Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calls for 'limits on First Amendment rights'

Dianne Feinstein: "Freedom of speech is a privilege intended for educated professionals"

S. 987: Free Flow of Information Act of 2013

Civil Rights Protest Now Super-Illegal Under Obama Administration-And No One Noticed

As a child growing up in the 1960s in Memphis, my mother and her brothers and sisters and her friends were frequently involved in protest affiliated with the civil rights movement. Whether if it involved getting arrested at the public libraries (which they did), or in front of city hall, it was never against the law to assemble. Them there days are over.

Without any mainstream media coverage, HR 347 was passed by a margin of 388 to 3and signed into law by President Barack Obama. This law makes it against the law to protest anywhere where the secret service is present. In addition, it specifically cites major public events, such as Inaugurations and Presidential campaigns. Yes even the Whitehouse or more specifically anywhere the President of the United States is present. What we saw in the 60s with civil rights or in the 70s with Roe V. Wade or the Vietnam War, where civil assembly as a form of free speech, can no longer occur if a President and his collective corpus of Secret Service are gathered.

Strange thing is it didn’t just happen yesterday, but last March 2012. Called the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, it has been described by some as making the First Amendment illegal or criminalizing the Occupy protests.

Even if the President or Vice President is not present, this law has some lasting draconian effects. For example, where ever world leaders are in the US visiting from abroad, they are normally assigned secret service agents for their protection. This now means that at meetings of the the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Secret Service can be used to suppress protests in or around certain restricted zones near individuals under its protection. This is consistent with anything that is defined to be a “National" by the Department of Homeland Security.

The types of conduct covered by the law amended by H.R. 347 includes: entering or remaining in one of these zones without "lawful authority"; Engage in "disorderly or disruptive conduct" in or near one of these zones that "impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government activities or official functions “and blocking or otherwise impede an entrance or exit to one of these zones (but you must again intend to disrupt government activities or official functions); or (4) Engage in any act of physical violence against person or property in any restricted zone.

In theory, HR347 is a re-write of a trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since. However, it still remains that the bill makes it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters. In the past, the government had to prove a certain state of mind for arrest and prosecution for most crimes.” Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.”

In the Bill of Rights, there is a statement that reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” As a constitutional scholar, I wonder if the President is aware of this.

Bye Bye 1st Amendment and Due Process

Imagine that there was no March on Washington led by the late great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., or that there was no Montgomery to Selma March or Bus boycott as a direct consequence of the actions of a Rosa Parks, or even no sit in's at Woolworths. All may have never have happened if legislation was existence during that time like the recently passed H.R. 347. Last week on a late Monday evening, the bill described by some as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 was passed by the US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3.

In simple terms it is another way of further reducing the constitutional First Amendment rights guaranteed to all US citizens. Through this legislation, Congress makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House and any building or grounds where the president is visiting even if just for a moment or temporarily. According to the legislation, these are considered areas “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance." Consequently it allows the government to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function via protest or civil disobedience with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene.

Yes that is correct, any person protected by the Secret Service is covered under the bill meaning it will be a federal offense to even accidently disrupts an event attended by a person thus abrogating the right to assemble and peacefully protest as stated in the constitution. We all know that they not only protect past Presidents and current candidates, they also protect foreign dignitaries, many of which are mass murderers, supporters of state sponsored terrorist and human rights violators. To protest the former South African regime that practiced apartheid or even the current Syrian President Haffad al- Assad would be a federal offence punishable by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for a violation. In simple terms the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, if perceived to be “disruptive.”

I was under the assumption that Brandenburg V. Ohio concluded that the state cannot prohibit inflammatory speech unless it incites or produces “imminent lawlessness.” Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."

We as a people are slowly losing all of our constitutional guarantees. It may even be considered against the law to even assert such. We have already seen the president approve the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens and now what is an obvious assault on the freedom to assemble via this “Trespass Bill”. In many places it is even illegal to film police making arrest on your own property. To top it off, US Attorney General Eric Holder made a speech at Northwestern University last week in which he gave the current administrations legal justification for assassination of U.S citizens. When asked about it while addressing a hearing on the FBIs budget held by House lawmakers, FBI Director Robert Mueller said he would have to check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder's "three criteria" for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.

This albeit as former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi wrote, “The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee a citizen due process and a public trial, as well as the right to confront his accuser. The Obama administration is arguing that these American turncoats do not have constitutional rights because they are not physically in the United States and are actively engaged in planning terrorist acts that the government has the right to disrupt by killing them preemptively.”

