Outlawing Occupy: H.R. 347 Makes Free Speech A Felony

I wonder if this includes TSA agents at airports stopping congressmen from boarding flights???

Little by little our rights will be taken. Because both the sheep on the right and left continue to fight for "their" team, they allow it to happen.

Its ok to assasinate citizens without trial. based on what the government tells you as fact.

Its ok to detain and imprison citizens without trial based on what the government tells you is fact.

Whats the point of our bill of rights if we just carelessly (*)(*)(*)(*) away our freedoms?

 

Does it address the deposit of fecal matter on the American flag?



Does it address the tossing of fecal matter on business owners?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utbwMuaSHtI"]******* protesters acting like monkeys throwing poo - BCRP LDD - YouTube[/ame]

Your right to free speech ends when you toss a turd on another....

Monkey Much??

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGvD5OSkJ_Q"]Monkey throwing poop - YouTube[/ame]​

 

What about shooting at the white house?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL7QRluEeEk"]Occupy San Diego Moment of Silence/Solidarity for W.H. Shooter!? - YouTube[/ame]​

 

What about Rape??

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKqzU3pS1Zk"]Mayor Bloomberg Cover-Ups Occupy Wall Street to NYPD Rape Cop Heroin The Bar E. V. - YouTube[/ame]​

 

It's not even that vague...

You know good and well that it's referring to something that's planned, not a maybe someday in the future visit...

And all this bill seeks to do is prevent the disruption of government function...

 

What about murder?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRZgOkEv7ZM"]Murder Near Occupy Oakland Filmed by D. Johnson - YouTube[/ame]​

 

it makes forcible trespassing on Federal Property a felony. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

 

I don't know that and don't trust them. Why should I?

Also, BVWC, I had to add you to my ignore list, the first post had a guy with his pants down which is NSFW here. I'm simply having to filter content. In either case you've gone on a mindless spam-a-thon and ignored the language in the legislation for the sake of your rant.

Freedom should be for everyone, especially those we don't agree with.

 

Come on...

It's very obvious that the bill is referring to a planned event...

If the section of the bill about the Secret Service were a somewhere sometime type of legislation, then no one would be allowed to ever be anywhere...

That's just ridiculous...

 

I don't want to get all tin-foil-hatty. But the last sentence you wrote is exactly where the slippery slope descends to. I hope I never have an I told you so moment.

 

If its referring to a planned event then they need to state it clearly in the bill. leave no question and then there will be none.

 

So, the word planned is necessary for something that should be obvious in context?

Wow...

 

Come on now...

It is beyond obvious what is being referred to...

 

The law is pathetic but it's a sign that the 1% and the politicians who do their bidding are afraid of the Occupy Movement. They should be.

 

Repeating it doesn't make it so.

This showing up in the same year as several other first amendment infringing pieces of legislation leaves me with zero confidence that it won't be taken out of scope. I don't trust these politicians, and certainly not with language that can be 'interpreted' one day.

 

How could you possibly interpret that as meaning anywhere the President or someone being protected by the Secret Service will be at any time in the future?

 

Let me trying using the phrase is a different sentence and in the first person.

I will have WiFi service anywhere I am or will be.

Which places will have WiFi? All of the places I am currently in or will ever be. See?

 

Yes, you dont go to court and say well, it should be obvious so I didnt include it in the court documents....

"your honor, I do in fact want custody of my children." I thought it was obvious so I didnt include it ........

 

Not even the same thing...

To try and say it is is dishonest at best...

That's a ridiculous analogy...

It is spelled out in the language of the bill...

It's not ambiguous at all...

When it says

it is very obvious that something like this would have been planned...

To claim that it doesn't it ridiculous...

 

It's the exact same phrase used in the first person. Exactly the same. It's not dishonest at all.

How's the broken record defense working out for ya?

 

It is not the same...

The bill says

and that is obviously referring to anywhere when they know in advance the President will be...

It's very dishonest to claim that it's an "anywhere anytime in the future" legislature...

 

I juxtaposed "is or will be" into the first person and you don't like that, but that doesn't mean you get to redefine the original phrase, the fact that it's open ended is undeniable.

 

I didn't redefine anything, and, the language of the bill is not open-ended...

You originally said

The bill says

Do you not see how dishonest this is?

 

He knows that. He will just play dense, spin the legislation, and then attempt to play games with mis-quoting people who don't align themselves with his irrational positions that he himself can't even defend logically and objectively.

Its how people with weak arguments debate.

 

It is very clear in the bill that the law only applies to those locations that have already been restricted. Meaning, that your freedom of speech does not give you the right to bust down doors in your attempt to express your opinion.

The presence of an elected official need not even be considered when reading the bill with exception that the presence of an elected official is reason for a posted restricted area.