Silencing Occupy: Big protests are planned. So is suppression

[marmar]

from the Portland Phoenix:


Silencing Occupy
Big protests are planned. So is suppression.

By LANCE TAPLEY | March 14, 2012


Get ready for the protests. Get ready for the warm American spring — and maybe a hot summer and fall. Vast economic inequality has not disappeared and, in a presidential election year, the supremacy of money in politics will be extravagantly displayed.

But if you protest, also get ready for "free-speech zones," "pop-up" restricted areas, National Special Security Events, and — with the signing on March 8 by President Barack Obama of HR 347 — a suddenly sharper federal anti-protest law. Despite American constitutional rights to speak freely, to assemble, and to petition for redress of grievances, suppression of protest is just as American.

HR 347's title, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, suggests court-house landscaping, but its true impact cuts much deeper. Without debate, it flew through the Senate with unanimous consent. In the House, only three members voted against it, all Republican, most notably presidential candidate Ron Paul. The brief debate featured jokes about the Super Bowl.

But after its February passage, HR 347 caught the attention of lefty and libertarian bloggers. They saw it as the end of the right to protest and the beginning of outright fascism — with Occupy in its crosshairs. Their reaction reflects a political atmosphere in which the Obama administration is justifying assassinating American citizens without trial as a necessary part of the War on Terror. ...................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://portland.thephoenix.com/news/135501-silencing-occupy/#ixzz1pQRi9J3e

[woo me with science]

1. DU Rec.

and — with the signing on March 8 by President Barack Obama of HR 347 — a suddenly sharper federal anti-protest law. Despite American constitutional rights to speak freely, to assemble, and to petition for redress of grievances, suppression of protest is just as American.

Read more: http://portland.thephoenix.com/news/135501-silencing-occupy/#ixzz1pQT6BEUf

The assaults on us by the one percent are bipartisan. Wake up America.

[RKP5637]

3. EXACTLY!!! "The assaults on us by the one percent are bipartisan. Wake up America."

[anti-alec]

7. that piece of paper that Obama scrawled his signature

is worth squat.

There's the matter of the U.S. Constitution trumping some federal law that tries to suppress freedom of speech and freedom to assemble.

[RKP5637]

8. Good point! A lot of this is over the top anymore IMO. When I was in school we learned one of

the great things about the US was freedom of speech and freedom to assemble. Once that gets eliminated much more, we will be up against a wall.

[woo me with science]

19. Well said. nt

[RKP5637]

2. Eventually, freedom, free speech and what's left of a democracy will only be a distant memory in

this country on its present course. Too many often think it only affects the other guy, the ones they feel are dissonant people, and then one day they wake up and find they are on the list too, and then it's too late.

[Bjorn Against]

4. There are far bigger threats to the right to protest than HR 347

HR 347 is a pretty minor change to existing law, if you read the actual bill it does not go nearly as far as many blogs have claimed. I actually doubt that any protester will be arrested under this law that would not have been arrested under previously existing law, it can only be invoked in certain circumstances involving people under Secret Service protection. There absolutely is some overly broad language in HR 347 which do represent a slow chipping away of our rights so it is bad bill, but on the list to threats to free speech it would not make the top ten.

The real threats to the right to protests are the increased use of riot police and weaponry against protesters, the closing of public areas to protesters, police surveillance of activist groups, these are all much bigger threats to our freedom than HR 347 is.

[bahrbearian]

6. You tear down a building Brick by Brick

You take away individual rights, Bit by Bit

[RKP5637]

9. That's the way I read it ... and we've been watching that since 911. Also, the security in the

streets is getting pretty strange. Here at just about every intersection now are cameras pointing up all the streets and a large globe type camera hanging from the light post. Those are also along the streets every so often. Then, at each intersection, is what looks like a microwave antenna about 1 ft square, and then some whip type antennas.

I've been watching this grow and grow across the county the past 1.5 years. It looks like some ultra-serious security is being put in place. I find it weird and uncomfortable.

[Bjorn Against]

10. I agree fully with that

I think HR 347 should be challenged, I just think it needs to be put into perspective so we don't get distracted from the worst abuses.

[Raine]

16. Yes, EXACTLY nt

[Zalatix]

14. The Soviet Union couldn't stop it. The US certainly won't.

But we're in for some very hard times, that's for sure.

[unkachuck]

5. "Get ready for the protests."

....I'm ready. I wiped my TV screen down today with Windex and paper towels....

"...suppression of protest is just as American."

....that's sad....I have a question regarding protesting....if pepper spray and tear gas are harmless and are used to disperse protesters, is it okay for protesters to use pepper spray and tear gas to disperse the police so they can protest per our Constitution?

[backscatter712]

11. Unfortunately, the pigs use gas masks, so it's hard to discourage them that way. n/t

[saras]

13. Oh, there's stuff that works just fine through the masks - lots of it

[RKP5637]

17. Remember what happened at Kent State - live fire on the kids protesting, May 4, 1970. n/t

[WCGreen]

15. I don't think this is only about OWS but also the tea party "protesters" showing

up to campaign events with loaded guns, the uruly nature of the tea party protests.

Both sides feel threatened by the people they have been elected to serve and have decided that free speech isn't as important as campaign contributions from large donors.

[Robb]

18. Interesting point. Expect it to be ignored.