Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests
from the chip-chip-chip dept
Don't you just love Congress, where almost no bills actually are what they say on the tin? There's some buzz building online about the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011" (or HR 347), which has been positioned as a simple updating of trespassing laws concerning federal grounds. However, as some are pointing out, hidden in there is quite the Easter egg that effectively outlaws protests near people who are "authorized" to be protected by the Secret Service (mainly the President and Vice President, but it could include a lot more as well). Only three Representatives voted against it, including Rep. Justin Amash who explained his concerns via Facebook:Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.The specifics of the law pretty clearly seem to make it a crime to do a standard form of protest, such as anything that "impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions" or just if someone "engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds...." As Amash notes, there can be times when it makes sense to protect certain individuals, but "disorderly or disruptive" conduct is a pretty broad brush... and it's one very frequently abused by law enforcement officials.
Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity -- even if that activity is annoying to those government officials -- violates our rights. I voted "no." It passed 388-3.
You know all those stories we've had about people being arrested for filming police? Quite often those people are charged with disorderly conduct -- which often seems to boil down to "that person did something law enforcement doesn't like." To then take that and say that anything that constitutes disorderly conduct on the grounds of a building where someone who is protected by the Secret Service is a crime, it appears to be wide open to abuse, and a pretty clear restriction on the free speech rights of anyone wishing to engage in normal and healthy protest of our political process.
On top of that, the punishment can be pretty severe. You can get up to a year in jail for being found guilty of these things, and that jumps up to 10 years if you are carrying a "deadly or dangerous weapon."
As Amash notes, there are legitimate safety concerns to be aware of, and there are issues with doing something that significantly impedes government regulations. But it's really not difficult to see how this bill could very, very easily be stretched to be used against those doing standard protesting against significant political figures.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: first amendment, justin amash, protests, secret service, trespassing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yikes
If I disappear after the first week of September, someone call the ACLU for me, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I said on twitter, the US needs to stop proposing new bills, revisit old laws and update them with their Constitution as their "Bible". Or simply kill the bad laws.
This should avoid quite a few bad bills and fix another bigger amount of absurds. Don't hold your breath though, this ain't happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I foresee neither in the near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
According to Wolfram|Alpha: Number of countries with population less than 2,266,800 = 98
According to Wolfram|Alpha: Number of countries on the planet = 204
So the US prison population is larger than the population of 48% of the recognized countries on the planet :\
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that anything like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess that would depend on the definition of "in the area of". Is the language specific as to distance? Otherwise "in the area of" could include, for example, line of sight. After all if it's about "protection" a mile away but still in sight is "in the area of" for a sniper, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it works out - could unify the world much easier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One step more obvious in a police state.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The bigger concern is "how much worse off will we be afterwards".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See...here's the thing. If you make protesting illegal, people are still going to do it, they're just not going to be nearly as nice about it. I mean if you can already put them away for 10 years, what's it matter to the less stable ones if it's 10 years for protesting or 10 years for slinging molotov cocktails at the cops? There's a tipping point in what you can do about protests, and I'm not saying this is it, but it's certainly taking a step towards it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"deadly or dangerous weapon"
Oh, sure, you can fight it in court...while you rot in a cell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if this bill passes into law, I doubt that Obama would sign it and if he does sign it, I doubt it will survive a court challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps you're unaware that Obama signs assassination orders against people with no charges against them? That he supports torture without charges? Or that he has lied across the board on his most important campaign promises?
You seem to think that the US political system is anything other than pure corruption, but it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: kenichi tanaka on Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 9:28am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this one over the line? Perhaps - but then again, making it unsafe for a politician to walk the streets or appear in public is also over the line, and something that needs to be addressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unsafe politicos
Let's remember: the reason we have the right the bare arms is to KEEP THE POLITICIANS SCARED OF US so they'll think twice before screwing the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
It was not to 'scare the politicians'
also, there is no amount of guns that you could possibly have to take on the USA military. I dont see how you could scare a politician with the USA military behind them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
Guns make it so it doesn't matter how strong, fast, rich, or powerful you are. With the right to bear arms all it takes is one nutjob or one disenfranchised person you stepped on to get to the top (pass your law, become a politician, get out of jail, whatever) that has $500 and a complete disregard for what happens to them to end you. Rich or poor, you're held accountable for pissing people off this way. Is it perfect? Nope. Not by a long shot. But owning that gun is an American right, and means that everyone sleeps equally poorly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
You were saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1770.htm
I'm not advocating violence, at this point I don't think it's close to necessary and I do think, if we can organize large protests and organize a way to get more people informed about how authoritarian and plutocratic our government is, we can peacefully compel our government to act in the public interest. But it's not going to be easy and it will take hard work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
That was part of the reason why we had a right to bear arms, but the most important reason is the following.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. "
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? "
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. "
All from Thomas Jefferson a great american. His thoughts and ideas are still good today.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110111114140AAfRkDn
Posted by deucedog
The founding fathers in general, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, were not ambiguous about the fact that the right to bear arms is to protect the people from government.
