![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There is hysteria on the Interweb.
Yes, I know, there’s ALWAYS hysteria on the Interweb.
In this specific case, it’s regarding the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, a bill passed by both houses of Congress that upgrades DC trespassing laws on restricted grounds (to include wherever POTUS happens to be at the time) to federal status.
Or, if you believe everything Addicting Info tells you, it gives the US govt the legal power to shred the 1A, ban protests and destroy the OWS movement forever.
So I took a look at it. And I’d say it’s more the former than the latter.
Maybe.
On the face of it, the bill is basically an update of already existing law that makes it a felony to trespass in restricted areas designated by the Secret Service where POTUS and VPOTUS are residing or visiting at the time. However, in DC, it’s only a local offense if you, say, try to occupy the White House lawn. The new law makes that a felony.
So it’s really not a major change in itself, and has virtually zero impact on the OWS movement (or the Tea Party, for that matter) in the sense that they haven't been camping out in those kinds of restricted areas. And if they’d tried, it would have been illegal under current law anyway.
Whether it should be illegal under current law is, of course, another matter. However, it's worth mentioning that the US Supremes have ruled numerous times that “time, place and manner” restrictions can be imposed on public demonstrations, as long as they’re reasonable. So in that sense, the new bill doesn’t make that big a difference.
Except for the legalese. The original law required that the offender “knowingly and willfully” trespassed in a restricted area. That’s now been changed to “knowingly”, which is a lot easier to prosecute.
Also, it’s been pointed out that the bill also applies to anyone who “knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions; ….”
The key phrase being “within such proximity to”. Whatever that means. 500 yards? A mile? Anywhere inside the city limits?
So it does seem to be worded vaguely enough to at least warrant a court challenge to see if it holds up under the “time, place and manner” conditions. But a direct and deliberate attack on the OWS movement?
Not so much.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer.
Only a bill,
This is dF
Yes, I know, there’s ALWAYS hysteria on the Interweb.
In this specific case, it’s regarding the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, a bill passed by both houses of Congress that upgrades DC trespassing laws on restricted grounds (to include wherever POTUS happens to be at the time) to federal status.
Or, if you believe everything Addicting Info tells you, it gives the US govt the legal power to shred the 1A, ban protests and destroy the OWS movement forever.
So I took a look at it. And I’d say it’s more the former than the latter.
Maybe.
On the face of it, the bill is basically an update of already existing law that makes it a felony to trespass in restricted areas designated by the Secret Service where POTUS and VPOTUS are residing or visiting at the time. However, in DC, it’s only a local offense if you, say, try to occupy the White House lawn. The new law makes that a felony.
So it’s really not a major change in itself, and has virtually zero impact on the OWS movement (or the Tea Party, for that matter) in the sense that they haven't been camping out in those kinds of restricted areas. And if they’d tried, it would have been illegal under current law anyway.
Whether it should be illegal under current law is, of course, another matter. However, it's worth mentioning that the US Supremes have ruled numerous times that “time, place and manner” restrictions can be imposed on public demonstrations, as long as they’re reasonable. So in that sense, the new bill doesn’t make that big a difference.
Except for the legalese. The original law required that the offender “knowingly and willfully” trespassed in a restricted area. That’s now been changed to “knowingly”, which is a lot easier to prosecute.
Also, it’s been pointed out that the bill also applies to anyone who “knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions; ….”
The key phrase being “within such proximity to”. Whatever that means. 500 yards? A mile? Anywhere inside the city limits?
So it does seem to be worded vaguely enough to at least warrant a court challenge to see if it holds up under the “time, place and manner” conditions. But a direct and deliberate attack on the OWS movement?
Not so much.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer.
Only a bill,
This is dF
