Trespass Bill Would Violate Peaceful Assembly Rights

[Legend]

The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests or civilian intrusions in any area where government officials are nearby, tearing away at the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

The new legislation would make it a federal offense for anyone to protest or assemble without permission on grounds where the Secret Service is protecting a government official or any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

The language of the bill is incredibly broad and open to the interpretation of prosecutors. Starting with making it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, the grounds or buildings included as off-limits even cover those that the President – or whatever other official protected by the Secret Service – is residing temporarily. It would even include a peaceful protest outside a presidential candidate’s concession speech, for example.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) was one of only three in the House to vote against the bill. On his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash wrote, “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.”

“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,” he added.

The bill already passed the Senate on February 6 and has only to be signed by President Obama to become law. The government already has inordinate ability to crush free speech, silence protesters, and arrest civilians peacefully assembling, but this legislation would mark the beginning of the end of the First Amendment.

Thoughts?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Legend

Thoughts?

Is the bill stupid? Absolutely. Is it the beginning of the end for free speech? Hell no.

[ACE]

Free Speech has always had some restrictions - you can't just say whatever you want, whenever you want. These are known as "time and place" restrictions.

A notable case - The Supreme Court upheld a ruling against anti-gay activists who protested at a fallen soldier's funeral. They basically showed up with signs that said the dead soldier was the result of gays in the military and it was God's wrath upon the dead soldier. The activists were removed but they filed suit stating their right to Free Speech had been violated. The Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, upheld time and place restrictions. This example was no exception. This is also why protestors at political rallies are blocked off - they can protest, but it must be in a gated area away from the main traffic.

I hate it when people insist this is a free country and they can say whatever they want. There is a time and place for everything. Let's be reasonable here folks.

Now, about this bill. I would see some correlation to precedent in that this new bill seems to clarify some of the time/place restrictions of past rulings, but it will be very interesting to see how the Judiciary will react if and when an issue arises (if this bill even passes). There are some issues with the bill that, in my mind, would get it struck down - the whole being punished for protesting around a government official you didn't even know was there is kinda over-reaching, and as past rulings have shown, the Supreme Court does not like over-generalized laws/statutes...

I don't see this bill doing much accept being fodder for people right now... it's hyperbole...