THAT FREE SPEECH IS A FELONY!!!!!!

    do you ever research any of the nonsense you post?


    Seriously? Did you just ask that?
    :shock:
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    Looks like aeriels at it again. What happened to your buddy fearOFfreedom? Where's that lad been? :corn:
  • peacefrompaulpeacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    Jesus "Tapdancing" Christ

    You have got to be kidding me
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
    Wilds wrote:
    http://factcheck.org/2012/05/obama-criminalize-free-speech/

    Good article, thanks! Anyone concerned with hr 347 might consider reading this before jumping all over CAPS and exclamation point key!!!
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
    Democracy Dies in Darkness- Washington Post













  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    it makes it easier to control and prosecute citizens with some open ended language
    that can allow the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protestors...
    that's the only fact I need to know...
    matters not what party has the veil of power at the time
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
    pandora wrote:
    it makes it easier to control and prosecute citizens with some open ended language
    that can allow the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protestors...
    that's the only fact I need to know...
    matters not what party has the veil of power at the time

    Just curious, did you read the factcheck article?
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
    Democracy Dies in Darkness- Washington Post













  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    brianlux wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    it makes it easier to control and prosecute citizens with some open ended language
    that can allow the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protestors...
    that's the only fact I need to know...
    matters not what party has the veil of power at the time

    Just curious, did you read the factcheck article?
    Rottman wrote that the bill “slightly rewrites” the existing trespass law and that “contrary to some reports” the bill “doesn’t create any new crimes.” The only change that the ACLU’s Rottman found “noteworthy” is that the new law makes it somewhat less difficult for a prosecutor to convict somebody of trespassing where the Secret Service has established security, and he said the ACLU would be alert for “any abuse or misuse.”

    New Legal Standard

    Under the 2006 law, it would have been a crime if someone “willfully and knowingly” entered an area restricted by the Secret Service. Now that has been changed to just “knowingly.” Rottman says that “may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.”
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,615
    It has to be fact since she did use CAPS ON THE TITLE OF THREAD !!!!!!
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    pandora wrote:
    Rottman wrote that the bill “slightly rewrites” the existing trespass law and that “contrary to some reports” the bill “doesn’t create any new crimes.” The only change that the ACLU’s Rottman found “noteworthy” is that the new law makes it somewhat less difficult for a prosecutor to convict somebody of trespassing where the Secret Service has established security, and he said the ACLU would be alert for “any abuse or misuse.”

    New Legal Standard

    Under the 2006 law, it would have been a crime if someone “willfully and knowingly” entered an area restricted by the Secret Service. Now that has been changed to just “knowingly.” Rottman says that “may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.”

    HFD says that having "willfully" in the original text could have provided a possible loophole for potential offenders in the form of law enforcement being required to prove intent, when intent is not even the purpose of the bill in the first place.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    Rottman wrote that the bill “slightly rewrites” the existing trespass law and that “contrary to some reports” the bill “doesn’t create any new crimes.” The only change that the ACLU’s Rottman found “noteworthy” is that the new law makes it somewhat less difficult for a prosecutor to convict somebody of trespassing where the Secret Service has established security, and he said the ACLU would be alert for “any abuse or misuse.”

    New Legal Standard

    Under the 2006 law, it would have been a crime if someone “willfully and knowingly” entered an area restricted by the Secret Service. Now that has been changed to just “knowingly.” Rottman says that “may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.”

    HFD says that having "willfully" in the original text could have provided a possible loophole for potential offenders in the form of law enforcement being required to prove intent, when intent is not even the purpose of the bill in the first place.
    what is HFD :?
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    pandora wrote:
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    Rottman wrote that the bill “slightly rewrites” the existing trespass law and that “contrary to some reports” the bill “doesn’t create any new crimes.” The only change that the ACLU’s Rottman found “noteworthy” is that the new law makes it somewhat less difficult for a prosecutor to convict somebody of trespassing where the Secret Service has established security, and he said the ACLU would be alert for “any abuse or misuse.”

    New Legal Standard

    Under the 2006 law, it would have been a crime if someone “willfully and knowingly” entered an area restricted by the Secret Service. Now that has been changed to just “knowingly.” Rottman says that “may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.”

    HFD says that having "willfully" in the original text could have provided a possible loophole for potential offenders in the form of law enforcement being required to prove intent, when intent is not even the purpose of the bill in the first place.
    what is HFD :?

    Hugh Freaking Dillion :corn:
  • aerialaerial Posts: 2,319
    May be a blog but, still a good read....

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanine-molloff/trespass-bill_b_1328205.html

    The problem with Rep. Rooney's response via Michael Mahaffey lies in the very nature of protest. Mahaffey claims that this bill does not trample the constitutionally protected right to protest -- yet the bill itself criminalizes 'disruptive conduct' in such vague terms that a 7th grader disrupting visiting dignitaries receiving Secret Service protection, over any issue -- (no matter how trivial), such as school uniforms -- would be potentially guilty of a federal felony. What Rooney, and so many government elites cynically ignore is the very nature of protest. Protest in its very nature, is intended to disrupt government business as usual, for without such disruption the protest would be as effective as a leaky condom.

    "... This bill passed in the Senate by unanimous consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept." How very convenient for each senator that their position was never recorded -- anywhere. No accountability and certainly no transparency.
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    you people really need to learn how to read. THIS IS NOT A NEW BILL. AND THE AMENDMENT TO IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY AND WITHOUT DEBATE. what does that tell you?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • KatKat Posts: 4,872
    The discussion is venturing into comments on each other so this thread will be closed. Don't do that please.

    Manufactured Controversy

    This was about as routine and noncontroversial as a federal law can get, at least until false claims started to circulate, drumming up a manufactured controversy. The law was sponsored by a Republican, Rep. Thomas Rooney of Florida. In fact, the bill has been around for years. Rooney first introduced it in 2009 and spoke about it on the House floor in 2010. The current Congress passed it overwhelmingly — by “unanimous consent” in the Senate, and with only three House members voting against it.
    Falling down,...not staying down
This discussion has been closed.