7 ms·

56 Bills Have Been Introduced in 30 States to Restrict Protests

68 points by mcone 9y ago

NiklasMort 9y ago
land of the free
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  You beat me too it. This is a very worrying development. Especially as the UK seems to be moving away from the EU and towards this nonsense
- JonnyNova 9y ago
  The title is overblown. The count of bills introduced has absolutely zero correlation to what effects enacting the bill has. Many of the of the bills in question are addressing things like tampering with electrical equipment and changing the fines for trespassing. A very large quantity of legislation is passed for all sorts of reasons. Did you know that every single recipient of the Medal of Honor requires legislation passed to award it? One recent example: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4641 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4641
ComputerGuru 9y ago
It’s an inflammatory title and it’s clearly purposely blown out of context. I’m not familiar with the site, but it looks to be pushing an agenda very hard, which is a shame since it appears that the article has a lot of potential otherwise. Apparently bills in a dozen states that protect drivers who unintentionally (only that word is in scare quotes) hit protesters count as laws restricting protests. Other laws counted include laws for tampering with power equipment and laws that merely raised the fines for trespassing on restricted grounds.
- zrail 9y ago
  The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  It's one thing to protest knowing you could be arrested. It's quite another to know that you could be killed by a giant machine, and its operator could be "protected" from the consequences of that negligence. Of course that is to be expected in USA, since drivers are constantly so protected, unless they are poor.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    > constantly so protected huh? Can you cite some examples where drivers are protected where they wouldn't be if it was not for USA( or not poor).
    - JonnyNova 9y ago
      I can't find the source right now, but drivers have been privileged versus pedestrians since around 1900 when vehicles were given the right of way instead of the pedestrian who had it before. Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles.
      - dominotw 9y ago
        > Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles. And that applies only if you are not poor? Also that seems wrong ( see United states vs other countries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide
        JonnyNova 9y ago
        Not that directly, but the US legal process definitely favors the wealthier because they have access to more resources, namely better lawyers.
        9y ago
- LorenPechtel 9y ago
  Yeah--the reality is there will be drivers trying to get through and there will be protesters trying to block the way. Sometimes a driver will see an opening and go for it and a protester will move to block the opening. Too bad, you jumped in front of a moving car.
  - skybrian 9y ago
    "Seeing an opening and going for it" sounds an awful lot like driving too fast when there are people around.
- skybrian 9y ago
  The website for tracking these bills [1] seems pretty good though. It makes sense to track bills that might affect protests whether or not they're specifically about protests. (And whether or not you agree with them.) Summarizing a complicated, controversial situation with a single number is always going to get into disputes about definitions. I'd say don't focus on the count() query. [1] http://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/ http://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/
- gameswithgo 9y ago
  Yes, they are pushing the agenda of not living in a fascist state controlled by a few oligarchs very hard, as you should be as well.
  - ComputerGuru 9y ago
    Then misrepresenting the nature of passed laws to serve that worthy agenda only serves to hurt them and cheapen their delivery of an otherwise important message. Disagreeing with the method of communication or cheap tricks employed does not imply disagreement with the original issue. I actually am severely disturbed and disillusioned by the not so creeping authoritarianism that is overtaking our country. I just don’t think FUD is ever an acceptable method of evangelism. I don’t see why people are having that hard of a time differentiating between the two.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
prepend 9y ago
“when Humvees with snipers on their roofs rolled into camp, a helicopter buzzing above them.” “Officers wearing military fatigues walked through the camp with assault rifles and knives, ” There were helicopters, but no snipers. Those were officers with machine guns on the Humber. And those aren’t assualt rifles but rather machine guns. Actually more powerful than assault rifles that are only semi-automatic. So the author both over inflated and under inflated their description of the response. Which was way more overpowered than required for the eviction.
- mieseratte 9y ago
  > but no snipers. Those were officers with machine guns With the right machine gun[0], the line starts to blur ;) [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock#Weaponry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock#Weaponry
- hentrep 9y ago
  Just to clarify, assault rifles are select fire and NOT purely semi-automatic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
username223 9y ago
