Now your first amendment is now a felony!!
- Thread starter chrisjp
- Start date
Argilbertson
Registered
you realize that this is a year old, right?
As much as I can't stand Westboro, it's a necessary evil in order to protect the free speech rights of all. Does this also mean Code Red would be prosecuted? When will we hear from the ACLU?
This will be challenged pretty quickly, and SCOTUS will strike it. Unfortunately, it wil have to be tried first...
This will be challenged pretty quickly, and SCOTUS will strike it. Unfortunately, it wil have to be tried first...
Argilbertson
Registered
HR-347 is a slight revision of a bill that has been in place since the 70s, namely title 18 section 1752.
Here's the original version:
18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
And the current revision, circa January 2012:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf
Here's the original version:
18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
And the current revision, circa January 2012:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf
Are you saying that this has been struck down in the past year ??? You don't care about your constitutional rights ??? This isn't a democrat / republican issue. Both parties were involved in this.
What were the revisions ?
Argilbertson
Registered
I don't honestly know myself...looking back and forth between the two version it doesn't seem like its been changed much, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm no expert. On the practical side of things, I haven't seen any real changes to demonstrations this year as to opposed to how they were policed and conducted before this bill went into effect, so I'm not sure what the difference is in practical terms. Either way, if it hasn't been struck down in a year, its not likely to be struck down.
From what I researched, it looked like it passed congress with a veto-proof majority, so though it could have been vetoed by the president, it would have been passed either way...not sure how I feel about that, I can see both good and bad scenarios for a "veto-proof" legislation.
From what I researched, it looked like it passed congress with a veto-proof majority, so though it could have been vetoed by the president, it would have been passed either way...not sure how I feel about that, I can see both good and bad scenarios for a "veto-proof" legislation.
Not necessarily. If it hasn't been enforced ........ someone arrested under the law, then it would not have been appealed and eventually gone to the Supreme Court, which probably takes over a year anyway. At least that's my limited understanding.
Anyway there's a reason i don't watch news
information broadcast 
Anyway there's a reason i don't watch news
information broadcast 
after i read the bill and its wording. i am not sure how "free speech" is applied here. as this bill more deals with interfering with government business or official function in a disorderly conduct manner. again. that is subjective but its not what i thought they portrayed it to be
SoCal Blur
Registered
Unfortunately, Fox news has turned into an entertainment program rather than unbiased news reporting that it used to provide a few years back. These days they tend to twist things to get the sensationalism factor. That report initially got my attention as well but after researching the bill, it was just Fox news up to their ol' tricks.
I guess they have joined the ranks
:shutup:
I would post but I've been silenced
I would post but I've been silenced
Similar threads
