Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago

President Obama Signs “Anti-Protest” Bill H.R. 347
 

By Melissa Stusinski
Posted: March 15, 2012


President Obama signed bill H.R. 347 (also known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) into law on March 9th, amid numerous protests from the Occupy movement, as well as other agencies. HR 347 is a modification from Senate bill S. 1794, which restricted people from entering or blocking public areas that have been closed off by Secret Service while a person under their protection is passing through. The law also included major public events, such as the Inaguration and Presidential campaigns.

The new law, which passed the House with a vote of 399-3, extends the original law by adding more protected areas within Washington D.C, and removing the word “willfully,” from the paragraph stating that protesters can be prosecuted if they enter the area “willfully and knowingly.”

Representative Justin Amash, R-Michigan, explains this change by saying:

“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 its illegal.”



Occupy DC protesters are calling the modifications an infringement on their First Amendment rights, because of the areas of D.C. that have been added to the protected areas portion of the act. Approximately 80 protesters organized a silent march to symbolize their Freedom of Speech being taken away–some even taped their mouths closed to visually show their feelings about the bill. The part of the Bill of Rights they are referring to is the following:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”



Michael Mahaffey, Representative Tom Rooney’s (R-Fla. and the man responsible for introducing the bill to the House) communication director dismissed concerns that the bill violates civil liberties by saying, that the protests against H.R. 347 are, “a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This (HR 347) doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever. ” He went on to say that, “… right now it’s not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn, this bill makes it a federal violation.”

What do you think? Is H.R. 347 a violation of our right to protest in the D.C. area, or is it merely an update to the bill passed in 1974 to further protect people under the protection of the Secret Service?


http://www.inquisitr.com/206017/president-obama-signs-anti-protest-bill-h-r-347/#7BzrdCxwAk2s7dT6.99 



Change we can believe in, yo!

Little men like Michael Mahaffey deserve to be strung up by their testicles and allowed to dangle until their tender bits tear through -- and then denied medical treatment.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 years ago
Yup. Goes to show a vote for Obama was a vote for Bush. Same crap. Only difference is Obama can speak. Yay. We got a tyrant, but at least we got one with speaking skills.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
13 years ago
Mahaffey is an (unprintable).

But the really scary part here is that the house vote was 399-3.

That just shows that we're as governed by fear now as we were when the Patriot Act was originally passed.

Anyone know who the 3 nay votes were? (I'm too lazy to look it up.)




And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
zombieslayer
13 years ago

Mahaffey is an (unprintable).

But the really scary part here is that the house vote was 399-3.

That just shows that we're as governed by fear now as we were when the Patriot Act was originally passed.

Anyone know who the 3 nay votes were? (I'm too lazy to look it up.)



Originally Posted by: Wade 



You can safely guess one of them was Ron Paul.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
Actually, Ron Paul voted against this bill in the initial vote, but he was absent (I am guessing on the campaign trail) for the final vote.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
I'm basing my comment here on the words, anti protest. Does this not go against the freedom of speech right??
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
13 years ago

I'm basing my comment here on the words, anti protest. Does this not go against the freedom of speech right??

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



There you go being reasonable again, Kevin. You know that's irrelevant.

I wonder....if I go on a tourist tour of the White House or Capitol, and wear a tee shirt that tastefully says something like "Obama Sucks!" or "Congressmen are Fascists", would I be arrested?

(Not that I'm interested in visiting either place in the foreseeable future.)


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
porky88
13 years ago
It's sad that the only bi-partisanship we get is something that hinders our freedom.
zombieslayer
13 years ago

It's sad that the only bi-partisanship we get is something that hinders our freedom.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



Now you see why I can't stand either of them.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Pack93z
13 years ago
The last flicker of my personal hope in the current democratic landscape that is America has been dashed with the current Administration, not only in Obama but a fairly balanced administration overall.

Again.. it doesn't matter the party in which they belong to. The last couple of decades of "leadership" (using that as loosely as possible) have stomped out any thoughts of this country rebounding back to the ideals set forth centuries ago.

While we certainly are more free than most other countries in the world.. we certainly are not free in the intent of the founding father and Constitution of this great nation.

We are puppets of greed and corruption that control the land and our government.

The people spoke, mostly peacefully in protest, yet instead of taking the message, they wrote a law to abolish the delivers.

The world more than likely will not end with the Mayan Calendar predicts, but I would have more faith the it might mark the end of the United States as we know it. Even though I think even that is premature, the masses still of years of frustration to go yet.

Attacking the flow of information upon the net, in the press, and now in the person. Attacking the voice of the people slowly but surely.

Be good little silent citizens and follow the plan. [puke]
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Fan Shout
dfosterf (53m) : Mackelvie
dfosterf (54m) : Michael Macelvie- NFL teams know how to draft- Why don"t they?
dfosterf (56m) : Youtube
Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers were not selected for the 2025 Hall of Fame game.
dfosterf (8h) : PFOW Out of our division would be a good thing imo
Zero2Cool (9h) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha
wpr (10h) : Tomorrow is almost here.
packerfanoutwest (10h) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?
packerfanoutwest (10h) : JW is done......stick a fork in him
Zero2Cool (12h) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.
packerfanoutwest (22h) : don't care
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?
packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat
wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.
wpr (22-Apr) : now 3
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?
beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.