You're not living in a developed country when the police are dressed like this: https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/TW_Feed-The-Flame-1_LEAD-IMAGE_WEB.jpg https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/TW_Feed... I expect combat-ready troops in places where "laws" only matter as much as the guns behind them, but I expect the US to be better than this. "SHERIFF?" A sheriff is "an elected officer in a county who is responsible for keeping the peace." I see no peace being kept here.
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  Yes, I was also severely disturbed by that photo. There are really good and important reasons for the separation of military and police, and the blurring of that line over the past two decades is going to have massive ramifications that I don’t think American society fully appreciates. As an aside, I have severe qualms about the article (see my other comment) but that doesn’t mean there isn’t truth in that photo, nor does it mean that someone highlighting that such as yourself should be downvoted.
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    A problem with having your police look like a miltary occupation force is that people who oppose the police (for political and other reasons) will treat them like that. That and it separates them from the community they are supposed to serve, that's why I hate it when I see police call members of the public civilians, police are civilians. Robert Peel understood this nearly 200 years ago.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  That what you get when there is constant glorification of military.
  - username223 9y ago
    No. A police officer can politely and non-violently deal with a citizen. As for the military... I've met some Special Forces officers. They were dedicated and crazy-smart (senior NCOs), and I'm happy to pay them to do their jobs, and possibly even call them friends, but they should not be police, and I don't think they would want to be.
pishpash 9y ago
The façade is coming down. It took less than expected to prove the thesis that an open society would ever only be tolerated when everybody already agreed with each other.
crankylinuxuser 9y ago
Here in Bloomington, IN, we are dealing with militarization of our own police department. The story: 2015, Chief of Police and Mayor went in private talks about armored vehicle. Over course of time, decided on a Lenco BearCat (https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/09/10/us-backed-kurdish-fighters-get-lenco-bearcat-armored-vehicles/ https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/09/10/us-back...) . Everything was hidden from public view. No discussion was made or attempted. 2 week ago in our newspaper, announced the purchase of it. After that announcement, the Police department scrambled for a Tuesday @ Noon for an "informational meeting". Chief had no information about it, options purchased, considerations of other non-military vehicles - nothing. This Thursday @ 7p was the State of the City address. BLM organized and started actively protesting after the Mayor made remarks that this is happening and meetings can be made to explain how it's used. Protest then commenced causing the State of the City to be forcefully cancelled. https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/7xvie2/bloomington_state_of_the_city_meeting_forced_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/7xvie2/bloomin... https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/protesters-shut-hamiltons-state-city-address-141151/ https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/protesters-shut-hamilton... Edit: We all can talk about Standing Rock, which is a national disgrace. But the militarization of police is a front that's happening everywhere, including little towns in flyover parts of the country, and at liberal college campuses. This is our effort of trying to stem this tide - and so far the fruitlessness of trying so.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
marcoperaza 9y ago
In this case, there was a significant possibility of danger to the authorities. The protesters refused to leave voluntarily, so force had to be used. They had no way of knowing what kind of resistance they could expect, or if there were armed elements among the resistors. If you defy the lawful authority of the state, don’t complain when the state has to resort to brute force. It must be that way if we are to have the rule of law. And don’t be surprised when they choose overwhelming force over putting themselves at risk. There is a right to protest, not to obstruct the lawful functioning of society. We’ve had plenty of debate, we’ve had elections, we legally decided to build this pipeline. If you want to protest, find another place, one that doesn’t physically block other people from doing what they are legally entitled to do.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  In the first picture you can see the one guy reaching for a feather. I think in the case of the US doing something against the wishes of a tribe of Native Americans, high minded arguments about legal authorities discard a little too much history.
- germinalphrase 9y ago
  Isn't the whole point of protests to make it inconvenient for the more powerful to ignore the needs of the less powerful?
LorenPechtel 9y ago
And there's something wrong with laws that make tampering with the equipment a serious crime??? Protest, fine, but don't mess with the equipment, especially since the people messing with it are unlikely to know how to do it safely.

