HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Rinsaikeru, Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Роберт » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:17 am UTC

It sounds like you can be charged with a felony for protesting in a spot where secret service agents are present. IIRC correctly, felons can't vote or own guns, so felony is a serious charge.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-761010?hpt=hp_bn1

Anyone know more about HR 347? Is it as scary as it sounds?

Spoiler:
On March 12th, 2012 at 7pm protesters from Occupy DC gathered at McPherson Square with the purpose of voicing their discomfort with the signing, by President Obama, of H.R. 347.



H.R. 347, also known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3 last week, and on Thursday it was signed into law by the President. H.R. 347 is a modified version of an old law which restricted entering or blocking public areas closed off by the Secret Service while an individual, under their protection, is passing through; The law also included major public events.



Occupy movements all over the U.S. are well aware of this law as it has been used to shunt protestors at major political events into “free speech zones”. Police may use this law at their discretion when events such as the G8 or other bilateral conferences are taking place.



The modified version added a few areas, within the District of Columbia, to the federally protected areas in the list. In addition, the new version got rid of part of the language from the original law, which noted that protesters were entering a protected area “willfully and knowingly” H.R. 347 deletes the word “willfully,” meaning that prosecutors no longer need to prove that someone knew what they were doing was illegal to convict them.



Given this, the Occupy DC movement felt as if the version of the law has been rewritten, specifically, to target their protests.



Approximately 80 protesters headed to the White House in what they called 'a silent march'; A few of them had put tape on their mouth to symbolize, what they feel is, an infringement on their 1st amendment. Heading down 15th st NW they made a quick stop by Freedom Plaza, where the other Occupy DC movement is, to attempt to get others to join the protest. They then headed to the White House where they decided to take out the tape covering their mouths and proceeded to actively chant as they extended banners reading: "Congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of speech or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" throughout the front fence. After 30 minutes they then decided to 'take the streets' and headed up on 17th st NW until they reached K st where they decided to lay on the road, blocking traffic, which prompted the police cars to quickly increase in numbers. As they marched eastbound on K street, they attempted to have an impromptu 'General Assembly' until a 1st warning-for arrest, was given on the intersection of K and 16th citing DC laws prohibiting the blocking of Federal roadways.



The protest ended back at McPherson square and according to a police spokesman no arrests were made in what, at times seemed, to be a potential escalating situation.
addams wrote:Politics is hard. I can't do it.
It takes a nasty Jr. High School Girl in a man's body to keep up.
Роберт
 
Posts: 3821
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 am UTC

I can't speak for the bill itself- though if your first sentence is an accurate summary, it's a terrible law, as it'd just allow the government to create anti free speech bubbles wherever it deployed members of one branch of the government- but at least with regards to felons and voting rights, that varies from state to state. Only two states (Maine and Vermont) don't place any restrictions on felons, some never allow them to vote, and the rest allow them to vote under various conditions, such as completing their sentence. I believe federal laws prevent felons from owning guns outright.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby pizzazz » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:59 am UTC

I'm 99% sure that convicted felons may not carry firearms or ammunition.

I'm not sure what they mean to do by deleting "willfully." It would seem to me that the article has the meanings of that word and "knowingly" mixed up. Deleting
"willfully" implies to me that being in such a place is a crime even if someone else forcibly put you there, which is just... bizarre. Just look at the sentence:
"H.R. 347 deletes the word “willfully,” meaning that prosecutors no longer need to prove that someone knew what they were doing was illegal to convict them." Perhaps "willfully" is implied.

But on the whole it does seem like a pretty poor law. I know the Secret Service takes their job very, very seriously, having dealt with it on multiple occasions. But there's no need to completely close off huge areas of space. It's not like they come close to controlling a large enough area to catch any possible gunmen (which would probably be impossible anyway). So yeah, this doesn't seem like a bill with the most honest intentions.
pizzazz
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Proginoskes » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Why does the government hate America?
User avatar
Proginoskes
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:07 am UTC
Location: Sitting Down

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:29 am UTC

They don't, they just think that they're America and not us.

