"Obama Makes Free Speech A Felony".

Leere

Newbie
Mar 22, 2011
740
13
✟8,488.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So, one is only in violation if he (1) breaks into a secured building (or hides in a closet as the building is secured), (4) engages in a violent act while in a secured building or in what in legal parlence is sometimes called the "curtilage" (area surrounding the building not usually open to the general public), (3) blocks the entrances of a secred building building, or (2)"knowingly and with intent" engages in activity which actually disrupts government business or an official function or which is specifically designed to cause such disruption.

And it is only a felony if the person is armed or if the act of violence results in death or "significant bodily injury."

That does not remotely sound anything like the clip, which claimed that the Secret Service could unilaterally determine who and where Peaceable Assembly and Free Speech could be suspended, and charge people with felonies willy-nilly.
 
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
And it is only a felony if the person is armed or if the act of violence results in death or "significant bodily injury."

Actually that carries one sentence, you can be sentenced to up to a year otherwise. Section (2) of that part of the bill.

Some of the language is a bit concerning.

Section a-4 is reasonable. Violence bad.

The other sections do limit free speech in a way similar to those "free speech zones" we heard so much about. I'm not sure I completely agree with this.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Actually that carries one sentence, you can be sentenced to up to a year otherwise. Section (2) of that part of the bill.

If the maximum sentence is a year or less, it is not a felony. The clip stated you could be charged with a felony for simple peaceable assembly, or redress of grievances.

Some of the language is a bit concerning.

Section a-4 is reasonable. Violence bad.

The other sections do limit free speech in a way similar to those "free speech zones" we heard so much about. I'm not sure I completely agree with this.

So if someone is found hiding in a closet and carrying a gun when the building is being secured, nothing should be done? Just let him stay until he uses the gun? (Extreme example, but with a point)

On a less inflamatory note, how is this law any different from the laws in many states governing protests outside abortion clinics? ("Stay outside, don't block the entrances and parking lots, don't trample the lawn, don't intimidate those going inside, no guns and no violence.")
 
Upvote 0

SmellsLikeCurlyFries

Social Capitalist
Jan 22, 2012
4,727
76
32
Chattanooga, Tennessee
✟5,424.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
So if someone is found hiding in a closet and carrying a gun when the building is being secured, nothing should be done? Just let him stay until he uses the gun? (Extreme example, but with a point)

Pretty sure the Secret Service doesn't need a new law to take care of that. It's already their job to do that.
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
So if someone is found hiding in a closet and carrying a gun when the building is being secured, nothing should be done? Just let him stay until he uses the gun? (Extreme example, but with a point)

Is it illegal to hide in a closet with a gun?
 
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
If the maximum sentence is a year or less, it is not a felony. The clip stated you could be charged with a felony for simple peaceable assembly, or redress of grievances.



So if someone is found hiding in a closet and carrying a gun when the building is being secured, nothing should be done? Just let him stay until he uses the gun? (Extreme example, but with a point)

On a less inflamatory note, how is this law any different from the laws in many states governing protests outside abortion clinics? ("Stay outside, don't block the entrances and parking lots, don't trample the lawn, don't intimidate those going inside, no guns and no violence.")

You can be charged simply by disrupting, you don't need to have a weapon.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You can be charged simply by disrupting, you don't need to have a weapon.

But not as a felony.

And disrupting is more than just exercising free speech. It's actively interfering with the ability of the proceedings to continue.

Again, how is this different from laws restricting the activiies of abortion clinic protesters?
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,036
1,674
57
Tallahassee
✟46,060.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Obama makes free speech a felony? David Jerome, aren't you afraid you will be arrested for your comments? I mean, you spoke freely - and speaking freely is a felony! Yikes. I hope you have your affairs in order.
 
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
But not as a felony.

And disrupting is more than just exercising free speech. It's actively interfering with the ability of the proceedings to continue.

Again, how is this different from laws restricting the activiies of abortion clinic protesters?

