H.R. 347 | Outlawing the Occupy Movement

[Reverend Rick]

Is it okay to throw a glitterbomb at Santorum?

I think he has secret service protection, I don't suggest it. Just for the record, dust1n, I think Santorum is a punk.

Religious folks who lean right are just a small part of the Republican party, they should have a voice not control the whole damn party. I guess Santorum was not informed of this.

This election will not be about social issues, I think we all know where each party stands on these things. To quote Bill Clinton, (and this is not aimed at you personally, but in regards to Santorum) " It's about the economy stupid".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is it okay to throw a glitterbomb at Santorum?

Never. :no:It's too pretty and too strongly associated with good things to be wasted on such a hateful person with such an ugly personality.

 

[dust1n]

What is a glitterbomb?

I ask because there are several different things refered to as "glitterbomb".

Your rights end where another's rights begin.
And I fail to see how throwing something at someone is not an assault....

A glitterbomb is only the most hilarious thing to take place between homosexuals and Republican presidential canindates ever, and I doubt it could be considered assault, as there no intention to intimidate or whatnot.

[youtube]tPMYDczwyU8[/youtube]
Raw Video: Santorum Glitter Bombed in Iowa - YouTube

[youtube]LSb3kTA6vVI[/youtube]
Raw Video: Gingrich Hit With Glitter in Minn. - YouTube

Anyways, I bring it, because there are the situations where...


‘‘(a) Whoever—...

‘‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt
the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted​

building or grounds;...

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided

in subsection (b)....​

‘‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—​

‘‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 10 years, or both, if—​

‘‘(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense,
uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm;​

or​

‘‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as
defined by section 2118(e**3); and​

‘‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more​

than one year, or both, in any other case...


If a Santorum rally has been distinguished by the president to be of highly sensitive (as it has been), than is a glitterbomb a knowing impedement of government business and can it result in a fine or imprisonment for no more than one year. Glitterbombers are obviosuly going to be removed everytime. But possibly imprisoned?

Perhaps there is something in the language that I'm missing, but this seems to be of concern to three representatives who voted no on the bill.

 

[dust1n]

I think he has secret service protection, I don't suggest it. Just for the record, dust1n, I think Santorum is a punk.

Religious folks who lean right are just a small part of the Republican party, they should have a voice not control the whole damn party. I guess Santorum was not informed of this.

This election will not be about social issues, I think we all know where each party stands on these things. To quote Bill Clinton, (and this is not aimed at you personally, but in regards to Santorum) " It's about the economy stupid".

I'm not sure what you were responding to regarding me? I know Santorum is a joke. But, he is on the secret service protection, and as a result, 'disrupting government business' seems like glitter throwing would be covered, and while I think it's highly unlikely we will encounter a legal case that results negatively, I do place a bit of concern, and do regard a vaguely word part of a bill a worry if I can be intrepeted in some retarded case to convict some idiot kid to jail time.

 

[HonestJoe]

I do place a bit of concern, and do regard a vaguely word part of a bill a worry if I can be intrepeted in some retarded case to convict some idiot kid to jail time.

Hardly kids. Both "protestors" in those examples appear to be adult, physiolgically at least. I agree with the fundamental principals they appear to be promoting but I feel their methods are petty, childish and counter-productive.

I don't think they should be imprisoned and I don't think the legalisation linked in the OP would allow them to be. I've absolutely no issue with them being stopped from attacking other people though. As I see it, they're the ones trying to disrupt free speech.

 

[dust1n]

Hardly kids. Both "protestors" in those examples appear to be adult, physiolgically at least. I agree with the fundamental principals they appear to be promoting but I feel their methods are petty, childish and counter-productive.

Eh, sorry, kid around here can be referring to just about anyone.

I don't think they should be imprisoned and I don't think the legalisation linked in the OP would allow them to be. I've absolutely no issue with them being stopped from attacking other people though. As I see it, they're the ones trying to disrupt free speech.

We are in complete agreeance here. But, like I said, if the wording does allow for it, than all it takes is one bad decision on any judge's part and a reference to this law in order to prosecute on a protestor... And at G8 meetings? There is no where in the world you can hold a G8 meeting and not expect direct action from non-violent protestors... they are usually arrestted, but the majority of the time, charging them is extremely difficult... it would be a little easier as a prosecutor to resort to this bill to arrest protesters than the normal charges usually utilized, no?

 

[Iti oj]

what did you expect? do you really think the one percent is gonna let a serious political movement by the people, for the people..truly breathe......a movement that is growing into a international wave..and whose intent is to bridge the gap between the greedy rich and the rest of us....lol..you must be kidding.

growing?.... it started over seas....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We are in complete agreeance here. But, like I said, if the wording does allow for it, than all it takes is one bad decision on any judge's part and a reference to this law in order to prosecute on a protestor... And at G8 meetings? There is no where in the world you can hold a G8 meeting and not expect direct action from non-violent protestors... they are usually arrestted, but the majority of the time, charging them is extremely difficult... it would be a little easier as a prosecutor to resort to this bill to arrest protesters than the normal charges usually utilized, no?