Anyways, this doesn't seem like an acceptable bill. I don't know how malicious its intent is, but the authorities already have the tools necessary to legally diffuse protests when they actually become dangerous. They don't need to invent new ways to do it so that it makes their job easier at the expense of the rights of the protestors.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Chen » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:30 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote:I'm not sure what they mean to do by deleting "willfully." It would seem to me that the article has the meanings of that word and "knowingly" mixed up. Deleting
"willfully" implies to me that being in such a place is a crime even if someone else forcibly put you there, which is just... bizarre. Just look at the sentence:
"H.R. 347 deletes the word “willfully,” meaning that prosecutors no longer need to prove that someone knew what they were doing was illegal to convict them." Perhaps "willfully" is implied.


From what I can see, the only real change, aside moving some wording around, is that they removed "willfully" and now its just "knowingly" (before it was both). I honestly have no idea what that change even implies. I guess if you were kidnapped and brought to a restricted area you could now be charged...which seems somewhat absurd. From a cursory reading though that seems to be the bulk of the change but maybe I missed something.

Old law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752
New bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc112/h347_enr.xml
Chen
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Darryl » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:33 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote:I'm 99% sure that convicted felons may not carry firearms or ammunition.

Actually, in many states, it's not just that, but you cannot ever hold a professional license if you've had a felony.
So you can't be:
A doctor
A nurse
A teacher
A lawyer
An electrician
or even a barber.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!
Darryl
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Bharrata » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:41 pm UTC

From the article:

H.R. 347 is a modified version of an old law which restricted entering or blocking public areas closed off by the Secret Service while an individual, under their protection, is passing through; The law also included major public events.


The modified version added a few areas, within the District of Columbia, to the federally protected areas in the list. In addition, the new version got rid of part of the language from the original law, which noted that protesters were entering a protected area “willfully and knowingly” H.R. 347 deletes the word “willfully,” meaning that prosecutors no longer need to prove that someone knew what they were doing was illegal to convict them.


So the law has been in place for a long time to begin with....and now you can be prosecuted for it even if you didn't know about it...and all the hype is making it known to more people that this law even exists...which essentially makes more people know about the law....but people are still allowed to protest wherever they want, at least with a permit.


Do not allow my yawn to blunt your indignation. :roll:


edit: I'm curious though, is the breaking of any federal law considered a felony, if convicted, or is it just so for more severe crimes?
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby JBJ » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:56 pm UTC

No... not all federal violations are felonies. Not sure where protesting qualifies as a felony, as it's not enumerated anywhere in the bill text that I saw.

If a violation is not specifically referenced by class, then it can be classified by the maximum sentence described in the statute.

In this case, if a deadly weapon is used, or if the offense results in significant bodily injury, then 10 years maximum for a class D felony. Otherwise, the maximum punishment is 1 year in prison which is a class A misdemeanor. So, protesting (peacefully) in restricted buildings or grounds can only result in a misdemeanor charge. Seems fine to me.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.
User avatar
JBJ
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Роберт » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:34 pm UTC

Here's what Justin Amash (he and the Ronpaul voted "NO") put on his facebook page:
Spoiler:
On Thursday, Pres. Obama signed into law H R 347, which marks this administration's latest assault on our civil liberties. With bipartisan congressional support, the President also has extended the Patriot Act and has signed into law the NDAA, which allows him to indefinitely detain Americans on American soil without charge or trial. Atty. Gen. Holder also recently announced that the President may assassinate Americans if it's too much trouble to provide constitutional due process.

Here's what I wrote about H R 347 in February, following the vote:

Here's the roll call for the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate Amendment to H R 347, Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. The Senate Amendment does not make substantial changes to the House version of the bill, which I voted against a year ago.

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal. (It expands the law by changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)

Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity—even if that activity is annoying to those government officials—violates our rights. I voted "no." It passed 388-3.

To show you the extent to which the public is misled and misinformed about the legislation we are voting on, read one prominent media outlet's coverage of the same bill. The report mischaracterizes not only current law but also the changes proposed by the bill: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/h ... s-to-obama.
addams wrote:Politics is hard. I can't do it.
It takes a nasty Jr. High School Girl in a man's body to keep up.
Роберт
 
Posts: 3821
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Bharrata » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:40 pm UTC

Would deliberately sending let's say the Secretary of State into Zuccotti Park with Secret Service personnel to disrupt OWS by creating the grounds for mass arrests of protesters be considered entrapment or something to that effect? If it is, I'm still failing to see how this is anything but political hyperbole.
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Griffin » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:51 pm UTC

Isn't this just a slight modification of an already existing law, like it says? This has already been illegal for... a while. This isn't new - if anything, the new wording is a slight improvement.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.
User avatar
Griffin
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Роберт » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:Isn't this just a slight modification of an already existing law, like it says? This has already been illegal for... a while. This isn't new - if anything, the new wording is a slight improvement.

