General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

13. Regardless?

Reply to G_j (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 04:13 PM

Mar 2012

It has nothing to do with Occupy. By that logic the existing law from 1971 applies to Occupy. Scary!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law [View all] libmom74 Mar 2012 OP

No ProSense Mar 2012 #1

You are really libmom74 Mar 2012 #5

No ProSense Mar 2012 #8

Thanks for the info. n/t cynatnite Mar 2012 #16

regardless, it now applies to the occupy movement and other protest actions.. nt G_j Mar 2012 #7

Regardless? ProSense Mar 2012 #13

it's not me G_j Mar 2012 #14

The scary thing libmom74 Mar 2012 #20

Yes, it's scary. That isn't what happened here. jeff47 Mar 2012 #29

It will most certainly libmom74 Mar 2012 #19

Just as it applied to the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in 2009 onenote Mar 2012 #26

It already applied to all previous G8 summits, because the previous law was in effect jeff47 Mar 2012 #42

here is the bill G_j Mar 2012 #2

3/1/2012 Presented to President Octafish Mar 2012 #61

The saddest aspect of this is that people will re-elect the same clowns slackmaster Mar 2012 #3

The saddest aspect is this lie keeps getting re-posted to DU. jeff47 Mar 2012 #30

Not this shit again onenote Mar 2012 #4

Wherever a "protected libmom74 Mar 2012 #11

The reason Democrats, including Kucinich, support this is that it doesn't do what you say. onenote Mar 2012 #21

Facts! Who cares about facts when Inuca Mar 2012 #24

My complaint is libmom74 Mar 2012 #25

So when the President attends an event outside the WH, he should be fair game? onenote Mar 2012 #27

He (nor any other government official) libmom74 Mar 2012 #31

So the answer to my question is that you think teabaggers should have unimpeded access to President onenote Mar 2012 #34

You're forgetting that key word "peaceably". jeff47 Mar 2012 #35

There is no right to get close enough to the Presidentto kill him. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #62

No, it doesn't. jeff47 Mar 2012 #33

This bill sucks regardless of whether it is directed at OWS or not. Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 #6

thank you for pointing out what should be obvious!!! G_j Mar 2012 #10

What do you think an appropriate sentence for crashing a White House event should be? onenote Mar 2012 #12

We should ask these two: libmom74 Mar 2012 #18

So you'd be fine with a bunch of teabaggers breaking into the residential portion of the WH onenote Mar 2012 #22

The Salahis could not be charged under this law. jeff47 Mar 2012 #41

Actually they could be chargedunder subsection (1): onenote Mar 2012 #45

Eh, possibly. jeff47 Mar 2012 #48

Not just possibly, Certainly. onenote Mar 2012 #49

Then why weren't they charged? jeff47 Mar 2012 #50

Because the WH wasn't covered by the law when the Salahis pulled their stunt. onenote Mar 2012 #52

Um, no. There is no gap. jeff47 Mar 2012 #53

The 1971 law didn't cover the White House onenote Mar 2012 #55

The White House was most definitely covered when they pulled their stunt. jeff47 Mar 2012 #57

That isn't how the House reads the old language onenote Mar 2012 #58

IF you have a weapon or hurt someone SpartanDem Mar 2012 #15

Read the damn bill. You are wrong. Because the authors of these links are lying. jeff47 Mar 2012 #37

They're getting real good at stifling any threat to the system. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2012 #9

I have read libmom74 Mar 2012 #17

Well since the law in that regard is the same as it was a week ago, a month ago, and a decade ago onenote Mar 2012 #23

The law isn't the same, that is libmom74 Mar 2012 #28

for the umpeeth time: onenote Mar 2012 #32

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people libmom74 Mar 2012 #36

K, we'll go call up the Nixon administration and start complaining jeff47 Mar 2012 #40

Its only vague if you don't actually read the entire statute onenote Mar 2012 #46

They updated it because they did not include the VP's residence jeff47 Mar 2012 #38

Even Dennis Kucinich voted for this. MineralMan Mar 2012 #39

This lie: 8 recs. 43 responses (at the moment) jeff47 Mar 2012 #43

Here, on two pdf pages, is the entire content MineralMan Mar 2012 #44

Because too much attention has been paid to the liberal/conservative points Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #47

What has me concerned is.. mvd Mar 2012 #51

Events of national significance has a specific legal definition jeff47 Mar 2012 #54

The meaning of that term will become continually expansive. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #56

Can you give an example of the type of event it might be extended to cover? onenote Mar 2012 #59

An authoritarian government could/would designate a major national strike along the lines Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #66

Your list doesn't seem to have the BP oil spill in it. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #69

that's because the BP oil spill wasn't declared an NSSE onenote Mar 2012 #70

There is an explicit definition in the law for that term jeff47 Mar 2012 #64

Yes and money used to mean money and persons used to mean people, but the law Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #67

That happens because there isn't an explicit definition in the law jeff47 Mar 2012 #73

What is the legal definition of "special event of national significance"? n/t Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #74

Here is some helpful background info on special events of national significance (aka NSSEs) onenote Mar 2012 #81

From what I can tell there are only two people that determine what that definition means. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #82

Wonder what an 'event of national signifcance' would be? Octafish Mar 2012 #60

post 59 lists every such event onenote Mar 2012 #63

This message was self-deleted by its author Octafish Mar 2012 #76

Try google. It has a definition in federal law. jeff47 Mar 2012 #65

Or a Solidarity type strike or major protest under the premise that it Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #68

Thank you, Uncle Joe! Octafish Mar 2012 #71

wsws.org AND rt.com. LMFAO... SidDithers Mar 2012 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author Octafish Mar 2012 #75

What the hell is wrong with the senate? I understand how it got through the house but the senate? jwirr Mar 2012 #77

Probably because the Senate thinks that protecting the WH and VP residence from unauthorized entry onenote Mar 2012 #79

That does make a difference. I would not want protesters doing either of those things. jwirr Mar 2012 #85

Thanks for posting this. girl gone mad Mar 2012 #78

I think you mis-typed something onenote Mar 2012 #80

ACLU Sacramento and others roporting on this G_j Mar 2012 #83

Under an authoritarian, "we create our own reality" administration, they could, all they need do Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #84

K&R The one percent own both parties. woo me with science Mar 2012 #86