No more free speach around Obama

dawny0826 said:

I'm not sure that I find this to be that big of a deal, based on how it actually reads. I'm not reading where it restricts the right to free speech. It's not stating that people can't protest...it's stating that you can't be in areas that are marked off limits.

I'm not seeing where the bill itself is stating that the White House or certain special functions will be off limits in an absolute way.

It seems to me as if the bill is in place to ensure that Secret Services can do its job to ensure security.

Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

That's how I read it too. It states that one cannot interfere with Government business, or be found carrying a weapon in the wrong places, but nothing about not being able to call any President a silver-spooned puppy.

tytlyf said:

Don't you say you don't watch fox?

Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of Fox's entertainment efforts, eg, Simpsons, X-Files, 24, etc, etc.
But I only watched their news show briefly, along with MSNBC. I thought a comparison was warranted.
Fortunately, that experiment is now over.....& my blood pressure is down again. Both so hard to take...ugh.

Your words and defensive stance are what leads me to believe that you do.

Click to expand...

You misjudge. I'm offensive.
When I see repetitive false criticism of Fox here, with the apparent purpose of demonizing the right, & sanitizing the left,
I might speak up. I'll also defend transsexuals, Catholics, Baptists, atheists, agnostics, Democrats, Publicans, JWs, Muslims,
libertarians, & even socialists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm one of them or a fan. Whether I am or not should
be irrelevant when we're discussing issues.

If you watched the OP video you would realize that this was a bill drafted by a Republican and found no difficulties making through the House and Senate.

Click to expand...

It looks like bi-partisan mischief to me.
Obama is a Democrat, right?

Want to be honest for a change?

Click to expand...

Now, now....play nice. We have rules here, you know.

Hevenly Heathen said:

That's how I read it too. It states that one cannot interfere with Government business, or be found carrying a weapon in the wrong places, but nothing about not being able to call any President a silver-spooned puppy.

Click to expand...

I think people get an implication from the text that a "restricted zone" will constantly hover around the secret service (and by extension, the president), allowing the law to be selectively enforced to prevent people from being near him.

T-Dawg said:

I think people get an implication from the text that a "restricted zone" will constantly hover around the secret service (and by extension, the president), allowing the law to be selectively enforced to prevent people from being near him.

Click to expand...

As long as they want to wear signs around their necks saying restricted area, then let them. I do see how one could push it to be selectively enforced, but let's hope that we have common sense enough to cry bull to that.

dawny0826 said:

I'm not sure that I find this to be that big of a deal, based on how it actually reads. I'm not reading where it restricts the right to free speech. It's not stating that people can't protest...it's stating that you can't be in areas that are marked off limits.
I'm not seeing where the bill itself is stating that the White House or certain special functions will be off limits in an absolute way.
It seems to me as if the bill is in place to ensure that Secret Services can do its job to ensure security.
Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

Reading between the lines, I see much room for interpretation. Government will always
tend to exercise more power than it's granted, & this bill makes for more flexible boundaries.
There's no telling how soon it might creep towards more restriction against legitimate purpose,
perhaps this administration, or perhaps the next. The right to protest is an important one.

Hevenly Heathen said:

As long as they want to wear signs around their necks saying restricted area, then let them. I do see how one could push it to be selectively enforced, but let's hope that we have common sense enough to cry bull to that.

Click to expand...

Nope, Americans traditionally lack either the common sense or the courage to do anything. Even if the President were to one day openly assume dictator-level emergency powers, you wouldn't have very many people rioting in the streets, you'd have people making forum posts and ranting on twitter.

In a country where any of the other three hundred million people could be an informant, do you want to be the first to stand up? What if you're the only one to stand up? Maybe you should stay quiet, and wait for someone else to stand up first. Never be the first one to speak up!
I remember seeing a comic demonstrating this mentality, with an example that involved sheep protesting getting sheared (and the leader of the protest getting the worst shearing of his life after his comrades fled in fear), but I don't know the name of the comic, so I couldn't find it :/.

I found the reaction contained in the OP to be more frightening than the bill.