An improvement? How so? You did read the Rep's facebook post I quoted, yes?
addams wrote:Politics is hard. I can't do it.
It takes a nasty Jr. High School Girl in a man's body to keep up.
Роберт
 
Posts: 3821
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Bharrata » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:20 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Griffin wrote:Isn't this just a slight modification of an already existing law, like it says? This has already been illegal for... a while. This isn't new - if anything, the new wording is a slight improvement.

An improvement? How so? You did read the Rep's facebook post I quoted, yes?


Is that Rep the only authority on the validity and merit of the law, and is he trying to score political points?
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Роберт » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:31 pm UTC

Bharrata wrote:
Роберт wrote:
Griffin wrote:Isn't this just a slight modification of an already existing law, like it says? This has already been illegal for... a while. This isn't new - if anything, the new wording is a slight improvement.

An improvement? How so? You did read the Rep's facebook post I quoted, yes?


Is that Rep the only authority on the validity and merit of the law, and is he trying to score political points?

No, and yes. I'd still like an elaboration on how you think the changes are an improvement.
addams wrote:Politics is hard. I can't do it.
It takes a nasty Jr. High School Girl in a man's body to keep up.
Роберт
 
Posts: 3821
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Chen » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:47 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Here's what Justin Amash (he and the Ronpaul voted "NO") put on his facebook page:

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal. (It expands the law by changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)


I'm confused as to how this works. He states that its currently illegal if the person knows its illegal and enters anyways. Then he says that the new bill changes it so its illegal even if the person doesn't know. Yet the bill removes the word "willfully" but LEAVES the word "knowingly". I fail to see how this changes anything at all. You needed to "knowingly" be in the restricted area before and you still need to be "knowingly" be there after. Frankly willfully and knowingly are almost exact synonyms anyways so I'm not sure what the distinction between them is. Still I have to imagine if someone KNOWS something is illegal and does it anyway he's KNOWINGLY doing it, which kind of renders the argument in the facebook post moot.
Chen
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Bharrata » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:48 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Bharrata wrote:
Роберт wrote:
Griffin wrote:Isn't this just a slight modification of an already existing law, like it says? This has already been illegal for... a while. This isn't new - if anything, the new wording is a slight improvement.

An improvement? How so? You did read the Rep's facebook post I quoted, yes?


Is that Rep the only authority on the validity and merit of the law, and is he trying to score political points?

No, and yes. I'd still like an elaboration on how you think the changes are an improvement.


Well, I didn't say the changes were an improvement, merely that I didn't see how they were an erosion of civil liberties, but I'd say I have no problem with a law being revised such that the lawbreaker no longer needs to know of the law in order for them to break it, since (to my non-lawyer understanding) one does not need to know they are committing a crime to commit one, unless they are legally insane.

If one is peacefully protesting, what need would they have for restricting a government employee (elected or otherwise) from free movement through federal property?
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Metaphysician » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:38 pm UTC

Look, guys, you're all just being paranoid conspiracy theorists. I mean clearly this law will never be used to repress people, our government doesn't do that, you know, FREEDOM and stuff. They're just using it to protect important, powerful people. I mean we can all give up a little liberty to make sure powerful, important people are protected right? I mean honestly, if they aren't protected properly, then who would run everything and think for everybody? I mean, I know the good people of this forum are intelligent, but overall, Americans are stupid and need the government to take care of them. This small sacrifice to pay to make sure the good leaders of our country can feel safe wherever they are.
What should young people do with their lives today? Many things, obviously. But the most daring thing is to create stable communities in which the terrible disease of loneliness can be cured.
-Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
Metaphysician
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:58 pm UTC
Location: WV, The Tenth Circle of Hell

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Griffin » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:51 pm UTC

Your inability to be convincingly sarcastic is only rivaled by your inability to respond to points that people in this thread have actually made.

Who generally think the law being modified is bad, but that the modification doesn't actually make it any worse.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.
User avatar
Griffin
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Роберт » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:54 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:Your inability to be convincingly sarcastic is only rivaled by your inability to respond to points that people in this thread have actually made.

