yikes a petition against fascism

[konchog uma]

believe it or not petitions actually effect change, so i will post this here. thanks for dealing with it, i don't usually pass these on publicly, but i don't have a facebook or myspace or twitter so i wanted to do this here

 

Tell Congress: Amend "Anti-Protest Bill" to Ensure First Amendment Protections

Imagine an America in which the government can deny protest in any public space it deems fit. Where wearing a dissenting shirt around an elected official could be construed as a felony. Where First-Amendment protections become privileges subjectively doled out by the state. Sadly, that America is pretty much here.

 

In March, Congress passed HR 347, a bill that limits Americans' ability to protest in public and on government grounds. Mainstream media didn't raise peep, but now there's finally some anger building. The bill, passed almost unanimously, makes it a federal offense punishable by up to ten years in prison to "knowingly" protest in the vicinity of the Secret Service--that is anywhere the Secret Service "is or will be temporarily visiting."

 

It also makes many public events impervious to lawful protest. Any "National Security Special Event" (NSSE) requires Secret Service protection. NSSE-designated events have proliferated since 9/11 to include Super Bowls, concerts, campaign events, and now any public event that Very Important People want protest-free.

 

Most dangerously, it criminalizes protest. Under the bill, "disorderly or disruptive conduct" or activities that "impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions" could warrant felony charges. What constitutes such "disruptive conduct" rests in the eye of the beholder--or the eye of Eric Holder. To put it plainly: the government can decide where and when free speech is allowed and severely prosecute any "disruptive" activity, while we're confined to "free speech zones." We can help fix it, however! Join our petition below to protect our speech rights!

 

PETITION TO CONGRESS: We treasure our first amendment rights of free speech and public assembly! HR 347 limits valid arenas of peaceful public protest, and broadens the government's ability to curtail civil liberties. We demand that Congress amend the bill to provide clearer language as to what constitutes "disruptions"; to allow for reasonable, peaceful protest at NSSEs and around Secret Service; and to ensure that no peaceful protest can ever be deemed a felony.

Please, click here to sign now!

[GrandmasterP]

Kinda flies in the face of having a 'Secret' Service if folk know who and where they are.

[konchog uma]

i wondered about that to

[GrandmasterP]

Here in England we have government via politicians and policy-law same as elsewhere but we tend to ignore them as much as possible. Flow around, never resist; they can't engage with that strategy. Drives them to distraction it does.

[thelerner]

Here's a little more info from the ACLU 4/26/2012

What You Need to Know about H.R. 347, the "Criminalizing Protest" Law

 

By Gabe Rottman, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 11:35am

 

 

Last month, I wrote about a then-little known bill designated H.R. 347 and titled the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." The law, signed by the president in mid-March, expands an existing statute that criminalizes certain activity in and around areas that are restricted by the Secret Service.

 

Given the approaching protests, it may be worth providing a more detail on how exactly the law works, and what protesters can expect. Preliminarily, it's important to define one particular term in the law: "restricted buildings or grounds." These are specific geographic zones that have been designated by the Secret Service, and can be located under H.R. 347 in three places:

 

• The White House or the vice president's residence.

• A building or area where any individual under Secret Service protection is visiting.

• A building or area at which a National Special Security Event (or "NSSE") is taking place (more on that in a second).

Under the existing statute, four types of activities were illegal with respect to these zones, and remain so under the new law:

• You cannot "knowingly" enter or remain in a restricted zone without lawful authority.

• You cannot "knowingly" engage in "disorderly or disruptive" conduct in or near a restricted zone. A prosecutor would have to show, however, that you intended to disrupt government business and that your conduct actually did cause a disruption. Troublingly, the term "disorderly or disruptive conduct" is undefined.

• You cannot "knowingly" block the entrance or exit of one of these restricted zones. Again, however, the prosecutor would have to show that you did so with the intent to disrupt government business.

• Finally, you cannot "knowingly" engage in an act of physical violence against person or property in one of these restricted zones.

 

You'll notice that "knowingly" is in quotation marks above. This is one of the two major changes to existing law (the other is the extension of the statute to the White House and VP's residence). Previously, the law required someone to act "willfully and knowingly." This is the state of mind the government has to prove you had to establish your guilt (the "intent standard"). "Willfully and knowingly" means that you need to know you're committing a crime. "Knowingly" just means you need to be aware you're in a restricted zone, but not necessarily that it's unlawful.

 

(Incidentally, the punishment can be relatively severe. If you commit the offense with a weapon or if you cause injury (a felony), it can carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. Otherwise, the maximum is one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.)

 

There are a couple of other details worth noting to understand the full scope of the law. First, the Secret Service does not just protect the president and vice president. Rather, the agency has the responsibility for protecting the president, vice president and their immediate families; former presidents, vice presidents and certain family members; certain foreign dignitaries; major presidential and vice presidential candidates (within 120 days of an election); and other individuals as designated by a presidential executive order. If any of these individuals are temporarily visiting a location, this law kicks in.

 

Also, lots of attention has been paid to the National Special Security Events, which include things like presidential inaugurations, nominating conventions and even large spectacles like the Super Bowl. The Department of Homeland Security has massive discretion (which in and of itself is a problem) to designate one of these events as an NSSE based on things like the expected number of attendees and the presence of dignitaries.

 

So, what does this mean for lawful protesters? The honest answer is we simply don't know yet. These zones will hopefully occupy (no pun intended) a very small footprint at the three types of locations covered by the law. Also, these areas must be clearly identified to prevent protesters from inadvertently violating the law (or else they can't form the required intent). That said, the provision covering disruptions in or near the secure zones is of concern and could be misused to stifle lawful protest; same with the entrance/exit provision. These were already in the law, but the "knowingly" change could make them easier to abuse.

 

Get Involved

 

Sign the letter: Respect protestors' rights to free speech

Act Now

So far, we haven't seen any evidence that H.R. 347 specifically is being deployed aggressively by the Secret Service to tamp down on protests by Occupy or anyone else. That said, with the coming of spring 2012 and the November election, protest activity is undoubtedly going to grow rapidly. We'll be vigilant at the ACLU for any abuse, misuse or overuse, and we urge anyone who knows of any arrests or prosecutions under the new law to let us know.

[Aetherous]

Signed.

 

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

- Thomas Jefferson

 

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

- Thomas Jefferson

[Seth Ananda]

Got any facts to back up this statement?

Actually I have been quite suprised just how effective they are. I have been watching several on facebook the last few months, and it seems that because of the ease of FB petitions that they can get a mass of votes very very quickly, and surprisingly, the people who need to, Listen! Maybe some good can come of social networking after all!

The most recent one I saw was the banning of megga trawlers in Australian waters.

 

 

 

 

Edit: spell correction

Edited September 12, 2012 by Seth Ananda

[宁]

i've always been surprised at the almost appreciative voice tone of Discovery documentaries on fascism

Edited September 13, 2012 by 宁

[konchog uma]

Got any facts to back up this statement?

 

i get emails from petitions i have signed on a pretty regular basis saying "thank you we won!" or "this changed thanks to your support" et cetera

 

so i don't know if i have statistics (or damned lies, or even lies ) to back it up lol but i get a lot of thanks from people who are grateful for my support of causes

[konchog uma]

i've always been surprised at the almost appreciative voice tone of Discovery documentaries on fascism

 

yeah same with the history channel, aka the hitlery channel

 

its only funny to them cause they haven't been reborn in a slaughterhouse yet