On the recordMay 5, 1994
any resemblance between this piece of legislation and the rhetoric we have heard on the other side is entirely accidental. It may be the problem is that the bill is written in English, because some of my friends seem to have some trouble with the language as to what it means, not as to how it pronounces, I never criticize pronouncing, but as to what it means. For instance, we have just heard that the problem with this is that it is going to make activities illegal, and what activities are we told it is going to make illegal? Civil disobedience. I must tell the previous speaker that civil disobedience is by definition already illegal. If it is legal, it is not civil disobedience. That is what the word means. What does it deal with? It deals with the following only. You are guilty of a crime under this bill only if you have by force, by threat of force or by physical obstruction done certain things, and it defines physical obstruction. I assume my friends do not think that force or the threat of force against someone they do not like is a constitutional right. For them the question is, when we say physical obstruction, are we talking about interfering with peaceful protest? But the bill defines physical obstruction.
Source
govinfo.gov