Who generally think the law being modified is bad, but that the modification doesn't actually make it any worse.

If you think the law is bad, than modifying it and making it ever so slightly broader would be worse. Erosion, I think, would be a good term for this subtle worsening, because it's something that's barely noticeably but over time adds up.
addams wrote:Politics is hard. I can't do it.
It takes a nasty Jr. High School Girl in a man's body to keep up.
Роберт
 
Posts: 3821
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Bharrata » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:05 pm UTC

I'm still failing to see how peaceful protesters would need what is prohibited in this law to petition their government.
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:01 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote:I'm 99% sure that convicted felons may not carry firearms or ammunition.

I'm not sure what they mean to do by deleting "willfully." It would seem to me that the article has the meanings of that word and "knowingly" mixed up. Deleting
"willfully" implies to me that being in such a place is a crime even if someone else forcibly put you there, which is just... bizarre. Just look at the sentence:
"H.R. 347 deletes the word “willfully,” meaning that prosecutors no longer need to prove that someone knew what they were doing was illegal to convict them." Perhaps "willfully" is implied.

But on the whole it does seem like a pretty poor law. I know the Secret Service takes their job very, very seriously, having dealt with it on multiple occasions. But there's no need to completely close off huge areas of space. It's not like they come close to controlling a large enough area to catch any possible gunmen (which would probably be impossible anyway). So yeah, this doesn't seem like a bill with the most honest intentions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/mo ... its&st=cse
I assure you, the NRA has spent years lobbying legislatures to give everyone the right to have a gun, and I do mean EVERYONE. They're doing a fine job of it by the way.
sardia
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby JBJ » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:08 pm UTC

By taking out "willfully" it basically removes the judicial requirement for a judge or jury to consider the intent of the accused, only the facts of whether they violated the statute. Since it's essentially a misdemeanor, at least as long as no weapons are used or assault takes place, there's no compelling need to establish mens rea. To that end, it actually makes it simpler. As for it opening up additional "restricted" places, this just in, not all government property is open to unrestricted public access, nor should it.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.
User avatar
JBJ
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby ConMan » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:28 pm UTC

Frankly I'm more concerned about the removal of "willfully" based on the interpretation that you can be arrested for being somewhere that you know you shouldn't but didn't do so of your own accord.

For example: Let's say you're taking part in a peaceful protest in a relatively neutral space like, say, a park. No bigwigs around, just trying to gather some support for whatever cause. Then suddenly, a bunch of black cars come up - the Vice President has decided to have lunch in the park! Secret Service guys are swarming everywhere, and because you know about HR 347 you *know* that it's now illegal to be here. Unfortunately, there's no way for you to *leave* the area quickly enough, and suddenly you're being arrested.

(I'm sure there are 1,001 things wrong with what I've just said, but I'm pretty sure there are other ways to construct a situation where you are knowingly in such an area but not wilfully and therefore lose protection under this bill, even without things like coercion.)
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.
User avatar
ConMan
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Where beer does flow, and men chunder.

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby lutzj » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:35 pm UTC

ConMan wrote:Frankly I'm more concerned about the removal of "willfully" based on the interpretation that you can be arrested for being somewhere that you know you shouldn't but didn't do so of your own accord.

For example: Let's say you're taking part in a peaceful protest in a relatively neutral space like, say, a park. No bigwigs around, just trying to gather some support for whatever cause. Then suddenly, a bunch of black cars come up - the Vice President has decided to have lunch in the park! Secret Service guys are swarming everywhere, and because you know about HR 347 you *know* that it's now illegal to be here. Unfortunately, there's no way for you to *leave* the area quickly enough, and suddenly you're being arrested.

(I'm sure there are 1,001 things wrong with what I've just said, but I'm pretty sure there are other ways to construct a situation where you are knowingly in such an area but not wilfully and therefore lose protection under this bill, even without things like coercion.)


