(NEW YORK) MintPress — While the country’s attention was focused on the Republican primaries in Arizona and Michigan, the House of Representatives quietly passed a bill that drastically restricts the right to protest.
The House voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347, known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, late Monday. The legislation essentially outlaws protests in many instances where top government officials are nearby, whether the demonstrators are aware the officials are nearby or not.
Under the bill, members of the public would not be able to knowingly enter or remain in any “restricted building or grounds” without lawful authority to do so, nor would they be allowed to disrupt conduct in or within proximity to restricted buildings and grounds or impede access to or from such buildings or grounds.
The fine print
The term “restricted buildings and grounds” applies to any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of the White House and the Vice President’s official residence as well as places where the President or any person protected by the Secret Service is or will be visiting, and events designated as a “National Special Security Event” (NSSE).
While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are given the NSSE title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a NSSE since the term was created under President Bill Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means that the government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of the law, as long as it could be deemed disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
Now that the act has sailed through the House, it will likely soon land on the desk of President Obama; the Senate passed the bill on February 6.
Political precedents
H.R. 347 is the latest in a string of legislation that cuts into the daily freedoms provided for in the Constitution. It began shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks with the highly controversial Patriot Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001.
The act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies’ gathering of intelligence within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.
In May, 2011, Obama signed a four-year extension of three key provisions in the act — roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the “library records provision“), and surveillance of “lone wolves,” individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.
Less than two months ago, the president approved the equally controversial National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, which authorizes $662 billion funding, “for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad,” including the indefinite detention without trial of people the government suspects of involvement in terrorism.
Implications for activists
While the specific wording of the legislation may not seem unreasonably harmful, the bill contains huge potential for abuse by the government and law enforcement agencies.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. This would mean, for instance, that if the bill passed glitter bombing the former Senator from Pennsylvania could be punishable by up to one year in prison, a fine or both. Fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well.
If passed, the bill could affect the thousands of protesters who are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the G8 and NATO summits, as they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. Ditto for the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa in August and its Democratic counterpart in Charlotte the following month.
Last but not least, it could certainly put a damper on the Occupy movement’s plans for a big comeback this spring. “I have no doubt that they had Occupy in mind when they wrote this bill,” Occupy DC organizer Kevin Zeese tells MintPress. “Congress knows the people are angry.”
Official dissent
Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) was one of the three lawmakers to vote against the act. On Tuesday, on his official Facebook account he wrote:“The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.”
He continued, “Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights.”
Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul also voted against the bill.
.
Public backlash
Several activists have already responded to the passage of the bill. We the People, for one, posted on its website a petition to “Veto Trespass Bill/HR 347 and save the First Amendment.”
It boldly states that: “Congress shall make NO law…ABRIDGING…the RIGHT of the PEOPLE peaceably to ASSEMBLE, and to PETITION the Government for a redress of grievances – First Amendment.”
“Mr. President, you swore an inauguration oath that you will to the best of [your] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States…..Stay faithful to your duty as President and VETO this bill!”