Public Forum

Posted 12 years ago on March 9, 2012, 7:22 a.m. EST by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Original Message From: VVV PR [mailto:vvvpr@vvvpr.com] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 7:22 AM To: 'natasha.lennard@gmail.com'

Subject: Implying HR 347 is no big deal because much of it was already law is like saying NDAA 2012 is OK because we already had AUMF 2001.

Re: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/the_inside_scoop_on_hr_347/singleton/

Natasha,

Implying HR 347 is no big deal because much of it was already law is like saying NDAA 2012 is OK because we already had AUMF 2001.

IronBoltBruce

http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/03/01/outlawing_occupy_hr_347_makes_free_speech_a_felony

6 Comments

Read the Rules

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

I trust the ACLU on this - do you ? http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU. We will monitor the implementation of H.R. 347 for any abuse or misuse.

Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 12 years ago

No.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 12 years ago

correct, because they've done what to stop the never ending barrage of attacks on citizens personal liberties?

cherry pick the high profile easy issues.........

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 12 years ago

Good Post

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 12 years ago

Original Message From: VVV PR [mailto:vvvpr@vvvpr.com] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 7:56 AM To: 'mvh@JusticeOnline.org' Cc: 'newsroom@salem-news.com'

Subject: Implying HR 347 is no big deal because much of it was already law is like saying NDAA 2012 is OK because we already had AUMF 2001.

Re: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march082012/hr347-clarity-mvh.php

Mara,

Implying HR 347 is no big deal because much of it was already law is like saying NDAA 2012 is OK because we already had AUMF 2001.

IronBoltBruce

http://salem-news.com/articles/february292012/hr-347-ibb.php

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink