gg freedom

[wufwugy]

Congress passes a bill that makes protesting illegal

Austin-area Dem and GOP Congressmen back HR 347 attack on freedom of protest - Austin Civil Liberties | Examiner.com

[OngBonga]

You're free to say and do as you please, so long as you don't say and do what they don't want you to say and do.

[boost]

well, this is not good.

[rong]

America, fuck yeah!

[Micro2Macro]

lol

[mrhappy333]

Its a free country as long as you do as your told.

[BankItDrew]

wp u s of a

[givememyleg]

lol

yeah i mean, i can't really think of a better reply than this.

[BankItDrew]

i wish u guys would all just flood to the street to protest your stupid govt

[wufwugy]

Ofc Obama will sign it, SCOTUS will probably turn it down, but that will take over a year, probably several years, and they might just ignore it since 5 of the 9 are already bought

Meanwhile, people will be getting in serious jeopardy over protesting, and the coming elections will be even more relegated to the rich donors. Without the First Amendment and the internet, US will have no recovery from sliding down a path into a pseudo-North Korean world. Fact

[givememyleg]

this is real life, right?

[JKDS]

Stop smoking shit

The current Section 1752 Title 18 of the US Code titled "Restricted Building or Grounds" is as follows: 18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds | LII / Legal Information Institute

The Amendment to the code is as follows: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12hr347enr.pdf. You are directed to this website via Thomas, The library of congress

The difference is they make the section much easier to read, and clarify that the White House and Vice President's home count, which is ldo anyway. The part of the US Code I linked was last amended in 2006 (tea party/occupy movement occurred afterwards)

Thanks for making me go out of my way to actually read both though out of panic.

[JKDS]

If you dont trust Cornell for the US Code, you can go to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C84.txt . But that site sucks

[JKDS]

Just to clarify, both the US Code and the Amendment to the Code contain pieces such as

-Unlawful to enter or remain in a posted, cordoned off, or restricted area where the POTUS or any other person protected by the SS is or will be visiting

-Restricted areas including events designated as special events of national significance (super bowl last i checked)

-Willfully and knowingly intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or functions at such places

-Punishment is <1 year so long as no deadly weapons are present. In which case <10yr.

Looking at the highlighted grey areas in wuf's article in order

A) No it doesnt. You have the lawful authority to protest. The US code is < the US Constitution. Both versions say dont be an ass to officials though, like stopping them from exiting buildings or carrying out their business.

B) idk about trends, im not reading more law unless i get accepted to lawschool :/. I know enough that the Constitution trumps the US code though.

C) No it doesnt. At least since the 2006 version of the bill. Scan for the word intent, its in the same place in both the US code and the amendment

Again, no it doesnt. It has always been extended to places near SS protected ppl, at least till 2006.

D) No it doesnt. Knowingly impedes or disrupts engress or ingress (entrence/exit) and impeding or disruption actually occurs. Same as in 2006. Now if you do that...yes its a crime. Trapping the president in a building is obviously not lawfully right. Rather trapping anyone.

God im so mad that i just wasted my time looking this shit up. WTF

[BennyLaRue]

[wufwugy]

Thanks for that, appears you're not wrong. I missed an important revision on the first read through

Legal jargon can be ridiculously misleading. For example, all the stuff about the NDAA appeared to be much worse than it really is, and it took a while for any lay people to figure that out

[Jack Sawyer]

gg presidential protests in any case

[BankItDrew]

Thanks for that, appears you're not wrong. I missed an important revision on the first read through

Legal jargon can be ridiculously misleading.

+1