Hr 347

[johnnya24]

I'm not saying it is good or bad, just that people are mis-interpreting the law.

It does not in any way limit your ability to protest. The law is about restricted areas when a person under Secret Service protection is coming through. So if the Secret Service puts up yellow tape, you can be arrested for protesting inside the cordoned-off area (as you could before too; misdemeanor, unless you have a gun, which makes it a felony). You are completely free to stand behind the yellow tape and protest all you want. How does this law even apply to the usual "Occupy" movements? I don't think any of them would even by affected by this law. They were never protesting in any such restricted areas.

You could come up with any number of scenarios ... so you are part of a large protest ... and certain elements decide to hijack the protest and start trouble. In the mayhem and confusion you get dragged along with the crowd, and arrested when you inadvertently enter a "restricted area". The prosecution do not have to prove you were doing anything illegal in order to convict you and sentence you from between 1 and 10 years for your "crime". They don't have to prove you threw a missile, or assaulted anyone, or destroyed any property ... you were there "knowingly", and that is all the need to prove to get a conviction. Throw in a media circus and demands for convictions and you have a recipe for wholesale miscarriages of justice. What was the problem with keeping the law as it was a forcing the authorities to prove that you were guilty of willingly doing something wrong. Whatever happened to checks and balances?

[johnnya24]

Google News Search for "HR 347":

2 from the last 24 hours, 6 articles from 2 days ago, 22 articles from 1 week ago

Google News Search for "Jermaine Jones"

1914 in the last 6 hours

[senorsheep]

Google News Search for "HR 347":

2 from the last 24 hours, 6 articles from 2 days ago, 22 articles from 1 week ago

Google News Search for "Jermaine Jones"

1914 in the last 6 hours

I had to Google Jermaine Jones to see who he was...

[Mithrandir]

Oakland A's surprises me that he can't see the ramifications of government policies like this one. Stuns me that people aren't pissed off about this type of bs.

[Erik]

Stuns me that people aren't pissed off about this type of bs.

That's because of stuff like this:

Google News Search for "HR 347":

2 from the last 24 hours, 6 articles from 2 days ago, 22 articles from 1 week ago

Google News Search for "Jermaine Jones"

1914 in the last 6 hours

[OaklandA's]

Oakland A's surprises me that he can't see the ramifications of government policies like this one. Stuns me that people aren't pissed off about this type of bs.

Why? I think:
1) The Secret Service has a right, make that a need, to make certain areas restricted when protected people are coming through.
2) People who knowingly enter the restricted area, and cause a disruption, should be arrested.
3) People are perfectly free to protest as much as they want outside of the restricted areas.
4) I am a supporter of the "Occupy" movements, and I don't see this law as restricting their activities.

Again, H.R. 347 enacts no new laws, and enacts no new penalties. Only the laws for convicting have become a little more lenient, because the "willful" part was removed, which obviously is extremely difficult to prove. Did the accused know they were committing a crime? Sheep's ACLU article linked above frames the issue correctly, with the title "How Big A Deal is H.R. 347?", and the conclusion, "Not much, but it should be watched for signs of abuse or misuse."

If the ACLU is not making a huge stink about it, then I wonder why so many others are.

[johnnya24]

Why? I think:
1) The Secret Service has a right, make that a need, to make certain areas restricted when protected people are coming through.
2) People who knowingly enter the restricted area, and cause a disruption, should be arrested.
3) People are perfectly free to protest as much as they want outside of the restricted areas.
4) I am a supporter of the "Occupy" movements, and I don't see this law as restricting their activities.

Again, H.R. 347 enacts no new laws, and enacts no new penalties. Only the laws for convicting have become a little more lenient, because the "willful" part was removed, which obviously is extremely difficult to prove. Did the accused know they were committing a crime? Sheep's ACLU article linked above frames the issue correctly, with the title "How Big A Deal is H.R. 347?", and the conclusion, "Not much, but it should be watched for signs of abuse or misuse."

If the ACLU is not making a huge stink about it, then I wonder why so many others are.

Kinda why the burden of proof is always with the prosecution? To protect the individual from potential injustice? One of the major principles of any liberal democratic justice system?

If it's not a big deal why did they make the change? Imagine the kind of lobby pressure in the background that needs to happen to make a change like this ... why are they doing it, and why is it happening now?

The law was totally fine as it was. The burden of proof should always, and without exception, be on the prosecution. The only possible reason for enacting the change is to prosecute people without the necessary evidence that they have actually willfully done anything illegal.

The complacency with which some people are approaching things like this is really jaw dropping. People gave their lives to fight for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, ... the reason they are codified and so hard to amend is to prevent future generations for eroding these principles. Things like this and the NDAA 2012 are gradually chipping away at these fundamental rights ... and it's almost as if no one cares.

Judging by Google News, this has basically gone unreported in the mainstream press. I find that quite shocking on the one hand, but on the other, I'm not at all surprised. It's been a while since the media were an effective political check and balance.

[OaklandA's]

The law was totally fine as it was. The burden of proof should always, and without exception, be on the prosecution. The only possible reason for enacting the change is to prosecute people without the necessary evidence that they have actually willfully done anything illegal.

A serious question - what evidence can there be that someone knew that they "willfully" broke the law? If the protestor says "I didn't know throwing rocks at the President was illegal", how is it supposed to be proven?

[johnnya24]

A serious question - what evidence can there be that someone knew that they "willfully" broke the law? If the protestor says "I didn't know throwing rocks at the President was illegal", how is it supposed to be proven?

It's not. If it can't be proven then that's the end of it. If there is sufficient evidence that the defendant threw rocks at the president ... eye witness, photographic, video, forensic etc ... then they can prove it, and a jury of his peers will judge him. Otherwise, they can't ... and if they can't prove it, then there should never be a conviction.

This casual acceptance of incarceration without trial (Guantanamo & NDAA 2012) and now conviction without necessary proof is really scary. These are not just simple laws and rules that they are playing with. These are fundamental principles of the liberal democratic justice system: every man has the right to a free trial by a jury of his peers, and no man should be convicted without the necessary evidence of their guilt being presented.

[OaklandA's]

It's not. If it can't be proven then that's the end of it. If there is sufficient evidence that the defendant threw rocks at the president ... eye witness, photographic, video, forensic etc ... then they can prove it, and a jury of his peers will judge him. Otherwise, they can't ... and if they can't prove it, then there should never be a conviction.

I still don't think you understand what this law is about. All of that evidence (eyewitness, video, etc.) can be used to show that he "knowingly" did it. That is still required now too. Before this law, the prosecution had to show both that he "knowingly" did it, and that he knew that it was against the law. I ask again, how can the prosecution prove that the suspect knew they were breaking the law?

[Wonderboy]

I had to Google Jermaine Jones to see who he was...

Make that 1915 in the last 6 hours.

[Fresno Bob]

Can i invite the westboro baptist church to the white house?

[johnnya24]

Can i invite the westboro baptist church to the white house?

I suppose there is always the potential for a silver lining