Your best bet is that "found out 5 minutes ago and haven't had time to leave" won't fulfill the condition of "knowingly been there." More likely than not, the black suits would get there hours before the Vice President and secure the area, and you'd have a reasonable grace period to leave.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby JBJ » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:46 pm UTC

Maybe the issue should be phrased from a judicial perspective instead of a law enforcement one. The choice to enforce this law is at the discretion of law enforcement officers, and yes, giving them more options under which to arrest and charge people does enhance their powers. I don't see that being done here. The law already existed, and any situation that applied under the old law applies under the new one. And vice versa. Situations like the one you (ninja edit @ConMan) described could still happen under the old law. When it comes time to sort it out in court, does the new wording make it easier or harder to find justice? I think the new law makes it a little less vague. Describing the intent of the law in broader terms makes it easier, in my opinion, to apply to the individual situation.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.
User avatar
JBJ
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby pizzazz » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:12 am UTC

The fact that the law already existed doesn't complaints about it illegitimate. It could certainly be that not very many people knew about the law before this change. A law like this is heavily dependent on enforcement, and if certain reports are true, then the law is definitely being enforced in a manner that could be described as "oppressive."
pizzazz
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby JBJ » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:31 pm UTC

I wasn't addressing the legitimacy of the law, just the claim that it was an erosion of civil liberties. As for the legitimacy of the law, it basically does four things:
1 - Penalizes unauthorized access to restricted areas
2 - Penalizes disorderly conduct on or around restricted areas that disrupts the orderly conduct of government officials
3 - Penalizes the obstruction of entrances or exits to such restricted areas
4 - Penalizes any assault on persons in such areas

The restricted areas specified in the law are: The White House and grounds, the VP's house and grounds, the location where the President or others under Secret Service protection are visiting, and other buildings or grounds designated as a special event of national significance. Seems pretty reasonable to me as far as locations go.

It doesn't prohibit anyone's ability to protest. If you are permitted to be in the building or on the grounds of those locations, protest away as long as you aren't disruptive to the people who are there to do their jobs and don't assault anyone. If you're not permitted to be there, protest outside, again as long as you aren't disrupting the people doing their jobs and don't block the entrance or exit. The great thing about free speech is that you can say whatever you want. How you go about saying it is another matter. You don't have the right to make others listen, and you don't have the right to prevent other people from going about their business. That's all this law says.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.
User avatar
JBJ
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby pizzazz » Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:06 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
pizzazz wrote:I'm 99% sure that convicted felons may not carry firearms or ammunition.

I'm not sure what they mean to do by deleting "willfully." It would seem to me that the article has the meanings of that word and "knowingly" mixed up. Deleting
"willfully" implies to me that being in such a place is a crime even if someone else forcibly put you there, which is just... bizarre. Just look at the sentence:
"H.R. 347 deletes the word “willfully,” meaning that prosecutors no longer need to prove that someone knew what they were doing was illegal to convict them." Perhaps "willfully" is implied.

But on the whole it does seem like a pretty poor law. I know the Secret Service takes their job very, very seriously, having dealt with it on multiple occasions. But there's no need to completely close off huge areas of space. It's not like they come close to controlling a large enough area to catch any possible gunmen (which would probably be impossible anyway). So yeah, this doesn't seem like a bill with the most honest intentions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/mo ... its&st=cse
I assure you, the NRA has spent years lobbying legislatures to give everyone the right to have a gun, and I do mean EVERYONE. They're doing a fine job of it by the way.

Spoilered for OT
Spoiler:
Thankfully, they are doing a very good job indeed.
Quoted from your article: "(Under federal law, felons lose the right to own guns.)" So I couldn't have been too far off. It seems more that some states are working around the restrictions, and are the exception, rather than the rule.
pizzazz
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Chen » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:21 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote:The fact that the law already existed doesn't complaints about it illegitimate. It could certainly be that not very many people knew about the law before this change. A law like this is heavily dependent on enforcement, and if certain reports are true, then the law is definitely being enforced in a manner that could be described as "oppressive."


Do you have any of these reports? I'm having a hard time finding a history of abuse of this law (mainly because all the articles about the law are just new articles about the change). Doing some digging I've found from Bryan v. United States 524 regarding "knowingly" vs "willfully"

As Justice Jackson correctly observed, "the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law."[14] Thus, in United 193*193 States v. Bailey, 444 U. S. 394 (1980), we held that the prosecution fulfills its burden of proving a knowing violation of the escape statute "if it demonstrates that an escapee knew his actions would result in his leaving physical confinement without permission." Id., at 408. And in Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994), we held that a charge that the defendant's possession of an unregistered machine gun was unlawful required proof "that he knew the weapon he possessed had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a machine gun." Id., at 602. It was not, however, necessary to prove that the defendant knew that his possession was unlawful. See Rogers v. United States, 522 U. S. 252, 254-255 (1998) (plurality opinion). Thus, unless the text of the statute dictates a different result,[15] the term "knowingly" merely requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.