68 points by mcone 9y ago

NiklasMort 9y ago

land of the free

jimnotgym 9y ago
You beat me too it. This is a very worrying development. Especially as the UK seems to be moving away from the EU and towards this nonsense
JonnyNova 9y ago
The title is overblown. The count of bills introduced has absolutely zero correlation to what effects enacting the bill has. Many of the of the bills in question are addressing things like tampering with electrical equipment and changing the fines for trespassing. A very large quantity of legislation is passed for all sorts of reasons. Did you know that every single recipient of the Medal of Honor requires legislation passed to award it? One recent example: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4641 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4641

ComputerGuru 9y ago

It’s an inflammatory title and it’s clearly purposely blown out of context. I’m not familiar with the site, but it looks to be pushing an agenda very hard, which is a shame since it appears that the article has a lot of potential otherwise. Apparently bills in a dozen states that protect drivers who unintentionally (only that word is in scare quotes) hit protesters count as laws restricting protests. Other laws counted include laws for tampering with power equipment and laws that merely raised the fines for trespassing on restricted grounds.

zrail 9y ago
The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States.
jessaustin 9y ago
It's one thing to protest knowing you could be arrested. It's quite another to know that you could be killed by a giant machine, and its operator could be "protected" from the consequences of that negligence. Of course that is to be expected in USA, since drivers are constantly so protected, unless they are poor.
- dominotw 9y ago
  > constantly so protected huh? Can you cite some examples where drivers are protected where they wouldn't be if it was not for USA( or not poor).
  - JonnyNova 9y ago
    I can't find the source right now, but drivers have been privileged versus pedestrians since around 1900 when vehicles were given the right of way instead of the pedestrian who had it before. Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles.
    - dominotw 9y ago
      > Legislation was also introduced to change committing homicide with a vehicle to be vehicular manslaughter to reduce the severity of the penalty to increase adoption of automobiles. And that applies only if you are not poor? Also that seems wrong ( see United states vs other countries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide
      - JonnyNova 9y ago
        Not that directly, but the US legal process definitely favors the wealthier because they have access to more resources, namely better lawyers.
        9y ago
LorenPechtel 9y ago
Yeah--the reality is there will be drivers trying to get through and there will be protesters trying to block the way. Sometimes a driver will see an opening and go for it and a protester will move to block the opening. Too bad, you jumped in front of a moving car.
- skybrian 9y ago
  "Seeing an opening and going for it" sounds an awful lot like driving too fast when there are people around.
skybrian 9y ago
The website for tracking these bills [1] seems pretty good though. It makes sense to track bills that might affect protests whether or not they're specifically about protests. (And whether or not you agree with them.) Summarizing a complicated, controversial situation with a single number is always going to get into disputes about definitions. I'd say don't focus on the count() query. [1] http://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/ http://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/
gameswithgo 9y ago
Yes, they are pushing the agenda of not living in a fascist state controlled by a few oligarchs very hard, as you should be as well.
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  Then misrepresenting the nature of passed laws to serve that worthy agenda only serves to hurt them and cheapen their delivery of an otherwise important message. Disagreeing with the method of communication or cheap tricks employed does not imply disagreement with the original issue. I actually am severely disturbed and disillusioned by the not so creeping authoritarianism that is overtaking our country. I just don’t think FUD is ever an acceptable method of evangelism. I don’t see why people are having that hard of a time differentiating between the two.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

prepend 9y ago

“when Humvees with snipers on their roofs rolled into camp, a helicopter buzzing above them.” “Officers wearing military fatigues walked through the camp with assault rifles and knives, ” There were helicopters, but no snipers. Those were officers with machine guns on the Humber. And those aren’t assualt rifles but rather machine guns. Actually more powerful than assault rifles that are only semi-automatic. So the author both over inflated and under inflated their description of the response. Which was way more overpowered than required for the eviction.

mieseratte 9y ago
> but no snipers. Those were officers with machine guns With the right machine gun[0], the line starts to blur ;) [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock#Weaponry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock#Weaponry
hentrep 9y ago
Just to clarify, assault rifles are select fire and NOT purely semi-automatic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

username223 9y ago

You're not living in a developed country when the police are dressed like this: https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/TW_Feed-The-Flame-1_LEAD-IMAGE_WEB.jpg https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/TW_Feed... I expect combat-ready troops in places where "laws" only matter as much as the guns behind them, but I expect the US to be better than this. "SHERIFF?" A sheriff is "an elected officer in a county who is responsible for keeping the peace." I see no peace being kept here.