The way I read it, it mostly applied to where ever the president is, governmental proceedings, and other things that don't seem to every-day, but the wording could potentially make it a crime to protest a president's inauguration.

 

[SaintAugustine]

growing?.... it started over seas....

I stand corrected..Greek 2010 and Madrid 2011 in May with the September 17th..Occupy Wall Street here.

 

[Rakhel]

Even when Occupy began, it didn't get coverage.

Maybe not nationally, but it sure did locally.

 

[Kathryn]

Even when Occupy began, it didn't get coverage.

Oh, I disagree - I saw coverage all over the place.

And keep in mind, this isn't focused strictly on "OWS" type protests - this is ALL protests.

 

[Kathryn]

oh, I don' t know occupying a certain space..may be the only way to get anyone attention...cause writing a few letters to the editor or calling on radio show is not gonna do anything. Have you noticed how many homeless people have suddenly appeared, have you found yourself stretched at the end of the month..every month....you think the 1 percent..cares..or feels your pain....lol..loolo....lolololololl

If we're in the 1.5 percentile in income, do we qualify as the greedy rich in your book?

 

[SageTree]

Holy *****!!!!!!!!!!

When it Iraq going to invade and liberate us!!!!???

HELP ME TOM CRUISE!!!

 

[HonestJoe]

We are in complete agreeance here. But, like I said, if the wording does allow for it, than all it takes is one bad decision on any judge's part and a reference to this law in order to prosecute on a protestor...

Most laws are open to interpretation. If they try to be specific with them, you just end up with the opposite problem of criminals getting off on technicalities. There has to be a balance struck and on a quick read through of the amendment quoted in the OP, I don't see an issue with the balance in this case.

And at G8 meetings? There is no where in the world you can hold a G8 meeting and not expect direct action from non-violent protestors... they are usually arrestted

I question whether all (or even most) truly non-violent protestors are arrested. Protestors who try to break through cordons, obstruct roads, threaten or attack police or the people taking part in the meetings can be and should be arrested and potentially charged.

A non-violent protestor outside a G8 meeting would have nothing to fear from this legislation.

 

[SaintAugustine]

If we're in the 1.5 percentile in income, do we qualify as the greedy rich in your book?

mm...saints fan marrooned....liturgical christian..mm...but what baseball team do you stand by...mabye, you can be spared...

 

[dust1n]

The way I read it, it mostly applied to where ever the president is, governmental proceedings, and other things that don't seem to every-day, but the wording could potentially make it a crime to protest a president's inauguration.

You have to read the actual bill, the last section covers what is considered a security event, and can be anything if the president gives a remorandom to do so, like DNC/RNC, G8 conventions.. etc. This is already a thing. The new law stipulates that at these events, disrubting or impeding government business (glitterbombs? stage-ins at sensitive city halls, anyone?) would result in a fine and up to one year in prison. Am I reading the bill incorrectly?

 

[dust1n]

Most laws are open to interpretation. If they try to be specific with them, you just end up with the opposite problem of criminals getting off on technicalities. There has to be a balance struck and on a quick read through of the amendment quoted in the OP, I don't see an issue with the balance in this case.

I guess we just disagree then, but personally, if a law can be interpretated in a manner to infringe on or punish those who partake in our inherent right to assembly in public spaces, I see it is as an issue.

I question whether all (or even most) truly non-violent protestors are arrested. Protestors who try to break through cordons, obstruct roads, threaten or attack police or the people taking part in the meetings can be and should be arrested and potentially charged.[/qute]

You can't arrest 60k people. Generally, arrests are taken until busses are filled up and taken to prison, released after the protest is over with no charges. The ones who do accumulate charges or those who direct these events, much like the kids at the RNC 2008, who were charged with inciting a riot because he was tweeting police positions to all of the protestors.

A non-violent protestor outside a G8 meeting would have nothing to fear from this legislation.

I hope you are right.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have to read the actual bill, the last section covers what is considered a security event, and can be anything if the president gives a remorandom to do so, like DNC/RNC, G8 conventions.. etc. This is already a thing. The new law stipulates that at these events, disrubting or impeding government business (glitterbombs? stage-ins at sensitive city halls, anyone?) would result in a fine and up to one year in prison. Am I reading the bill incorrectly?

You seem to be reading it correctly, it's just so vaguely worded that it seems as if it can be used as a convenient excuse for when ever they want a crowd silenced. But with this bill it the alarm seems to come from what it can potentially mean.

 

[Kathryn]

mm...saints fan marrooned....liturgical christian..mm...but what baseball team do you stand by...mabye, you can be spared...

Texas Rangers!

 

[dust1n]

You seem to be reading it correctly, it's just so vaguely worded that it seems as if it can be used as a convenient excuse for when ever they want a crowd silenced. But with this bill it the alarm seems to come from what it can potentially mean.

Specific wording is optimal, no? I'll be keeping my eyes open at the RNC to see if this is used to charge protestors.