also

Instead, the trial judge gave this explanation of the term "willfully":

"A person acts willfully if he acts intentionally and purposely and with the intent to do something the law forbids, that is, with the bad purpose to disobey or to disregard the law. Now, the person need not be aware of the specific law or rule that his conduct may be violating. But he must act with the intent to do something that the law forbids."[11]


And later another definition for willfully
As a general matter, when used in the criminal context, a "willful" act is one undertaken with a "bad purpose."[13] In other words, in order to establish a "willful" violation of a statute, "the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.


It does appear willfully is more restrictive than knowingly. The thing is, since knowingly is still present in this law, it requires someone KNOWS that the area is restricted and that they are preventing government operation or the like. They don't have to know its illegal, but if the secret service were to put someone in an area, deem it restricted and not tell anyone, the people protesting would not "knowingly" be in the restricted area/preventing the person from entering it. I don't see any extra abuse that can be caused with this new change.
Chen
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Bharrata » Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:13 pm UTC

It does appear willfully is more restrictive than knowingly. The thing is, since knowingly is still present in this law, it requires someone KNOWS that the area is restricted and that they are preventing government operation or the like. They don't have to know its illegal, but if the secret service were to put someone in an area, deem it restricted and not tell anyone, the people protesting would not "knowingly" be in the restricted area/preventing the person from entering it. I don't see any extra abuse that can be caused with this new change.


But now my libertarianism is being infringed upon.
Bharrata
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Randomizer » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:23 am UTC

Outlaw Occupy: US set to strangle protests with jail threats
Occupy Wall Street tried to get started up again a day or two ago in New york, but met with police brutality and arrests. The police received death threats over Twitter and phone in response, which they are investigating. The video goes on to discuss H.R. 347, explaining protest-related crimes which were once misdemeanors are now considered felonies with up to ten years in prison. It says people have been charged with felonies solely for putting up posters/signs asking people to join in demonstrations. Only three elected officials voted against federal restrictions on protest.

The official summary of the bill says: "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance."

Record of the House vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll149.xml Amash, Broun (GA), and Paul voted against the bill. (30 people didn't vote)

In the Senate the bill, S.1794, passed with unanimous consent: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... L&summ2=m&

So... should we vote out the entire Senate this election, and most (at least) of the House of Representatives? I think I will - I'm pretty fed up here.
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.
Randomizer
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Chen » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:07 pm UTC

Did you read the rest of the thread? Particularly the last post I made trying to figure out exactly what had changed in this bill?

For reference, the protest related crimes that can have up to 10 year prison terms are if you break that law while committing violence or being armed. Otherwise its up 1 year in prison + fine, which is a misdemeanor.
Chen
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Cleverbeans » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:00 pm UTC

Chen wrote:For reference, the protest related crimes that can have up to 10 year prison terms are if you break that law while committing violence or being armed. Otherwise its up 1 year in prison + fine, which is a misdemeanor.


So peacefully protesting is only a 1 year sentence and a fine.... that's not reassuring in the slightest. The US already has the highest incarceration in the world, and now gathering peacefully is a Federal crime if the government has law enforcement on site. Glad to know the government now has the means to shut down criticism at will, without external justification. That's a healthy, functioning democracy right there... :roll:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln
Cleverbeans
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby JBJ » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:16 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:
Chen wrote:For reference, the protest related crimes that can have up to 10 year prison terms are if you break that law while committing violence or being armed. Otherwise its up 1 year in prison + fine, which is a misdemeanor.

So peacefully protesting is only a 1 year sentence and a fine.... that's not reassuring in the slightest. The US already has the highest incarceration in the world, and now gathering peacefully is a Federal crime if the government has law enforcement on site. Glad to know the government now has the means to shut down criticism at will, without external justification. That's a healthy, functioning democracy right there... :roll:

Actually, no. Peacefully protesting will get you absolutely nothing. Maybe a couple of dirty stares, but that's it.

Trespassing in designated restricted buildings or grounds will get you up to 1 year sentence and a fine. Obstructing the entrances or exits, or disrupting the business of others (disruption is kind of the opposite of peaceful) in those designated restricted buildings or grounds will get you up to a year and a fine.

