Not allowed to protest?

  • Get FREE 5 Gifts with Orders $59+

Not allowed to protest?

Badass Badass
Uh, last time I checked, I was living in the U.S.A., you know the country with that bill of rights that says we are free and can protest and speak our minds. As long as we aren't hurting anyone else.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Am I right? Do you follow so far...?

So when I read this..
link
I flipped a wig!

My question to you is, do you agree with the government taking away our right to protest?
Answers (public voting - your screen name will appear in the results):
I agree
I disagree too and will rant below!
Ghost , Lover of Leather , spunkmonkey , asphyxia , ViVix , MistressDandelion , K101 , Mwar , LavenderSkies , vanilla&chocolate , powerandintent , angel142stx , dv8 , Terri69
14  (67%)
I don't care...
Missmarc
1  (5%)
Other
Kithara , P'Gell , Woman China , padmeamidala , Airen Wolf , dhig
6  (29%)
Total votes: 21
Poll is closed
03/20/2012
  • Buy 3 Items for $70
  • Buy 3 Items for $50
  • Buy 3 Items for $30
  • Save 20% on Luxury Toys
  • Add Some Buzz To Your Favourite Toy & Save 60% On Kit
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
underHim underHim
I am totally against government involovement in every day life and want minimal involvement in things that are none of their business. I think people have the right to protest, I may not agree with what they are protesting and may flip them the bird as we drive past, but they have the right to do it (as do I have the right to show I disagree with them ) I do not think that the government should attempt to outlaw things like protests. That being said I have heard of some instances where people need to have some common courtesy and not protest at things like funerals, I think that is wrong. Even when someone I do not agree with dies, I would never consider that an opportunity to flaunt my own beliefs.
03/20/2012
Badass Badass
Quote:
Originally posted by underHim
I am totally against government involovement in every day life and want minimal involvement in things that are none of their business. I think people have the right to protest, I may not agree with what they are protesting and may flip them the bird ...
Of course a funeral is a terrible time to protest. But I think we should have every right to stand outside the post office or white house with signs saying what we dislike or what we are wanting.
03/20/2012
spunkmonkey spunkmonkey
It's been slowly happening for 100 years. And if OWS gets their way, the government will be in every part of your life, and you will have nothing to show for it.
03/20/2012
asphyxia asphyxia
Wow. This is alarming. I have to learn more about this before I go ape shit though. I'm hoping this isn't the massive assault on our civil liberties that it looks like.
03/21/2012
Kithara Kithara
I disagree, but I am not really one to rant. Sorry!
03/21/2012
Errant Venture Errant Venture
Quote:
Originally posted by spunkmonkey
It's been slowly happening for 100 years. And if OWS gets their way, the government will be in every part of your life, and you will have nothing to show for it.
Agreed. Your government has been doing this for so long that this is just another example in a long list.
03/21/2012
ViVix ViVix
Quote:
Originally posted by Badass
Uh, last time I checked, I was living in the U.S.A., you know the country with that bill of rights that says we are free and can protest and speak our minds. As long as we aren't hurting anyone else.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the ...
If whacked out "churches" can protest at the funerals of our soldiers, what makes a previous president's funeral any different?
03/21/2012
asphyxia asphyxia
That's where this quote comes in:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall

While I find Westboro Baptist Church to be some of the most vile and repugnant people on this planet, I am not in favor of giving up freedom of speech just because of those feelings.

Supporting freedom of speech means that EVERYONE is entitled to it, even those we really aren't interested in hearing.
03/21/2012
P'Gell P'Gell
I'm not happy about the issues and difficulties protesters are having in Chicago getting a permit to protest the NATO summit.

The Constitution clearly states that people have a RIGHT to protest anywhere. The whole, "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" thing is being overused.

However, I do have to investigate that President Obama claims the right to declare anyone a terrorist and then have them killed. It sounds a little like hyperbole. Also the article mentioned Security Operations having special privileges and that being due to President Clinton (in my mind, the finest administrator in my lifetime) He didn't cause the problems with protest that are happening and they seem to be more local than federal.

I do have to do more research before I comment further. I do have a big mouth, but I like to know the details of what I am talking about. And this one article isn't giving me all the info I need at the moment.

More later...
03/21/2012
asphyxia asphyxia
Quote:
Originally posted by P'Gell
I'm not happy about the issues and difficulties protesters are having in Chicago getting a permit to protest the NATO summit.

The Constitution clearly states that people have a RIGHT to protest anywhere. The whole, "Yelling fire in a ...
I definitely noticed the hyperbolic tone in that article, which is why I too would like to investigate further before reacting. I'm still working that. Even though I'm on spring break, I actually have a TON of homework I'm trying to get done... It's very hard with the news and EF and all my toys and my ADD... LOL!
03/21/2012
P'Gell P'Gell
Quote:
Originally posted by asphyxia
I definitely noticed the hyperbolic tone in that article, which is why I too would like to investigate further before reacting. I'm still working that. Even though I'm on spring break, I actually have a TON of homework I'm trying to get ...
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed it.

