1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Anti-Protest" law enacted by President Obama to suppress right to free assembly

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by Prinnctopher's Belt, Jul 29, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    This is a commentary former Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in the Washington Times last year after the US Congress passed H.R. 347 - the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011" - what's being called an "anti-protest" law, which the President signed on March 8, 2012. It can be read here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text

    NAPOLITANO: Can the Secret Service tell you to shut up?
    New law protecting officials from hearing criticism is unconstitutional

    By Andrew P. Napolitano - The Washington Times - Thursday, March 15, 2012

    The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Speech is language and other forms of expression; and association and petition connote physical presence in reasonable proximity to those of like mind and to government officials, so as to make your opinions known to them.

    The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as stemming from our humanity. So, what happens if you can speak freely, but the government officials at whom your speech is aimed refuse to hear you? And what happens if your right to associate and to petition the government is confined to areas where those of like mind and the government are not present? This is coming to a street corner near you.

    Certain rights, such as thought, privacy and travel, can be exercised on their own. You don’t need the government to cooperate with you; you just need to be left alone. Other rights, including those intended to influence the political process, require that the government not resist your exercise of them. Remember the old one-liner from Philosophy 101: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make any noise? Here’s the contemporary version of that: If you can criticize the government, but it refuses to hear you, does your exercise of the freedom of speech have any value?

    When the framers of the Constitution wrote the First Amendment, they lived in a society in which anyone could walk up to George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson on a public street and say directly to them whatever one wished. They never dreamed of a regal force of armed agents keeping public officials away from the public, as we have today. And they never imagined that it could be a felony for anyone to congregate in public within earshot or eyesight of certain government officials. Yet, today in America, it is.

    Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. It permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.

    Thus, federal agents whose work is to protect public officials and their friends may prohibit the speech and the gatherings of folks who disagree with those officials or permit the speech and the gatherings of those who would praise them, even though the First Amendment condemns content-based speech discrimination by the government. The new law also provides that anyone who gathers in a “restricted” area may be prosecuted. Because the statute does not require the government to prove intent, a person accidentally in a restricted area can be charged and prosecuted, as well.

    Permitting people to express publicly their opinions to the president only at a time and in a place and manner such that he cannot hear them violates the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to useful speech - unheard political speech is politically useless. The same may be said of the rights to associate and to petition. If peaceful public assembly and public expression of political demands on the government can be restricted to places where government officials cannot be confronted, then those rights, too, have been neutered.

    Political speech is in the highest category of protected speech. This is not about drowning out the president in the Oval Office. This is about letting him know what we think of his work when he leaves the White House. This is speech intended to influence the political process.

    This abominable legislation enjoyed overwhelming support from both political parties in Congress because the establishment loves power, fears dissent and hates inconvenience, and it doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and just three members of the House voted against it. The president signed it in secret. It is more typical of contemporary China than America. It is more George III than George Washington.

    The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to assure open, wide, robust, uninhibited political debate - debate that can be seen and heard by those it seeks to challenge and influence, whether it is convenient for them or not. Anything short of that turns the First Amendment into a mirage.

    Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst on Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

  2. Daphna

    Daphna Well-Known Member

    Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I am not political in any sense of the word. I cannot wait to read the responses from those who are. :)
  3. meaningless-vessel

    meaningless-vessel Well-Known Member

    I think this will cause a lot more issues than it prevents. People having different views, will be obstructed - therefore devaluing Human Rights... Basically giving the Federal Government the slogan "our way or the jail way" - absolutely disgraceful.
  4. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    And this law came on the heels of the Occupy demonstrations all over the country.

    A "protest" in the United States, now, is basically a group of people yelling with signs, who are designated only to demonstrate in a little "free-speech zone" box, barricaded by armed riot police, away from and out of sight of the entity who is the object of the protest. In that little box, they can be free to have their little "protest". In a free country, people would be able to peaceably assemble and protest on any grounds as they see fit. That is the purpose of a protest - a visible demonstration objecting to the acts of someone or something on their territory by disrupting their regularly scheduled programming, until the issue forming the protest is given due attention and fair response.

    Forcing everyone protesting an issue into a box out of sight and out of mind is just pretending the issue doesn't exist - essentially dismissing the objections of a populace, depriving them of a right to be heard where other legal avenues have been effectively blocked. Now to make that protest illegal is in itself unlawful. I agree with the judge.
  5. Prof.Bruttenholm

    Prof.Bruttenholm Well-Known Member

    Alright, that is the straw that broke the camels back.

    I am done.
    I am not going to live in a world like this anymore.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.