The new law just signed by President Obama sounds rather innocuous, but it takes the nation a step further in the restriction of citizens’ rights to demand a redress of grievances of their government and to speak in a public place about what’s on their minds.

Although the law, H.R. 347 (Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011), is regarded by many, even civil libertarians, as a nuance to law and practice that have been in effect for years, it makes it a felony for anyone who “knowingly” enters restricted federal buildings or grounds without lawful authority.  In the past, the language was “knowingly and willfully,” but the willful part has been removed, so all one has to do is be there and you’ve committed a felony.

Here’s a summary of the law, from the Library of Congress’ “thomas” website:  “…a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.”

This addition to what is considered already-established law makes it possible for the Secret Service to make a determination that any event is “special” or of “national significance,” and, therefore, will be able to call it a restricted area and be able to keep out anyone who might act in a manner they determine to be disruptive.  The charge for violation of their designation would be a possible felony charge for the protestor.

It was immediately called the “anti-Occupy” law, probably because the Occupy Wall Street movement and other Occupy movements around the country are on the minds of government officials, law enforcement, and corporate CEOs at this time.  But, there have been, and will be, many organizations and individuals who have tried throughout our history to let the powers that be know that there is something very wrong and that elections and the trappings of democracy do not seem to be making any difference.

That’s what the Occupy movement has done since last fall.  For much of the history of the nation, however, there have been anti-taxation movements, civil rights movements, union movements, and many other efforts of the people to make their displeasure known to those in power.  In the current movement, much of the emphasis is on corporate control of the economic system and, through its power in the economy, control of the political system.  To a great extent, Corporate America also controls much of what passes as the culture of the U.S.

A majority of the people seems know that this is wrong and damaging to the body politic, but the opposition to corporate control of virtually everything is fragmented and generally cannot hope to achieve the concentrated power of the corporations and their representatives in government at every level.  The opposition, in all of its manifestations, can do what?  If voting does not make any fundamental change, if running for the occasional office doesn’t change much, if supporting reform or “change” organizations does not make it any easier for the people, what’s left?

There is always massing in the streets, to show that change is needed.  American history is full of examples of peoples’ movements that have been crushed, despite the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  There always has been one catch:  When the people, in their numbers, are declared a danger to public safety or to national security, their movements can be put down by police, National Guard, or the army with impunity.  Who makes such a declaration?  Those at the top of the heap.

Finally, in the Occupy movement, there is an attempt to address most of the serious issues of the people, young and old.  Finally, the discussion has begun about the lop-sided balance of economic and political power in the U.S.  Finally, the pain and suffering of millions of workers, students, and their families are beginning to be exposed.  The problem of something as basic as hunger or food insecurity for millions of people is being exposed.  The disparity in wealth is being discussed.  Those responsible for killing the economy are being identified and their actions discussed.

It’s true that the people have more gadgets than in the 1950s, but the problems of adequate housing, educational opportunities, health care, and access to wholesome and nutritious food are just a few of the fundamental things that are more and more out of reach of millions of families.

Many of the Occupy leaders (and, despite their loose structure, there are leaders) are students who have found themselves coming out of colleges and universities with overwhelming debt and no jobs to pay for their education, let alone to live a decent life.  It is easy for most Americans to relate to that, because so many families know directly of that problem. 

Their desperation is palpable and that’s what scares those in power.  You cannot have a society in which 80 percent of the people control just 15 percent of the wealth and not have discontent on a scale rarely seen.  People took to the streets, starting with the protests of working women and men in Wisconsin, where the governor last year acted to remove labor rights of public workers and that seemed to signal to all workers, public and private, that the powerful were making no pretense about their war on the working class (or the middle class, however one chooses to describe it).

It is likely that public protests and demonstrations and rallies will come in waves, and they will come to a place near you.  That’s why H.R. 347 had to be adopted by the Congress and signed by the president.  “It’s not much, just an addition to laws already in place,” we are told.  But, they are worried about the unrest.

One of the phrases in the law makes it possible for the Secret Service or the Homeland Security Department to determine whether a building or grounds is restricted, “due to a special event of national significance.”  That could be an appearance by a presidential primary candidate (anywhere in the country) or something big, like a national political convention or the Super Bowl.  In any case, it is not the president, or Congress that is making the determination, rather it will be the bureaucracy of law enforcement agencies that will make the decisions.

It is hard not to compare the “free speech pens” into which protestors and demonstrators were herded under the Bush-Cheney Administration (so that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and others did not have to see or hear the people), with the actions of a junta official in some banana republic.  Often, they were placed as some distance from the site of the appearance of officials who should be made to hear the people.  As far as can be determined, for the most part, the pens were accepted as part of “lawful assembly,” but it is going to become more difficult to be “lawful” and still be heard, as called for in the Bill of Rights, with the piecemeal disintegration of First Amendment rights that we have seen and are seeing. 

Too many people will be liable to be designated as felons, just for practicing their right to assemble and to free speech. 

BlackCommentator.com Columnist, John Funiciello, is a labor organizer and former union organizer. His union work started when he became a local president of The Newspaper Guild in the early 1970s. He was a reporter for 14 years for newspapers in New York State. In addition to labor work, he is organizing family farmers as they struggle to stay on the land under enormous pressure from factory food producers and land developers. Click here to contact Mr. Funiciello.