Peacefully protest away as long as you don't do any of the above.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.
User avatar
JBJ
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Chen » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:37 pm UTC

And, as stated earlier the only real change was the removal of willfully from the law. All the other provisions (1 year or 10 year sentence and the like) were already there. I honestly couldn't find any real articles about this law being mis-used either and had asked if anyone else had any stories of it. Until I see that I'm not suddenly going to assume an old law is going to start being horribly abused.
Chen
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:18 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Do you have any of these reports? I'm having a hard time finding a history of abuse of this law (mainly because all the articles about the law are just new articles about the change).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Chen wrote:It does appear willfully is more restrictive than knowingly. The thing is, since knowingly is still present in this law, it requires someone KNOWS that the area is restricted and that they are preventing government operation or the like. They don't have to know its illegal, but if the secret service were to put someone in an area, deem it restricted and not tell anyone, the people protesting would not "knowingly" be in the restricted area/preventing the person from entering it. I don't see any extra abuse that can be caused with this new change.
What? No? What you quoted says the exact opposite. He had to know that he had a machine gun. Not that having a machine gun was restricted. For this law that means you have to know that you were in an area. Not that being in that area is restricted.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.
nitePhyyre
 
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Chen » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:40 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Chen wrote:Do you have any of these reports? I'm having a hard time finding a history of abuse of this law (mainly because all the articles about the law are just new articles about the change).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone


Only skimmed through that, but where exactly is the abuse of this law in there? I don't see anything about secret service protected areas and how this was in fact abused. I don't mean where was this law IMPLEMENTED, but where police or others used this law to essentially trick people into being arrested (or other abuse).

What? No? What you quoted says the exact opposite. He had to know that he had a machine gun. Not that having a machine gun was restricted. For this law that means you have to know that you were in an area. Not that being in that area is restricted.


Well the prison example included the "without permission" point. Even though at its simplest the action was merely "leaving the prison building" that in and of itself was not sufficient. For the restricted area case, the extension would be that the action they needed to know the facts about was "you were in an area without permission", not simply being in an area.
Chen
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:47 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:
Cleverbeans wrote:
Chen wrote:For reference, the protest related crimes that can have up to 10 year prison terms are if you break that law while committing violence or being armed. Otherwise its up 1 year in prison + fine, which is a misdemeanor.

So peacefully protesting is only a 1 year sentence and a fine.... that's not reassuring in the slightest. The US already has the highest incarceration in the world, and now gathering peacefully is a Federal crime if the government has law enforcement on site. Glad to know the government now has the means to shut down criticism at will, without external justification. That's a healthy, functioning democracy right there... :roll:

Actually, no. Peacefully protesting will get you absolutely nothing. Maybe a couple of dirty stares, but that's it.

Trespassing in designated restricted buildings or grounds will get you up to 1 year sentence and a fine. Obstructing the entrances or exits, or disrupting the business of others (disruption is kind of the opposite of peaceful) in those designated restricted buildings or grounds will get you up to a year and a fine.

Peacefully protest away as long as you don't do any of the above.


Also, in practice misdemeanor offenses almost never end up as one year prison sentences as giving out the maximum sentence is unusual enough combined with less of a fear of appearing soft on non-felons.
User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: HR 347: another erosion of our civil liberties?

Postby JBJ » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:01 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Chen wrote:Do you have any of these reports? I'm having a hard time finding a history of abuse of this law (mainly because all the articles about the law are just new articles about the change).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

The only one I could find of anyone actually arrested and convicted under this statute was Brett Bursey. You can read the ruling here. Not saying there aren't others, but this was the only one I could find details on. I see no abuse in the ruling.

tl;dr - This was under the old statute, during a Bush rally. The event was restricted to ticket holders only, Mr. Bursey was not a ticket holder, and he remained inside the restricted area after being asked to leave. So he technically was trespassing in a designated restricted zone. Pretty straight forward. As for selective prosecution, no evidence was presented that the secret service allowed other non-ticket holders to loiter. If that weren't the case, I would have thought the defense would be all over it. The ruling actually states that evidence was presented that the other people milling about either went through the screening into the actual rally or cleared the area when asked.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.
User avatar
JBJ
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Next

Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jseah and 8 guests