On HR 347 and Its Effect on Free Speech

[Because this is such a short piece of legislation, I've included the text in its entirety below my commentary.]

Much of the controversy of this bill revolved around "imprecise language."  In particular, this phrase has been an object of focus: ". . . when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts . . ."  This phrase is then compared to the first criterion ("knowingly") and many analyses have concluded that this language may allow excessively broad application by Federal prosecutors, to the extent that protests can be effectively outlawed and/or their participants intimidated to the extent of suppressing their freedom of speech.

I have a very different reading of the above quoted portion of the bill.

It is simply saying that in order to be held accountable under the proposed law, someone would have to 1) knowingly engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, 2) with intent, and 3) that the conduct would actually have to have the effect of impeding and disrupting the orderly conduct of government business.  You can break the phrase up two ways, and they both lead to this interpretation.  The first is:  ". . . when such conduct in fact impedes or disrupts . . ."  The second is:  "so that such conduct in fact impedes or disrupts . . ."  The way it reads actually forces the prosecution to show that government business was disrupted or impeded, in addition to "knowingly and with intent."

If I thought the bill even remotely infringed on our rights, I would never be able to support it, but it strikes me as a solid, common-sense piece of legislation that is, in fact, well written and fairly clear.  It does not outlaw protests or excessively insulate the public from the ability to protest at or near certain events, it simply makes clear that such protests cannot (and should not) subvert or take the place of the orderly governing of ourselves.

Provided that there was an actual shortcoming in existing law, either through lack of content or lack of clarity, that was compelling enough to warrant its improvement, I would have voted in favor of this bill.

Because my opinion of this bill runs counter to that of many of my Tea Party friends, I would certainly like to hear varying opinions.  Accordingly, I invite any opponents of the bill to submit a comment or question to open the topic up to further discussion.

The text of the bill:

An Act

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

-`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--

`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--

`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

`(c) In this section--

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;

`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.