Inside that new anti-Occupy bill

[xchrom]

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/the_inside_scoop_on_hr_347/singleton/


A protester is arrested at the White House in January, 2011. (Credit: AP/Kevin Lamarque)

In recent days, there has been a considerable amount of online speculation over a bill that made its way through the House and the Senate last week with little opposition — HR 347, or the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. Some have decried it as specifically anti-Occupy legislation with the aim to further curtail First Amendment rights. HR 347 makes it a prosecutable offense to knowingly, and without lawful authority, enter “(1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.”

This would, of course, include the areas restricted in Chicago for the NATO summit and Camp David for the G-8. However, concerns focusing solely on the passing of HR 347 seem to be a red herring of sorts, as most of its content has long been enshrined into law.

The new bill specifically addresses certain trespassing violations in D.C., which currently do not fall under the remit of federal law (i.e., HR 347 now makes it a federal issue if you trespass onto White House grounds). The only other significant change in the bill is a shift in language, which will make it easier to prosecute those who are found to unlawfully have entered these restricted areas. The law used to say that the person must have entered the area “knowingly” and “willfully.” HR 347, however, scrapped the “willfully,” which essentially now renders it a crime to remain in a restricted area, even if you do not know that it’s illegal for you to be there.

“By striking out ‘willfully’ they make it easier to prosecute under ‘knowingly,’” explained Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. She noted with some exasperation that the campaigns focusing energies against HR 347 miss the bigger, ongoing fight for basic free speech and threats to it, as this specific law is only an amendment to laws that were primarily established in 2006. For Verheyden-Hilliard, HR 347 is best understood as the government “looking at the tools in their arsenal and polishing them up” in time for major, protest-drawing summits and political conventions this year.

[ProSense]

1. According to

the ACLU, that claim is bogus: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002401129

[zipplewrath]

3. Not exactly

H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

They said it was significant, just not necessarily as significant as people are claiming. That's a bit different than "bogus". And it does mention this too:

Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

Which, really, is what everyone is concerned about here, OWS being "targeted".

[ProSense]

4. No

"Not exactly"

...it is bogus.

Title: Inside that new anti-Occupy bill

ACLU:

It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.

Not only does it link to the specific piece in the OP, but it doesn't require the ACLU to know that a 1971 law isn't a "new anti-Occupy bill"

As for the rest, the existing law could be misused. The bill was cleaned up and the President's and VP's residences added.

[Vincardog]

2. This "already law line" is BS. The constitution still trumps whatever the pet lawyers say.

[onenote]

6. Anyone who thinks that this law is facially invalid under the Constitution doesn't know much

about Constitutional law.

Could 18 USC 1752 in its current iteration (as originally passed in 1971 and amended several times since then) or the version embodied in HR 347, be applied unconstitutionally? Sure, but the same could be said about most laws. As has been pointed out, any suggestion that HR 347 is aimed at the Occupy movement is demonstrably untrue, given that pretty much this same amendment was introduced in the spring of 2009 (just a few months after President Obama was inaugurated) and passed the House by voice vote in January 2010. The Senate didn't act, so the bill was re-introduced when the 112th Congress convened in January 2011.

If the goal was to make it a lot easier to prosecute people under this law, why were the words "without lawful authority" ADDED to the existing law. Even more to the point, if you go back to the version of the bill introduced in 2009 and compare it to the version that passed this year, the word "with intent" was initially not included in one of the provisions as introduced but then added back. That's a rather odd approach for a bill that purportedly is aimed at making it a lot easier to shut down protest.

[bvar22]

5. Parsing out the term "significant" is a diversion.

Even the most hardened defenders of this bill on DU must admit that,
ultimately, this bill is another step to the Authoritarian Right,
and a further erosion of our Constitutionally Guaranteed Civil Liberties.
ANY movement in that direction is significant,
especially when viewed in the context of the last 12 years.

The rationalization that this is only a small step unworthy of protest holds no water.
The problem here is NOT one of Degree.
This is an ongoing problem of Direction.
Small Steps DO add up.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rationalizations.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[onenote]

8. First, convince me that its really a step in the direction you say it is

I don't think making it a federal offense to trespass on the WH grounds or VP's residence is a step to authoritarianism any more than I think it was authoritarian for the WH to be surrounded by a fence or to have locks on its doors or for the Secret Service to be created and given authority to protect the president.

As for the changes in the wording of the existing statute to remove "willfully" the significance of that is debatable given the fact that the bill ADDs the requirement that trespass not only be knowing, but also "without lawful authority" (a requirement not previously found in the law) and that the remaining sections require a showing of "intent" (which is what the "willfully" language did -- meaning that the previous version of the law was redundant and essentially required the same showing as the law will going forward.

[randome]

7. Not this bullshit again.

The law was originally passed in 1971. Calling it an 'anti-Occupy' law is yet another stretch of the imagination to make supporters of OWS feel persecuted.

It's bullshit.