Ya think ya have free speech well---

[outahere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...irzg&vq=medium

[Chase]

Why post this all over? I don't get it,.thus doesn't encroach on my free speech.

[Tralee]

Why post this all over? I don't get it,.thus doesn't encroach on my free speech.

The problem is making what used to be ordinary protest, by anyone, a felony, a jailable offense. You and I may never join a protest against some candidate, but, we need to protect the right of others to have the free speech option to protest if they want. This doesn't narrow the coverage to overt threats or anything like that, it will be up to the candidate and the SS to determine if your protest, non-threatening, is against the law and you can be arrested, tried and convicted and could serve time in jail for a felony. You would also lose your right to vote. Think about it. Do any of us really want this type of "Big Brother is Watching" law?

[Kid Lester]

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speec...g-protest-bill

So here's the deal:

If the Secret Service has a clearly defined restricted area designed to provide protection for someone, you can't knowingly be in there. It has to be well defined, otherwise anybody could claim they didn't know it was restricted and hence, are not in violation of the law. This law has existed for 40 years. The one difference now is, before, you had to knowingly be in a restricted area, AND you had to know that being there was a crime. Now all you have to do is knowingly be somewhere the Secret Service says you aren't supposed to be, whether or not you new it was criminal trespass, and you can be charged with a felony.

The Secret Service, and political candidates, have a sincere interest in providing and being safe. If the Service says they need a section of street or a hotel lobby cleared for an hour, I don't have a problem with that. Our right to protest has to be tempered with the legitimate need to protect people from random lunatics who might well be assembled within an unruly or unmanageable crowd of people. What's the point in having a Secret Service at all if they can't be allowed the means to reasonably safeguard people?

[Joe Walther]

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speec...g-protest-bill

So here's the deal:

If the Secret Service has a clearly defined restricted area designed to provide protection for someone, you can't knowingly be in there. It has to be well defined, otherwise anybody could claim they didn't know it was restricted and hence, are not in violation of the law. This law has existed for 40 years. The one difference now is, before, you had to knowingly be in a restricted area, AND you had to know that being there was a crime. Now all you have to do is knowingly be somewhere the Secret Service says you aren't supposed to be, whether or not you new it was criminal trespass, and you can be charged with a felony.

Ignorance of the law has never been a defense to violating it. In the past, the Secret Service may have "overlooked" things out of deference to legitimate ignorance of the law, but it was the agency's choice. They've made a decision not to take ignorance into consideration any longer. They've always had that option; only now they're exercising it.

The Secret Service, and political candidates, have a sincere interest in providing and being safe. If the Service says they need a section of street or a hotel lobby cleared for an hour, I don't have a problem with that. Our right to protest has to be tempered with the legitimate need to protect people from random lunatics who might well be assembled within an unruly or unmanageable crowd of people. What's the point in having a Secret Service at all if they can't be allowed the means to reasonably safeguard people?

I agree with you as do the rest of the 3-digit IQs in the country. However, I suspect that the point of the original post had nothing to do with starting a reasonable discourse on the subject and everything to do with stirring the troller pot by getting readers to infer this is due to the Obama Administration.

Mind you, this is only MY opinion; I have no direct proof. All I can do is survey the posts made by the original poster and point out a constantly recurring trend. I think it speaks for itself; but, others may well disagree.

By the way, where the hell have you been, KL. You've probably explained your absence in another post. However. I've been absent quite a bit myself over the past couple of months. Anyway, I hope you're back on regular basis; I enjoy reading your posts and replies.

[laserhaas]

Why post this all over? I don't get it,.thus doesn't encroach on my free speech.

Until this abuse of Liberty is overturned - This needs to be EVERYWHERE.

BTW - this is the 1st time I've seen this.
I hope the Law is not as Fox's "NO Spin" doth spin

But = if it is true - I am outraged.

[Tralee]

Joe Walther and Kid Lester make valid points. I have an issue with the space NOT being clearly defined. If this is going to be a felony, a serious charge, then there has to be a clearly defined space, easily seen and noted, or this will end up being just one more arbitrary law that can be abused, FOR EITHER CANDIDATE. Joe, I don't think this is aimed at Obama, it just happened on his watch. As KL said, all the candidates are due equal protection from the loonies out there, but if the "sacred area" is nebulous the law can be abused and THAT is what I have a problem with. A felony charge is not the same as getting a traffic ticket, it can have very serious consequences.