�The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.� The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. � Nunn vs. State 1846
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed � Thomas Jefferson
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops� � Noah Webster
http://gds44.wordpress.com/tag/right-to-keep-and-bear-arms/
Though that last quote by Noah Webster doesn't really apply so much anymore, partly thanks to government advances in military weaponry (ie: tanks, airplanes, etc...), and partly thanks to so many weapon regulations that ordinary people aren't really allowed to carry weapons powerful enough to collectively defend ourselves against our very powerful government if it so chooses to be oppressive.
I think it's kinda sad that our right to bear arms has been so eroded over the years and even the suggestion that we should have the right to more freely bear (more powerful) weapons is considered hearsay by the government and might get you investigated. Personally I don't own any weapons and I don't intend to, and I've hardly ever even fired a gun, but I still support people's right to bear arms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
> protection and to be shielded from the general public should
> such a person even be in government in any function at all?
Are you fucking kidding me? The idea that a president-- ANY president-- could function effectively without protection in the modern world is ridiculous.
No, needing a protective detail is not evidence that the president is a fuck-up.
Was Abraham Lincoln a fuck-up? How about John Kennedy?
There are people out there, many people-- from the dangerously mentally unstable, like John Hinckley who tried to kill a president just to impress a girl, to organized groups, both foreign and domestic, who would just love to lop the head off a superpower-- who will kill the US president in a heartbeat if given the chance and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the politician in question is a fuck-up or not.
Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
Yes and yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
> Yes and yes
Cute. Why do I get the feeling you'd respond that way regardless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
> as "we can't let the terrorists win". It makes for good rhetoric
> to pass something that is tangentially related to it.
Which has jack-all to do with the assertion to which I was responding. The claim was that any politician that needs Secret Service protection is by definition so fucked up that they shouldn't be allowed to serve in office.
That claim is so idiotic on its face, I almost didn't know where to start with my response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
They do it fine in Sweden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A entitlement world that we live in these days (think "I am entitled to pirate this movie because the price is too high") also has many other faces. There is also a mentality that exists (including here on Techdirt) that the minority can somehow dictate to the majority. When they cannot achieve it by democratic means (ballot box), they move on to more extreme measures.
"Getting in the face" of a politician has sadly become a more and more common thing. Confrontational politics, getting physically up close to someone and shouting your dislike of their policies is the new trend, and one that is very dangerous. It doesn't take much for it to go from protesting to shooting, especially in the heavily armed US.
It's not about "walking the streets" as much as planned events that are attacked, district offices taken siege, and people feeling that they can be entirely disruptive to get their message across, no matter how much that makes it unsafe for everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As has already been pointed out elsewhere on this page, there are already laws in place that can be used against people that are too disruptive. No one here is complaining that they won't be able to toss Molotov cocktails at Santorum anymore, because stuff like that is already illegal and there's nothing stopping the Secret Service from tackling and arresting a guy carrying a bottle with a rag sticking out of it. The issue is that the language of this bill could easily apply to people that aren't too disruptive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> cocktails at Santorum anymore
Actually, there are a few here who are heavily implying just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What some people are saying here is a bit troubling, but they wouldn't get what they want even if this bill is defeated. Nutjobs can already be stopped under existing laws. It's just protesters that can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is absolute nonsense. Laws that guard against assassinating politicians already exist, if someone is going to assassinate a politician the fact that it's against the law to obtain a weapon will not convince that person not to do it. That person already intends to break the law, what's another law that they are to break going to do? The only thing it will do is disarm law abiding citizens, criminals, by definition, will break the law regardless. and if they obtain a weapon through the black market, a weapon who's traded history mostly exists in the black market (because it's mostly illegal in the white market), it will be much harder for investigators to trace the origins and history of that weapon to find the killer in the event of a sophisticated and coordinated attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree, the mentality that a minority can somehow dictate a majority does exist on Techdirt. That mentality stems from IP extremists. Look at how extreme and one sided our IP laws are, 95+ year copy protection lengths coupled with a one sided penalty structure that encourages IP trolls to abuse the system. and all dictated by a small minority who negotiates these sorts of laws, like ACTA, in secrecy because they know too well that the majority doesn't want these laws.
Remember Creative America tried to start an astroturfing campaign to get people to sign a pro-SOPA petition? Remember how badly that failed? Very few people signed it, the MPAA inflated the numbers (even techdirt IP extremists were fooled being that not a single commenter even mentioned the MPAA's later (lack of an) explanation before the MPAA mentioned it because it wasn't at all obvious), many who did sign the petition later said they were fooled and demanded their signatures be removed, and the MPAA even resorted to paying people to get signatures out of desperation.
