Whether to protest or not to protest

This morning I received a request to sign a petition protesting HR347, passed in March 2012.  This is some of the text in the email:

Imagine an America in which the government can prevent protest in any public space it deems fit. Where wearing a dissenting shirt around an elected official could be construed as a felony. Where First-Amendment protections become privileges subjectively doled out by the state. Sadly, that America is pretty much here.
In March, Congress passed HR 347, a bill that limits Americans' ability to protest in public and on government grounds. Mainstream media didn't raise peep, but now there's finally some anger building. The bill, passed almost unanimously, makes it a federal offense punishable by up to ten years in prison to "knowingly" protest in the vicinity of the Secret Service -- that is anywhere the Secret Service "is or will be temporarily visiting."

Considering some of the crazy decisions government has been making in the last few years, I jumped on the band wagon -- signed and posted the following to my Facebook page [note: format altered]:

10 years in prison for peaceful protest, thanks to the "Anti-Protest Bill" HR 347 -- Let's change it
act.watchdog.net
You walk into a campaign event holding a dissenting sign. Or you wear a shirt critical of a senator in the airport she's passing through. Or you organize a peaceful protest at a government building. All of these could be deemed felonies by Congress's new "Anti-Protest Bill." Act now to amend it!
Then I started wondering -- if it was passed in March and no one said much, what's it really about then?

If anyone would speak up about it, it would be the ACLU.  Their one article, titled "How Big a Deal is H.R. 347, That “Criminalizing Protest” Bill?" by Gabe Rottman states

Recent days have seen significant concern about an unassuming bill with an unassuming name: the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." The bill, H.R. 347, has been variously described as making the First Amendment illegal or criminalizing the Occupy protests.
The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.
It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.

Here's a copy of bill H.R. 347 (PDF format).

While looking around for info, I did find an interesting and relatively new site called the Inquisitr; this is from the about page:

The Inquisitr offers a constantly updated mix of the latest stories to hit the web, covering a diverse spectrum of topic areas including technology, news, sport, entertainment and offbeat stories.
Founded in May 2008...

The quote below is from an article, "President Obama Signs 'Anti-Protest' Bill H.R. 347"

Occupy DC protesters are calling the modifications an infringement on their First Amendment rights, because of the areas of D.C. that have been added to the protected areas portion of the act. Approximately 80 protesters organized a silent march to symbolize their Freedom of Speech being taken away–some even taped their mouths closed to visually show their feelings about the bill. The part of the Bill of Rights they are referring to is the following:

“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.”

Here's a toon commemorating an Occupy Wall Street event from John Cole at the Times-Tribune:

I took the notice off my Facebook page. Now I'm wondering if the bill has set a precedent.


-- Marge