The nice thing about having a Democrat in the White House is that there is never any bad news...

...and no one gets the vapors when Obama signs bill restricting protests in the presence of Very Important Politicians.

On March 21, 2012, President Obama signed HR 347 into law. According to this article, HR 347 lowers the intent requirement from intentional to wilful and extends the scope of the Secret Service's ability to arrest people who protest against politicians with Secret Service protection:

President Obama signed bill H.R. 347 (also known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) into law on March 9th, amid numerous protests from the Occupy movement, as well as other agencies. HR 347 is a modification from Senate bill S. 1794, which restricted people from entering or blocking public areas that have been closed off by Secret Service while a person under their protection is passing through. The law also included major public events, such as the Inaguration and Presidential campaigns.

The new law, which passed the House with a vote of 399-3, extends the original law by adding more protected areas within Washington D.C, and removing the word “willfully,” from the paragraph stating that protesters can be prosecuted if they enter the area “willfully and knowingly.”

Representative Justin Amash, R-Michigan, explains this change by saying:

“ The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect its illegal.”

This is either a bold affront against the First Amendment or a sensible revision of existing law.

Obviously, inasmuch as a Democrat signed it, it's no problem either way. The ACLU - which gets the vapors if a single cross casts a shadow on public property - is taking a laid back attitude to HR 347.

Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. 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.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU. We will monitor the implementation of H.R. 347 for any abuse or misuse.

Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on how this law will be interpreted and used by law enforcement — especially in light of the coming elections.

Well, that's mature.

Remember how the Patriot Act was an offense against all that was decent? Now the Secret Service can cordone off any space around the president and its mostly "all good."

It's nice when a Democrat is in office and we don't get hysterical about unconstitutional restrictions on Free Speech.