Yet signatures opposing SOPA reached in the millions in hardly any time.
The majority doesn't want 95+ year copy protection lengths, only a small minority wants our currently one sided laws. and this minority thinks it can dictate its wishes to the majority through secretive negotiations, campaign contributions in return for laws (Chris Dodd practically admit to this), and the revolving door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> streets, are the politicians themselves.
Yeah, Lincoln was such an asshole. He deserved it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't seriously think that eroding your rights for a new law that covers things we already have laws for can ever possibly be justified, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Deadly Or Dangerous Weapon"
And to be honest, how do I STOP carrying around my mind, the most deadly, dangerous weapon of all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Deadly Or Dangerous Weapon"
"Shit, there�s a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with; you could probably beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times couldn�t you? Or suppose you just have really big hands. Couldn�t you strangle a flight attendant? Shit, you could probably strangle two of them; one with each hand... you know, if you are lucky enough to catch them in that little kitchen area... before they give out the fucking peanuts you know? But you could get the job done... if you really cared enough."
He was speaking of airport security, but the basic concept is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA spying and the Momron Connection.
Persons like Senator McCain have been aiding and abetting the church to build those files. The fact that NSA is building a 1.3 million sq. ft. storage facility just 26 miles south of Salt Lake City to make files available to the Mormon Church as an augmentation of the files they have been building since the early 1970's is extremely worrisome.
Anyone interested can look at the full website:
www.americans-united-against-fascist-and-theocratic-government.org
McCain pushing for the legislation proves to me he is in bed with that conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSA spying and the Momron Connection.
(Thanks for the relevant comment by the way)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NSA spying and the Momron Connection.
Oh gosh, now I'm going straight to hell.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSA spying and the Momron Connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But a large - if not the largest problem - with the whole situation is that many politicians, 'law' enforcement agencies, and corporations refuse to follow the rule of law themselves.
It will only be time before this really sinks into the people - and they ask, "If they don't have to follow the rule of law, why do I?"
A Tyranny can only push so far; at a point life becomes almost meaningless once there are enough chains on people; then a revolt is well worth a try - and as history shows - often successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but as we can see on the 'religion' portion of that - government just outright ignores the rule of law itself.
You can argue about church/state separation all day - but the law doesn't state that in the literal wording - it simply states that congress shall make no law.
Problem is - politicians seem to not quite understand English well enough to know what "NO" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is pirate Mikey's fault!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A political smell test
If a bill seems reactive/puzzling, chances are it was written by a politician, and that the bill was likely written in response to something that happened 2-4 years prior.
In reading about this particular bill, what comes to mind are the photographs taken around 4? years ago showing openly armed men standing around a venue where the president was speaking. Police couldn't touch them, as the weapons were openly displayed - current laws only make concealed weapons illegal. I've no doubt they made authorities nervous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more information
As far as First Amendment violations, this would probably not be fully overturned as prohibiting speech or the right to assemble because protecting the President is a compelling state interest. However, a conviction based on peaceful protest would most likely be overturned on First Amendment grounds as applied, because, ostensibly, the law's purpose is to protect the President and the workings of the Government from interruption, not to stop peaceful assembly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more information
"would most likely"
"ostensibly"
Should a citizen have to bet his rights and actual freedom over an "ostensibly"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I now have wireless cameras in every room of my house at every angle,in and out, except for the bathroom...I can just tweet those details.I joined facebook and posted all my embarrassing photos and anti government rants and turned off all privacy controls.
I turned off my WiFI password and turned on onstar and had a new custom license plate made with my SS# on it.
Google has taken care of reading my emails for me and I now allow all tracking on my browser and threw away all my foil hats.
I ordered a new set of ball and chains with the new high tech look in a dark red color.(always want to be stylish while being interrogated)
Anyone know where I can get a good deal on really nice looking manacles?
Have I missed anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's a relative of mine, I'm proud of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If enough people protest, they can't put everyone in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reality of reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's probably saying this because whereas current law applies to persons who "willingly and knowingly" enter, HR 347 says just "knowingly." But from a legal standpoint there is no difference.
If you actually read closely and compare the existing law and HR 347, they are saying the same thing, the only difference being that it adds one thing.
The definition of "restricted buildings or grounds" is exactly the same as current law but HR347 adds to that "The White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds"
This does not significantly change existing law. It just extends existing law to the residences of the Pres and Vice Pres.
The current version of the law came into effect in 2006, and has been law since then. The main issues this article focuses on are already existing law. The punishment is the same in HR 347 as existing law as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next you'll be telling me the US goverment are corrupt... Nvm, they are,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]