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.

Agreed. Your government has been doing this for so long that this is just another example in a long list.

If whacked out "churches" can protest at the funerals of our soldiers, what makes a previous president's funeral any different?

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!

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. )

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well said.

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.