Many Times-Union readers want to know:

I received an email that says that H.R. 347, signed into law by  President Barack Obama, forbids anyone from protesting in the presence of the  Secret Service. And that essentially means you can't protest in front of Obama.  Is this true?

This is a law that has spawned a lot of debate.

The House passed H.R. 347, called the Federal Restricted Buildings and  Grounds Improvement Act in February 2011, according to Thomas.gov, a legislative  database under the Library of Congress. The Senate passed it in February 2012  with changes that were OK'd by the House. Obama did sign it into law on March  8.

H.R 347 updated a law passed in 1971 that already restricted access to areas  around the president, vice president and any other governmental official  protected by the Secret Service, according to Thomas.gov.

But there were a couple of changes made by the new law. The old law made it a  federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" violate restricted areas, which  include the White House and grounds and the vice president's residence and  grounds. The updated law makes it just "knowingly."

A spokesman from the office of Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas J. Rooney of  Florida, who originally introduced H.R. 347, told the fact-finding group  Truthorfiction.com that the Secret Service had requested the bill to clarify  jurisdiction for agents assigned to the president. For example, the spokesman  said, "if someone were to jump the fence at the White House, the Secret Service  would not have jurisdiction over the trespasser."

But does the updated law take away the First Amendment rights of civil  protesters by allowing the Secret Service to set whatever restricted areas it  wants, as the viral email suggests?

There have been differing interpretations on the changes and what they mean.  Some legal experts were quoted as saying that the difference in dropping the  "willfully" from the law is not at all significant. Others disagreed.

And still others have been concerned that the new law could criminalize  protests by the tea party or Occupy movements where the president might be  present.