That said, it strikes me nevertheless as absurd that the people’s servants can tell the master of the house that s/he is forbidden to trespass without permission on her or his own property. After all, these “restricted” areas were paid for by the people who pay the salary of the restrictors. And the public spaces are becoming an endangered relic of pre-Security state times, with privatized functions and prohibitive fees taking their place, as well as the execrable and utterly fascistic “free speech zones.” The people are right to be concerned, if not hysterical; it is just that this particular bill does little to advance the police state from the major strides it had already made. A more constructive response would be to demand support for Ron Paul’s move to repeal the most objectionable parts of the NDAA-12, and for the bills in the Senate and House to define U.S. citizens and national residents as outside the purview of the terrorist legislation of the last few years, as a first step toward entire repeal. That, and refusing to support those who voted for the NDAA-12, for the Patriot Act, for the Defense bill of 1907 that effectively repealed the requirement for the 700-year-old tradition in English common law of _habeas corpus_, and for other similar legislation. 

Clyde

And ANY demonstration can be considered ‘knowing intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government’!

This
is a license to mow down peaceful protestors (like the Occupy Movement,
who is obviously being targeted by this) by the military, and lock them
up indefinitely.

Francoise you have very little credibility, and
are either incredibly naive or an apologist for the fascist disease
infesting our country.

And ANY demonstration can be considered ‘knowing intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government’!

This
is a license to mow down peaceful protestors (like the Occupy Movement,
who is obviously being targeted by this) by the military, and lock them
up indefinitely.

Francoise you have very little credibility, and
are either incredibly naive or an apologist for the fascist disease
infesting our country.

The Green Party is the progressive alternative. The Green Party doesn’t accept corporate money and represents the 99%.

5% of the vote will get the Green Party matching Federal funds.

Your Green vote sends a message to the corporate parties that passing fascist laws and using military tactics to brutalize people exercising their freedom of speech will cost them votes.

And this message is sent even if the Green you vote for loses.

VOTE GREEN!

Can we please stop these hysterical please to ignorance? This is easy enough for w pea-shooter brain to grasp – provided they can read as a 6th grade level. HOW many children have been left behind?!

Can we please stop these hysterical please to ignorance that do little more than trash your own credibility?

If you want to live in a nation like Zimbabwe, sure, go ahead and support laws like this.

Instead of telling us, with your own hyperbolic propagandistic adjectives, what the Bill says why don’t you just provide a copy of the bill so we can, like, think for ourselves? Or does that run too much of a risk for you? Hysterical propaganda like this only serves to damage your own credibility. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, when it comes to matters of law would-be journalists are best to remain silent and presumed ignorant rather than open their mouths to remove all doubt.

It is axiomatic that no law is absolute- not even the First Amendment. This law clearly does not violate the First Amendment but merely enables it’s enforcement. Come on! This is a legal no brainer. Can you read?! The First Amendment protects the “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” It says what it means and it means what it says.

No doubt the bill if passed into law and signed by the president will face legal challenge but having actually read it it appears to be entirely constitutional as a “reasonable time, place and manner restriction.”  It is sufficiently narrowly drawn as it requires a ‘knowing intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,’ It requires one to engage in “disorderly or disruptive conduct [that] in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

That, by definition, is not ‘peaceful assembly’ which is all First Amendment protects. The right to ‘peaceful assembly’ clearly does not include the right to intentionally impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government  nor does it grant anyone the right engage in “disorderly or disruptive conduct [that] in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business.