My comments were in regards to the restricted "grounds." There is a difference, apparently between restricted grounds and restricted buildings in this statute since, well, the two are mentioned.
Fair enough. I suppose "and grounds" was added in the way it wasto cover outdoor events, like laying the wreath on the Tomb of the Unknowns, or going to a disaster site, but I agree it needs to be clearer what is covered by the phrase.
__________________ Do I claim that I am never wrong in what I've come to believe from my study of the Scriptures? Of course not. Then I would not be open to learning the truth when I still have so much more to learn. If I ever believed I knew all of God's truth, I'd be claiming to know the whole of God's mind -- I'd be, like Eve under the Serpent's influence, and like Nimrod, or whichever early king of Babel ordered the building of the Tower, and like the mad emperor Caligula, trying to become God
You all do realize that this bill only made a subtle change to a pre-existing law, right? Most of the verbiage in the bill is simply restating what was already in 18 USC 1752.
Everything being complained about here isn't new law. The only change is the explicit inclusion of the VP's residence, its grounds, the White House and its grounds.
That's it. If you're worried about this new law and that concern isn't related to one of those... you're not actually worried about a new law, you're worried about an old law that somehow hasn't reached the levels of oppression being theorized.
Ah yes, it would make it a misdemeanor in that case. Still a free speech restriction, which many will have problems with.
So is arrest for yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre, when there clearly isn't one. Same with threatening someone with death. Doesn't mean those restrictions shouldn't exist.
Linear Mode
