Your Elected Officials Just Kicked the First Amendment Square in the Nuts.

And don’t even think about whining about it. Source.

Here’s the text of HR 347, the festering shitburger your government passed and your president signed. Kids, this is no longer an issue of politics and which party sucks more. HR 347 passed with overwhelming support.

P.S. Did you know the G8 Summit this spring has been moved from Chicago to Camp David?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 11:40 am and is filed under Civil Liberties, First Amendment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

7 Responses to Your Elected Officials Just Kicked the First Amendment Square in the Nuts.

  1. Gary says:
    March 13, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    I have no idea why the G8 Summit would be moved to Camp David after the passage of this rights-crippling bill. Hell, all the gob-ment would need to do is classify Chicago, in toto, as a “restricted building” and arrest anybody within its borders. The fines alone would be enough to pay off the deficit.

    First, it was nice knowing the 4th Amendment. Now, it looks like so-long old pal, to the 1st Amendment as well. Alas, poor Yorick.

  2. Melinda says:
    March 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Moved G8 to prevent protesters, maybe? After all, the grounds are now off limits, so no picketing will be allowed.

  3. Kevin says:
    March 14, 2012 at 1:17 am

    It is a festering shitburger, but it’s not really a new one, is it? This bill amends an existing shitburger (18 USC 1752), but at least on the surface seems only intended to clarify it. Of course, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it screws us further in some way I’m not seeing yet.

    • Beth Hutchens says:
      March 14, 2012 at 10:24 am

      Oh, indeed. But I can’t help but think that the timing is too convenient with Occupy, the Tea Party, the G8 summit, and the pissed-offedness of the country in general. I think this may be more of a festering shitburger than the existing one. Maybe a sticky festering shitburger? With corn?

      Perhaps it will manifest in actual enforcement. Dunno, but I smell something on the horizon.

  4. Marino says:
    March 15, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Why use any of this fancy “law” stuff when you could just buy one of these?

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/weird-gun-future-attacks-words-not-people-193050045.html

  5. Joey says:
    March 16, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    ‘‘1752(a)(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the
    orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
    engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such
    proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so
    that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
    conduct of Government business or official functions”

    Now you can’t do this in any restricted area… what’s a restricted area you ask?
    1752(c)(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any
    posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
    1752(c)(1)(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.

    So let’s recap exactly what you can’t do. First we need to figure out where you can’t do whatever it is you can’t do. “or otherwise restricted area” seems particularly vague and easy to abuse; thankfully, the good people of congress thought of that and provided us with some clear language so as to put us on notice, thus satisfying due process. To clarify they tell us that we can have a restricted area in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance. Well, if that’s not clear enough then fuck you, you’re stupid. I’m guessing this means…. political speeches given by presidential candidates, political debates, G8 meeting, outside congress, outside the White House… really anywhere anyone would want to be to voice their political concerns.

    So what can’t we do anywhere we’d actually want to voice our political concerns?
    At least they left in knowingly (they got rid of ‘willfully’ from the previous version). But you can’t engage in anything that impedes or disrupt a government event… which as we’ve discussed is anywhere you might want to .. I don’t know… protest this, or any one of the million things that has turned this country’s politics into a global laugh factory.
    They do allow you an out though. If your action doesn’t actually disrupt or interfere with the event in question, you wont be sanctioned. So in order to protest a political atrocity and not get sanctioned… ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS NOT PROTEST!, and you won’t be sanctioned. Or you have to protest in a way that nobody notices so as not to disrupt or interfere with the event.

    My free-speech’s ball sack hurts like hell….