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

aerial

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!!!!!!

whgarrett

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.

Wilds

http://factcheck.org/2012/05/obama-criminalize-free-speech/

Hugh Freaking Dillon

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?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

goddammit fox news is a haven for idiots.

brianlux

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.

Oh come on- you're not a fan of Canine News?

Bentleyspop

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:

badbrains

Looks like aeriels at it again. What happened to your buddy fearOFfreedom? Where's that lad been? :corn:

peacefrompaul

Jesus "Tapdancing" Christ

You have got to be kidding me

brianlux

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!!!

pandora

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

brianlux

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?

pandora

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.”

josevolution

It has to be fact since she did use CAPS ON THE TITLE OF THREAD !!!!!!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

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.

pandora

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 :?

badbrains

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:

aerial

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

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?

Kat

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.