Good luck with your homework. One of my kids is in Grad School and is just swamped and was not happy during her spring break. (AFAIK, she doesn't test toys for Eden, though. )
03/21/2012
Woman China Woman China
We had a conversation in my classroom about America taking away all these "rights" that their citizens have. And it seems to me at least... that America is becoming more and more like China.
03/21/2012
T&A1987 T&A1987
it's a hoax everyone!

link

Considering the lengths andrew napolitano (not to be confused with HHS sec Janet) goes to for his arguments, ie making everything up, it show how strong his argument is.
03/30/2012
Petite Valentine Petite Valentine
Quote:
Originally posted by T&A1987
it's a hoax everyone!

link

Considering the lengths andrew napolitano (not to be confused with HHS sec Janet) goes to for his arguments, ie making everything up, it show how strong his argument is. ...
No, it's not a hoax. H.R.347 was signed by the President on March 8, 2012.

[italic|"Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] - 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."

The similar S. 1794: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 has already passed the Senate.
03/30/2012
T&A1987 T&A1987
Quote:
Originally posted by Petite Valentine
No, it's not a hoax. H.R.347 was signed by the President on March 8, 2012.

[italic|"Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering ...
so within a few feet of the president you can't scream racial slurs. there exist slight limitations on constitutional privileges to protect the common good. this is being made out to be a law eliminating fredom of speech when it's a minor provision of an existing law.
03/30/2012
MistressDandelion MistressDandelion
First control the internet then control the protests...
03/31/2012
Petite Valentine Petite Valentine
Quote:
Originally posted by T&A1987
so within a few feet of the president you can't scream racial slurs. there exist slight limitations on constitutional privileges to protect the common good. this is being made out to be a law eliminating fredom of speech when it's a minor ...
This is not a matter of "a few feet," this is whatever the Secret Service defines as the perimeter. For example, let's say the President is giving a speech at the Conservatory Garden in Central Park and a group of protesters decides to hold signs and chant at nearby Tavern on the Green. This law makes the protesters subject to arrest because they are on the "grounds" of Central Park. It doesn't matter that the Conservatory Garden & Tavern on the Green are about 20 city blocks apart.

If you think this law won't be abused in this manner, please recall the protests & arrests during the Republican Convention in NYC in 2004, when the Secret Service's powers were supposedly less.

This is not a matter of protecting elected officials — those laws are already in place. This is a means of limiting the voice of dissenters.
03/31/2012
Dreaus Dreaus
Glad to be Canadian
03/31/2012
Positwist Positwist
Quote:
Originally posted by Petite Valentine
This is not a matter of "a few feet," this is whatever the Secret Service defines as the perimeter. For example, let's say the President is giving a speech at the Conservatory Garden in Central Park and a group of protesters decides to ...
Actually, HR 347 is about forty years old. What was passed recently was a revision of the bill: the new bill doesn't care about state of mind. In the old bill, you had to knowingly and willfully violate the no-protest perimeter; in the new bill, it doesn't matter if you realize you're doing it or not.

That's a pretty minor change. People are pissed because they're discovering perimeter laws for the first time, probably.

This is, however, part of a larger trend toward limiting the right protest, usually enacted in small changes like this one (increasing the distance from events, created "free speech zones," etc). It's worth mentioning that these laws do mostly work in the service of the powerful, but they protect us, too. "Free speech zone" regulations keep anti-gay protesters relegated to some obscure corner during Pride events, for example. That's not enough of a consolation for me, personally, but it's worth noting.

Anyway, this bill is really uninteresting by itself. Taken in context, though, it's definitely worth paying attention to.
03/31/2012
Mwar Mwar
Sadly we live in a fascist aristocracy.
03/31/2012
LavenderSkies LavenderSkies
Quote:
Originally posted by underHim
I am totally against government involovement in every day life and want minimal involvement in things that are none of their business. I think people have the right to protest, I may not agree with what they are protesting and may flip them the bird ...
Well said.
03/31/2012
Petite Valentine Petite Valentine
Quote:
Originally posted by Positwist
Actually, HR 347 is about forty years old. What was passed recently was a revision of the bill: the new bill doesn't care about state of mind. In the old bill, you had to knowingly and willfully violate the no-protest perimeter; in the new bill, ...
The purpose of HR 347 is "to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code." It is not 40 years old, and the language concerning "knowingly" violating the law is still there.

This is the official summary:

"3/8/2012--Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on November 17, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [sic] - 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."

The full text is available HERE.
04/01/2012
Missmarc Missmarc
Quote:
Originally posted by Badass
Uh, last time I checked, I was living in the U.S.A., you know the country with that bill of rights that says we are free and can protest and speak our minds. As long as we aren't hurting anyone else.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the ...
Would it be cold to say that I don't care? I don't have much idealism about the US government. This seems all normal to me. From my point of view, there really isn't much "freedom" in this country or anywhere else.
04/03/2012
x203 x203
i hate the government sometimes.
04/17/2012
Total posts: 25
Unique posters: 18