And it passed with little opposition. This is the country we live in. This highlights the lack of actual representation the American people have in their own government.
Good citation, thanks! I'm curious if the renewal of this law has any additional addendums in its current revision? I think the points I'll try to isolate are if the structure changed from a FINE to a felony (as proposed) and whether it moved from deliberate unlawful actions intended to disrupt government business and to merely protesting.
The law has changed to be more specific wording wise, but the essence hasn’t. The 1971 law just referred to the property of federal buildings while the new law refers specifically to the residences of the VP and the White House property. I believe it has always been a felony. I enjoy Judge N, but for this particular argument, I think Fox was just trying to sensationalize.
This is FOX news playing with semantics. My advice to you is not to discount what is said just because it is FOX. This story was just a filler with no real meat. For example: they have been out in front since 2010 trying to warn people millions of americans were going to lose their existing health plans which has turned out to be devastatingly accurate. It’s just one example, but when other news organizations paint FOX as a television cable station for old white men from the south, they create indifference in non-viewers like you. Indifference is the same as empathy. Empathy dulls the senses so that you reject truth when you hear it just because of the source.
A thinking person can reason through Fox News using it as a foundation for examination. MSNBC, CNN, etc are state run media outlets engineered, these days, to feed focused propaganda. I'd much rather get my info from my own effort on the web but if I have to watch "news" I'd take Fox over the rest in a heartbeat.
Nobody had better be surprised. The camel's nose was let into the tent on this when Holmes came up with his "fire in a crowded theater" exception to the 1st Amendment.
I wonder who or how many who's, go through the thousands of previous bills (or laws) and tells Congress which ones need to be issued, or is it just some type of automatic system.
I have a theory: Obama has gone mental. First, you had the White House kicking photographers out from taking candid shots, now you have a renewal of a law that reminding the public to stay away from the White House where the President might view disturbing stimulus from any window which could crash his already fragile state.
Look how long they hid Jesse Jackson Jr’s illness from the public. He was an acting representative for six months while being actively psychotic.
I expect the internet to be next. The Feds have wanted control over it for years. My guess is the NSA will decide. If they are getting valuable intel they will tell the politicians to keep their hands off. If not we will see limits on what can be said and what images can be shown.
Without free speech, there is no chance for a change of direction from the headlong drive toward totalitarianism that currently exists in this country. The passage of a law eliminating free speech in one venue opens the door for it to be eliminated elsewhere.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1...
I enjoy Judge N, but for this particular argument, I think Fox was just trying to sensationalize.
The camel's nose was let into the tent on this when Holmes came up with his "fire in a crowded theater" exception to the 1st Amendment.
Look how long they hid Jesse Jackson Jr’s illness from the public. He was an acting representative for six months while being actively psychotic.
Ahhh, if wishes were ponies....