"President Obama signed a Bill in secret making free speech illegal." Your thoughts??

2015-10-13T15:18:26-04:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKjy0PDlKV4

Obama signs bill 'in secret' making FREE SPEECH ILLEGAL!

And yet another 'bill' signed into law in secret. HR 347. Obama does it again. This time the attack is against the First Amendment and free speech. This new ...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 13 at 2015 3:21 PM

2015-10-13T15:21:40-04:00

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp

Did the passage of HR 347 make it illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present?

Response by CW3 Eric W. S. made Oct 13 at 2015 3:26 PM

2015-10-13T15:26:03-04:00

This is several years old, as it was officially signed on 8 Mar, 2012. It does not limit free speech, but makes protests illegal in the presence of the Secret Service. This is extremely bothersome, but like many other laws of this land, it will only be implemented and enforced when it is convenient.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 13 at 2015 3:31 PM

2015-10-13T15:31:09-04:00

Interesting idea SGT Michael Glenn
So HR 347 makes 'No Free Speech" Zones wherever the Secret Service says so. That sounds a little over the top so I dug into the H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 which passed virtually unanimously [3 votes against it]. The bill is focused not so much of free speech as free access :-)
"H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.
Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”
The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage."
https://www.rt.com/usa/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/

Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2015 3:32 PM

2015-10-13T15:32:10-04:00

Old and wrong news.
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."

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp#1m2GAbGIlMYT7xRB.99

Did the passage of HR 347 make it illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 13 at 2015 3:46 PM

2015-10-13T15:46:46-04:00

LOL... Fox "News"...

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2015 4:04 PM

2015-10-13T16:04:24-04:00

So easy to attack the source for some people, and dismiss something without further research. Snopes for example has already been called out for its bias and genuine lack of investigative power. I'll share a link first from factcheck.org (also notably biased), which essentially says the law has had no real revisions, but it does mention the change of one or two words. You're an NCO, so I'd imagine you're very familiar with the phrase "words mean things". While factcheck.org downplays it as "business as usual" and that it changes "nothing", it doesn't take a legal expert to note how much a few word changes can have massive implications. These words bring great subjectivity on what qualifies as a break in the law, and to me, an alarming amount of flexibility in how it can be used against an individual. While it's not literally an "attack on freedom of speech", it certainly seems to shift in favor of facilitating and act of suppression of said freedom of speech should someone chose to exercise the broadened and more vague nature of the law. I'll avoid disclosing my feeling about this individual or that within the governing bodies, but I will say that it is certainly inaccurate to suggest this was signed "secretly" as if executive powers were exercised in order for this to pass. Just because the media didn't highlight it, it doesn't mean it was done covertly. Likewise, just because Fox News may have highlighted certain implications, it doesn't mean they're incorrect to suggest the possibility of suppressing freedom of speech, when indeed the broad nature of the subtle does indeed allow leave room for it to be used that way.

There's a fine line between doomsday fear, and worse possible, if not exaggerated, scenarios being presented, and outright lies. If you really look into it, Fox is more often exaggerating, or going to the extreme real possibility, than outright lying to views, which CNN and MSNBC have been found to do routinely. Not exaggerating or stretching the truth, just blatantly lying. There's a reason they have shittier ratings, and it takes a Republican debate to bring their ratings up to any level that indicates a competent news source. I'd much rather take news with a grain of salt, that I can do some research on and get a more accurate picture, than news that leaves me with a pretty abysmal starting point. Anyway, here the Factcheck.org link
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/obama-criminalize-free-speech/
Along with some articles that says bit about these "fact checking" groups. Lots of salt on the side as you read any of this garbage.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
http://ivn.us/2014/07/11/how-reliable-are-fact-check-sources/
http://spectator.org/articles/56400/who-will-fact-check-fact-checkers

All in all, it's safe to say that enough subtle moves against the basic freedoms of US citizens, inevitably amount to something to be concerned about.

Obama Criminalize Free Speech?