Giraldi also notes that the assignation of dissident “citizens without due process is not a unique practice. Libyans, Iranians, and Soviets all did it in the 1980s and 1990s” but suggest it is out of the ordinary for a self-purported “liberal democracy.”

So if any of you all have any bright ideas about expressing your constitutional right wile in Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, be forewarned. These fools or idiots have absolved the first amendment and have curtailed due process. Although it is written, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” this is not the case anymore.

Federal Courts Rule that Calling for Assination of Obama a Form of Free Speech

For years, calling for the assignation of a sitting president has been considered a criminal act. Now such is not the case and has been interpreted by a federal court as a form of free speech. In California, a La Mesa man posted racial and derogatory epithets in an internet chat room that called for people to "shoot" Barack Obama.

Just this week on Tuesday, a federal appeals court ruled that such behavior in an internet chat room was considered to be a form of constitutionally protected free speech. As a result, the man had his criminal conviction overturned.

Two years ago, Walter Bagdasarian (in picture) was found guilty of making threats against a major presidential candidate in comments he posted on a Yahoo.com financial on Oct. 22, 2008.

In the majority opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, it read "When our law punishes words, we must examine the surrounding circumstances to discern the significance of those words’ utterance, but must not distort or embellish their plain meaning so that the law may reach them. Judge Reinhardt was joined in the 2 to one decision by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw dissented.

Although the divided panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that Bagdasarian's comments were "particularly repugnant," they went on to add that saying Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head soon" and a call to "shoot the [racist slur]" weren't violations of the law under which he was convicted since the statute doesn't criminalize "predictions or exhortations to others to injure or kill the president.”

Cowards and crooks

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that public employees who speak up about possible government wrong doing, fraud and general criminal behavior via their jobs are not protected against employer retaliation by the First Amendment. In the case Ceballos v. Garcetti, they ruled that ruled that the Los Angeles County district attorney's office did not violate prosecutor Richard Ceballos's freedom of speech by demoting him after he wrote to supervisors that a sheriff's deputy had lied to get a search warrant.

Ceballos was evntually reassigned as a trial attorney and denied a promotion, which he suggested were retalliation for his writing the memo (a violation of his First Amendment rights). This suggest that since employees have obligations to make complaints on their jobs by using internal grievance procedures that are within their job description, when they do level complaints they have no First Amendment protections regarding what they may or may not say.


In essence thay are saying that it is the duty of the citizenry of America, especially thoes that work with the federal government, to support any unethical conduct by federal top-dog beuracratis against both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I find this strange given that it is the civil duty of federal employees to speak out against waste, fraud and any behavior that can be considered as criminal as American citizens first.

In the opinion, Justice Kennedy, Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, said that Ceballos is entitled to no First Amendment protection for his speech for writing a memo to his superior arguing that a case should be dropped because there were inaccuracies and "misrepresentations" in an affidavit used by a sheriff's deputy to obtain a search warrant.

So employees will not have any incentive to use the protocols of their work place for grievances (where there is no 1st admenednt protrection) but will more likely speak out in public if they want First Amendment protections. This is rather doltish and witless seeing that if they speak either privately or publicly, they can be fired for what is essentially personal private speech. Even if they just speak publicly, they loose any chance of keeping their jobs because they did not use the employer's circumscribed guidance for complaint.

What does this mean? It means that the Court's decision basically makes it hard for folks to tell or whistle blowon any wrong doings. The truth is that the brave people who do stand up as honest American and tell, are still subject to retaliation by their supervisors . This is even if the allegations and complaints are true and point to criminal behavior. Maybe this would not have happened if Justice O'Connor had not left the bench January 31, before the opinion was completed. Originally the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the Ceballos case was "inherently a matter of public concern" protected by the Constitution. Alito was the deciding vote that broke the 4-4 tie. The present administration supported Garcetti citing the U.S. government is "the nation's largest public employer."

The court has in essence done what congress, via the constitution is no able to...." make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In this decision they say that First Amendment rights do not apply to government employees who speak within the scope of their jobs. I just find it hard to belive if I found my boss selling plans to the Taliban, and I told on him, I could be fired and charged with a crime. Personally, government workers speaking out on the job have the same kind protection as any one else speaking out in public as citizens. What remains to be seen is what kind of civil servants will we have , or will it leave us with a corpus of cowards - afriad to speak out about criminal acts by their supeiors for fear of losing their jobs, or crooks - selling plans to the enemy, padding their pockets, taking bribes and disrespecting the public good.