ComputerGuru 9y ago
Yes, I was also severely disturbed by that photo. There are really good and important reasons for the separation of military and police, and the blurring of that line over the past two decades is going to have massive ramifications that I don’t think American society fully appreciates. As an aside, I have severe qualms about the article (see my other comment) but that doesn’t mean there isn’t truth in that photo, nor does it mean that someone highlighting that such as yourself should be downvoted.
- noir_lord 9y ago
  A problem with having your police look like a miltary occupation force is that people who oppose the police (for political and other reasons) will treat them like that. That and it separates them from the community they are supposed to serve, that's why I hate it when I see police call members of the public civilians, police are civilians. Robert Peel understood this nearly 200 years ago.
maxxxxx 9y ago
That what you get when there is constant glorification of military.
- username223 9y ago
  No. A police officer can politely and non-violently deal with a citizen. As for the military... I've met some Special Forces officers. They were dedicated and crazy-smart (senior NCOs), and I'm happy to pay them to do their jobs, and possibly even call them friends, but they should not be police, and I don't think they would want to be.

pishpash 9y ago

The façade is coming down. It took less than expected to prove the thesis that an open society would ever only be tolerated when everybody already agreed with each other.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago

Here in Bloomington, IN, we are dealing with militarization of our own police department. The story: 2015, Chief of Police and Mayor went in private talks about armored vehicle. Over course of time, decided on a Lenco BearCat (https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/09/10/us-backed-kurdish-fighters-get-lenco-bearcat-armored-vehicles/ https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/09/10/us-back...) . Everything was hidden from public view. No discussion was made or attempted. 2 week ago in our newspaper, announced the purchase of it. After that announcement, the Police department scrambled for a Tuesday @ Noon for an "informational meeting". Chief had no information about it, options purchased, considerations of other non-military vehicles - nothing. This Thursday @ 7p was the State of the City address. BLM organized and started actively protesting after the Mayor made remarks that this is happening and meetings can be made to explain how it's used. Protest then commenced causing the State of the City to be forcefully cancelled. https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/7xvie2/bloomington_state_of_the_city_meeting_forced_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/7xvie2/bloomin... https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/protesters-shut-hamiltons-state-city-address-141151/ https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/protesters-shut-hamilton... Edit: We all can talk about Standing Rock, which is a national disgrace. But the militarization of police is a front that's happening everywhere, including little towns in flyover parts of the country, and at liberal college campuses. This is our effort of trying to stem this tide - and so far the fruitlessness of trying so.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

marcoperaza 9y ago

In this case, there was a significant possibility of danger to the authorities. The protesters refused to leave voluntarily, so force had to be used. They had no way of knowing what kind of resistance they could expect, or if there were armed elements among the resistors. If you defy the lawful authority of the state, don’t complain when the state has to resort to brute force. It must be that way if we are to have the rule of law. And don’t be surprised when they choose overwhelming force over putting themselves at risk. There is a right to protest, not to obstruct the lawful functioning of society. We’ve had plenty of debate, we’ve had elections, we legally decided to build this pipeline. If you want to protest, find another place, one that doesn’t physically block other people from doing what they are legally entitled to do.

maxerickson 9y ago
In the first picture you can see the one guy reaching for a feather. I think in the case of the US doing something against the wishes of a tribe of Native Americans, high minded arguments about legal authorities discard a little too much history.
germinalphrase 9y ago
Isn't the whole point of protests to make it inconvenient for the more powerful to ignore the needs of the less powerful?

LorenPechtel 9y ago

And there's something wrong with laws that make tampering with the equipment a serious crime??? Protest, fine, but don't mess with the equipment, especially since the people messing with it are unlikely to know how to do it safely.