Q: Did President Obama secretly sign a law that makes it a crime to protest against him or ask him a question he doesn’t like?

Response by SSG Gene Carroll SR. made Oct 13 at 2015 5:25 PM

2015-10-13T17:25:49-04:00

I can't wait till he is out of office, I pray the congress, senate and the American people will finally see the light to this and stand up and put a stop to this if they still want to call America the home of the Free.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Oct 13 at 2015 5:28 PM

2015-10-13T17:28:59-04:00

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 13 at 2015 6:37 PM

2015-10-13T18:37:51-04:00

This cannot be allowed to stand. Free-speech is guaranteed by our Constitution and paid for by the blood of those who fought to defend freedom

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Oct 13 at 2015 7:15 PM

2015-10-13T19:15:48-04:00

There is nothing to be alarmed over. Move about your business - Although I agree that we need to quit interrupting the government while it does whatever the government does, HR347 might go a little far in making this a felony. Penalties should be down-graded to a misdemeanor.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 14 at 2015 1:19 AM

2015-10-14T01:19:31-04:00

I have to watch the same news from about 8 different sources just so I can get 50% truth.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 5:40 AM

2015-10-14T05:40:47-04:00

Yeah because Congress would let thet slide. I wonder what new fallacy the U.S. will blame President Obama for tomorrow?

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 14 at 2015 7:06 AM

2015-10-14T07:06:47-04:00

I liked how in the beginning it's said that the president is doing this, and would have the listener think it's one of his executive orders. A few more minutes in, both parties agreed with this (with no congressional debate)?, yet we switch back to the president being the one who is responsible. Funny, but until I've actually read the bill, it's going to remain a comic skit on Faux News.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 7:07 AM

2015-10-14T07:07:25-04:00

Well... this just give secret service the power to arrest anyone if they just declare it is a restricted area. :) It is like the police can drop anyone in jail and they declare what is illegal drugs. Also, a felony for a trespassing violation too, that is pretty "strong" punishment ...

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 3:56 PM

2015-10-14T15:56:12-04:00

This is 2012 I believe and it is unconstitutional.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 6:51 PM

2015-10-14T18:51:29-04:00

Most conservative organization in United States ACLU has a different spin, from what I read it is more of a revision of an old law, second if these would be true then blame the elected officials who supported it and passed it in congress

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 7:42 PM

2015-10-14T19:42:52-04:00

Part of the problem is if you look at many sites, there are Urban Legends that are simply not true. For example, Jade Helm and the Walmart closings. The U.N. taking over in the USA in place of our own LEOs and of course protests too close to the President during special events.

On the flip side there is reason to believe that the President can order anything through executive action as he did with HCR, Immigration and Gun Control, not to mention some poorly thought our decisions that includes Climate Change which he knows nothing about.

Everything he does is said to be an imminent danger to the country and world but everything is done by fiat and arrogance, so much so that these theories abound the President makes fun of people's alarm and gloats over his accomplishments.

If you look at sources like WND, Glen Beck and others you get real headlines and then bogus ones that sell food in case President Obama declares martial law. Notice how he never responds to the nation to reassure the people that everything is ok? Only political statements and then presses on with his agenda. Americans are confused and suspicious and other presidents have been quick to quell inane notions.

Those sites that I mentioned make a lot of money exploiting fear and these publications and sources like Alex Jones never apologizes for misleading so many. I believe he was told to cease and desist regarding Martial Law. I believe that this was the right thing. But again the President is the leader of the free world and he must stop with statements in regards to Trayvon Martin and the right needs to stop assuming all criminals deserve beatings, shooting unarmed people in the back and possibly breaking the guy's back in Baltimore and I am angry over the guy who selling cigarettes dying because of a kind of police state.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 8:04 PM

2015-10-14T20:04:39-04:00

Enforcement will be carried out by black helicopters, but as long as you have a tinfoil hat on it will keep the signals out.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 15 at 2015 2:41 AM

2015-10-15T02:41:41-04:00

A quick Google search reveals this to be untrue.