PDA

View Full Version : How Big Of A Deal Is HR 347 Criminalizing Protest Blll




rockerrockstar
04-04-2012, 11:20 PM
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill

slamhead
04-04-2012, 11:29 PM
I think George Clooney was probably the first person arrested under this bill. He was arrested by the secret service.

rockerrockstar
04-04-2012, 11:32 PM
Here is the pdf file of the bill that was passed by congress.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

I guess if Ron Paul supporters are in a crowd with campaign signs chanting Ron Paul near the national convention they could arrest them under this bill. If they were on the property.

rockerrockstar
04-04-2012, 11:39 PM
I think George Clooney was probably the first person arrested under this bill. He was arrested by the secret service.

Here is an article on the George Clooney arrest. I did not hear about that until you posted.
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_32efd28a-705a-11e1-9d08-0019bb2963f4.html

slamhead
04-04-2012, 11:43 PM
Here is an article on the George Clooney arrest. I did not hear about that until you posted.
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_32efd28a-705a-11e1-9d08-0019bb2963f4.html

Back when I heard he was arrested by the secret service I figured HR 347 had something to do with it. I am glad I am not the only one who connected the dots.

Xhin
04-05-2012, 02:25 AM
HR 347 doesn't criminalize protest; stuff like "free speech zones" has been on the books for a looooong time. What it does do is changes all references of "willing and knowing" to "willing". So yeah, if you don't know you're in a protected area, you still get arrested, and the Secret Service no longer has to notify you which areas are protected.

rockerrockstar
04-05-2012, 11:26 AM
I would think the Secret Service could just walk to where ever you are protesting so they can arrest you. That is the problem with this law.

timosman
03-13-2016, 10:23 AM
bump

Ronin Truth
03-13-2016, 04:19 PM
Kinda kicks in the head, 'petitioning governments for the redress of grievances'. :p :mad:

Zippyjuan
03-13-2016, 05:01 PM
This bill was an updating of an existing law, originally enacted in 1971, that restricted access to areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service.

HR 347 did not technically make it "illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present," as a law to that effect had already been in place for over forty years. The primary differences between the previously existing law and the updated version enacted by HR 347 are:

The old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter restricted buildings or grounds, now the law only specifies that one must "knowingly" enter such a space to be in violation of the law.

The updated version specifically defines the phrase "restricted buildings or grounds" to include "the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds."

Opinions vary as to the impact of these changes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp

Link to the original law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752

As the article in the OP notes:


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.


Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

So if you know you are trespassing, you can be arrested for trespassing.