H.R 347 could be making the First Amendment illegal

Tim McCown
March 4, 2012
http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-philadelphia/h-r-347-could-be-making-the-first-amendment-illegal
On Ron Paul's website it was duly noted that H.R. 347 could make the First Amendment illegal. No one is really covering this bill and the major media call it non-controversial. The innocent sounding bill titled The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 was passed Tuesday with only three dissenting votes including Ron Paul, and passed unanimously in the Senate. This bill dubbed the Anti-Occupy law was passed without one single Democrat speaking up for the first Amenndment.

Once this Bill is signed into law some including Ron Paul believe it will make it a felony to excercise your first Amendment rights of Free Speech. Several of those commenting opined that the nearly unanimous vote proves that despite all the posturing both parties stand shoulder to shoulder in their defense of the greed and entitlement of the 1% from the rest of us. When you couple this with the indefinite detention of Americans in the National Defense Authorization Act it is clear that Obama is part of a ruling corporate oligarchy and is surely no Progessive.
Among the controversial provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that is vague and open to interpretation that would make it a felony to enter or remain in an area designated as restricted. Because of the Secret Service protection at the national political party conventions this summer they could easily be declared restricted areas for the purpose of stifling dissent.

In addition, even a peaceful sit-in could be termed a felony if interpreted to mean blocking ingress or egress from a designated building. This section of the law could clearly be used to criminalize a broad range of formerly legal activities.

Defenders and apologists for mainly Democrats and Obama supporters claim this act is completely innocent and all of us who believe differently have drunk Ron Paul's Kool-Aid again. But a post on George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley's blog page notes that the imprecise languange, just as in the NDAA, creates risks and can most definately be seen as a threat to our First Amendment right to Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom to Petition our government. None of that is very comforting in light of the the Patriot Act and surveillance of and wire tapping of Americans.

Tonight you no longer need to be a conspiracy theorist to have real questions about whether we are becoming a police state.