Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Goodbye First Amendmen - ‘Trespass Bill’ Will Make Protest Illegal

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 29, 2012, 11:23 p.m. EST by Reneye (118)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ Will Make Protest Illegal

Published by RT: 29 February, 2012, 02:13

“Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence. Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country…”

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

18 Comments

18 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

And this piece of crap was enacted by those who are supposed to represent the people, who under the 1st Amendment have the right to peacefully protest???? This is a complete outrage!!!

I hope the ACLU will immediately pick that up and try to get the Supreme Court to rule that unconstitutional. This is actually a much bigger deal than people realize.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

Reneye, this is a good find. You have been around for a while but why not speak out more and keep posting good articles like this?

[-] 0 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I have a tendency to get banned when I speak out as you have probably noticed, each time I get banned I have to alter the spelling of my name. Like a few others that I've spoken with privately here, when I get too close to the truth on certain subjects I get banned. So what I do is bring good articles to the table that help expose the criminals when I can. My time is also very limited.

There are many people here with great talents, and each is good at their particular brand of protest....and this is what I do best. Thanks again and happy posting : )

[-] 1 points by childseyes (85) 2 years ago

Geeeeee, is that what happens when movements use their constitutional rights but fail to act to defend the social contract that is supposed to guarantee them?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

The law (reading its text) is aimed at people who bring firearms in or near public buildings, where someone who is under secret service protection is located (implying, the president, former presidents, etc.). If it's over-broad, I'm quite sure this Supreme Court will strike it down.

[-] 1 points by martymart (2) 2 years ago

This doesn't surprise me at all. This is just my opinion but the people in power of our government want to keep that power and they will write and pass any laws they feel will help them keep that power. Also i feel they control the media and they try to distract us from whats really going on; sleight of hand if you will. Again just my opinion

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I really have a hard time understanding the House on this one. This wasn't a Presidential decree or something. This came from our elected representatives, and was only opposed by 3 votes!!!! They are afraid...very afraid of something...apparently We The People.

This is disturbing...very disturbing. I really hope the Senate votes this down. I'll be watching this one closely.

[UPDATE]: CRAP!!! I just saw that the Senate already passed this. So now this goes to Obama for veto or sign into law. If he signs it, this will be Treason on his part as far as I'm concerned.

[-] 0 points by sayNO2demm (1) 2 years ago

This is what happens when you vote democrat all the time. You want a dictatorship and to be slaves well be happy.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Sounds like you meant to say Republican.

[-] 0 points by corralled (23) 2 years ago

Bob Dylan acquired a confidentiality order in a fifteen year plagiarism law suit designating all discovery materials including fifty hours of incriminating to Dylan video taped depositions as confidential suppressing Plaintiff James Damiano’s first amendment rights to warn the public of Judicial favoritism and corruption.

Few artists can lay claim to the controversy that has surrounded the career of songwriter James Damiano. Twenty-two years ago James Damiano began an odyssey that led him into a legal maelstrom with Bob Dylan that, to this day, fascinates the greatest of intellectual minds.

As the curtain rises on the stage of deceit we learn that CBS used songs and lyrics for international recording artist, Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan’s name is credited to the songs. One of those songs is nominated for a Grammy as best rock song of the year. Ironically the title of that song is Dignity.

Since auditioning for the legendary CBS Record producer John Hammond, Sr., who influenced the careers of music industry icons Billy Holiday, Bob Dylan, Pete Seger, Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Ray Vaughan, James has engaged in a half a billion dollar copyright infringement law suit with Bob Dylan.

http://jamesdamiano.yolasite.com/

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yes, many hippies became narcissists ... sort of ironic.

[-] -3 points by nytefury (-57) 2 years ago

I can't imagine why this would be a problem. The Govt. wouldn't do anything to restrict our freedom. Obama is for the people and he is a good and honest man. Obama wouldn't make Americans buy a product and then fine them if they didn't. Obama wouldn't funnel guns to Mexican drug Cartels with the idea to use any negative incidents to further restrict our 2nd Amendment rights,would he? No, Obama would never conspire with Steven Chu and the EPA to help boost gas prices way over $5-$6 or more a gallon just to further his failed green agenda,would he? NO!!

So why would Obama allow the Congress to pull something like this?

Have more faith in our Messiah,blessed be Barry Hussein Soetoro, O-BA-MA,O-BA-MA,O-BA-MA!!

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Cut it out, you troll. Bush did bad things too. Leave him alone, you racist.

[-] 0 points by nytefury (-57) 2 years ago

Criticizing Obama doesn't equate to racism. You shouldn't be such a sensitive little wuss if you want to hang on this forum.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I've been on this forum for quite this time, longer than you I see, because I have more points. Provide me one instance in which criticism of Obama wasn't due to deep seated resentment of black people. You can't.

[-] 1 points by ogrdanny (73) from Grand Rapids Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I oppose Obama for his neoliberal policies and practices. I'd have voted for a real progressive, but most aren't allowed a viable ballot position, and the ones that are have to compete with well funded liars.

[-] 0 points by nytefury (-57) 2 years ago

You're joking right? The race card is lame,invalid and not going to work.

The fact that you play it still means you can't defend your beloved Messiah from all the legit criticism that is heaped upon him.

You're the only one who is seeing color and is mentioning race.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

So you don't notice the president's race at all? Grow up.