Ah yes, it would make it a misdemeanor in that case. Still a free speech restriction, which many will have problems with.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Pretty sure the Secret Service doesn't need a new law to take care of that. It's already their job to do that.

Is it illegal to hide in a closet with a gun?

Vylo said that only the portion about violence made sense. So I chose an example (and admitted it was an extreme example) of something which, taking his statement at face value he would be OK with. I just wanted to see if he really was OK with it, or if he had been overgeneralizing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Ah yes, it would make it a misdemeanor in that case. Still a free speech restriction, which many will have problems with.

Yes it is.

But I never claimed it wasn't. On the other hand, the OP and the linked clip claimed that not only would these action be felonies, but all peaceable assemblies for redress of greivances would be anywhere the Secret Service was in the area protecting someone.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And it is a delicate balancing act in which we should err on the side of Freedom.

But the analyst in the clip did not think that the law traded enough freedom for security to excite the people against it, so he lied about what the law does. I simply pointed out the lies. I did not claim the law is good. I don't think the law is good. I would much rather live in a world without this law. But --

Some forms of "speech" to redress grievances do cross the line, and we need laws to deal with them. I am undecided about where to draw the line in this situation.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If the maximum sentence is a year or less, it is not a felony. The clip stated you could be charged with a felony for simple peaceable assembly, or redress of grievances.



So if someone is found hiding in a closet and carrying a gun when the building is being secured, nothing should be done? Just let him stay until he uses the gun? (Extreme example, but with a point)

On a less inflamatory note, how is this law any different from the laws in many states governing protests outside abortion clinics? ("Stay outside, don't block the entrances and parking lots, don't trample the lawn, don't intimidate those going inside, no guns and no violence.")


‘‘(a) Whoever—
‘‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building​
or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

I think the free speech objections, made by some here, is in regards to this specific language in the statute. I suppose the thought is the government could simply declare some area as "restricted" and thereby preclude people from using the area for expressive purposes. The difference between this statute and those laws regulating a distance outside of abortion clinics is the fact the latter generally is more specific because the restricted area is in relation to some fixed edifice, building, or structure of some specific kind.
 
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Vylo said that only the portion about violence made sense. So I chose an example (and admitted it was an extreme example) of something which, taking his statement at face value he would be OK with. I just wanted to see if he really was OK with it, or if he had been overgeneralizing.

Oh, my bad, I lumped having the weapon in with violence in my mind.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Oh, my bad, I lumped having the weapon in with violence in my mind.

So if the guy hiding in the closet did not have a gun, you'd be OK with it?

IIRC, about10-15 years ago, there was a fellow who'd broken into the private areas of Buckingham Palace several times while the Queen was in residence. On at least one of those occassions it was the Queen herself who was the first person to "catch" him. He was never violent, but does that mean that he or anyone else who is not armed and does not appear to be violent can just walk in?

I think the free speech objections, made by some here, is in regards to this specific language in the statute. I suppose the thought is the government could simply declare some area as "restricted" and thereby preclude people from using the area for expressive purposes. The difference between this statute and those laws regulating a distance outside of abortion clinics is the fact the latter generally is more specific because the restricted area is in relation to some fixed edifice, building, or structure of some specific kind.

But the law is quite clear what constitutes a restricted building: the homes of the President and Vice-President, a building in which someone with Secret Service protection is visiting, or a building in which a "special event of national significance" is due to occur. That seems clear enough.

Unless you mean that it does not specify exactly how far from the building the "grounds" extends. If that is your objection, then, yes, I agree that the law should be clearer. It should not allow whoever it is who designates a building "restricted" (and the law does not define who that is) to declare, for example, that the restricted "grounds" extend for a mile from the building in every direction
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Unless you mean that it does not specify exactly how far from the building the "grounds" extends. If that is your objection, then, yes, I agree that the law should be clearer. It should not allow whoever it is who designates a building "restricted" (and the law does not define who that is) to declare, for example, that the restricted "grounds" extend for a mile from the building in every direction

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.
 
Upvote 0