Re Push is underway in several states to criminalize peaceful protesting & halt it

["Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sam <samwaltz.groups () gmail com>
Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [IP] Push is underway in several states to criminalize
peaceful protesting & halt it
To: Dave Farber IP <dave () farber net>


Hi Dave, I have to quibble with two points:


>  Republicans in eight states have proposed bills that would criminalize
> peaceful protesting — a right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
...

> The First Amendment “guarantees the right of citizens to assemble
peaceably
> and to petition their government.”

The direct quote regarding a "guarantee" in the previous sentence is simply
not there in the document. The First Amendment does not prevent the states
from criminalizing protests. It prevents the Feds from doing so. The 14th
Amendment places those restrictions on the states. Neither one guarantees
the right to protest; they simply prevent federal and now state
institutions from abridging the right.

1: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people
peaceably to assemble"
14: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws."


> The bill in North Dakota
> says motorists can freely run over protesters as long as it is done
> “unintentionally.”

However, no part of the Constitution places the restriction on fellow human
beings. It is nice that various government institutions do restrict others
in some cases (They do not, however, prohibit individuals from stopping
your right to protest on their private property.), just as the First
Amendment does not guarantee my right to force you to publish my email. You
do not have a blanket guarantee to protest, or to say what you want, where
you want. There are limitations, and have been for as long as the US has
been a government.

You and I don't necessarily agree with what is being proposed right now,
but I am tired of false claims about Constitutional content being used to
fuel further anger. If we don't like what is missing from the Constitution,
we should work to change it, rather than to pretend it is there.

Sam

Chat: skype/google/yahoo: samwaltz

To email me personally, drop "groups" from my email address. I check that
account more frequently. Messages to this account often get lost in the
avalanche.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kimi Wei <kimi () thewei com>
Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:25 AM
Subject: Push is underway in several states to criminalize peaceful
protesting & halt it
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>


http://www.diversityinc.com/news/republicans-seek-criminalize-deter-peaceful-protesting/

Republicans Seek to Criminalize, Deter Peaceful Protesting

Lawmakers in eight states are proposing laws to intimidate protesters,
including protecting motorists who "unintentionally" run them over.

By Kaitlyn D'Onofrio / January 24, 2017

Republicans in eight states have proposed bills that would criminalize
peaceful protesting — a right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Initially, legislation was proposed in five states: Iowa, Michigan,
Washington State, Minnesota and North Dakota. The bill in North Dakota says
motorists can freely run over protesters as long as it is done
“unintentionally.” Laws have since been proposed in Indiana, Colorado and
Virginia.

Protests have taken place all across the country in response to the
election of President Donald Trump, particularly Saturday’s Women’s March
on Washington, a grassroots women-led movement that rallied protesters of
all genders and backgrounds in Washington, D.C., as well as inspired sister
marches across the globe.

The First Amendment “guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably
and to petition their government.”


North Dakota

The North Dakota bill, sponsored by Rep. Keith Kempenich (R-Bowman), comes
in response to the protests that have taken place at the Standing Rock
Indian Reservation in response to construction of the Dakota Access
Pipeline, the StarTribune reported. According to HB 1203, “a driver of a
motor vehicle who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual
obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway is not
guilty of an offense.”

“If you stay off the roadway, this would never be an issue,” Kempenich said
of the bill. “Those motorists are going about the lawful, legal exercise of
their right to drive down the road.”

Protesters of the pipeline had pledged to remain at the camp sites as long
as they had to, fearing that any progress they made would be rolled back
following Trump’s inauguration. But on Saturday, the Standing Rock Sioux
Tribe reported on its Facebook page that it had formally asked protesters
to clear the camp sites.

Some people will likely continue to protest despite the request, one
activist reported to Reuters.

“Some will [leave]. Others won’t. It’s pretty inevitable,” said Olive Bias,
who has been at the site of the protest since September.


Washington State

A known Trump supporter in the Senate is working on a bill that refers to
certain protests as “economic terrorism” and crimes that should be
felonies. Republican Sen. Doug Ericksen previously worked as Trump’s deputy
campaign director. While he insisted that he had been working on the
legislation for a long time and it was not in response to anti-Trump
protests, the bill would apply to some of those as well.

“I completely support your First Amendment right to protest,” he said. “You
do not have the First Amendment right to block a train.”

The state already has laws in place that allow law enforcement to remove
protesters blocking street or railway traffic.

Stay Informed. Get the DiversityInc newsletter.
Your email will not be added to any promotional lists. Easy opt out.
  Sign Up
Democratic State Rep. Laurie Jinkins said that “there is nothing more
un-American than this kind of proposal.”

“There is nothing more fundamental to our democracy than the right to
protest things you think are wrong,” Jinkins said.

Doug Honig, a spokesman for the Washington chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union, said, “The statement throws out a lot of broad rhetoric,
and we’ll need to see an actual bill,” he said. “But we’re already
concerned that some of its loose terms appear to be targeting civil
disobedience as ‘terrorism.’ That’s the kind of excessive approach to
peaceful protest that our country and state do not need.”

“Let’s keep in mind that civil rights protesters who sat down at lunch
counters could be seen as ‘disrupting business’ and ‘obstructing economic
activity,’ and their courageous actions were opposed by segregationists as
trying to ‘coerce business and government,’” he added.


Minnesota

A Minnesota bill introduced by Republican State Rep. Kathy Lohmer would
change the punishment for highway protesting from a maximum fine of $1,000
and up to 90 days in jail to $3,000 in fines and up to a year in jail.

Minnesota saw a slew of protests last summer following the death of
Philando Castile, who was shot by a police officer when he was reaching for
his identification after being pulled over. Castile’s girlfriend
livestreamed the events immediately following the shooting. The video went
viral and sparked outrage and protests in the state and across the country.

Lohmer said she hopes the bill will “discourage and dissuade folks from
using the freeway,” saying, “There’s plenty of places to get your message
out.”

But Democratic Rep. Rena Moran said that rather than toughening penalties,
lawmakers should take this as an opportunity to understand the protesters’
message in the first place.

“They have not had one conversation with those people, who are feeling the
injustice. If they did, I don’t think this would be their first priority,”
she said. “This may be a wake-up call that elections matter, that your
voice matters, that your voice is your vote.”


Iowa

In response to protests against Trump, Republican Sen. Jake Chapman
sponsored SF 111, which makes it a class “D” felony to block traffic while
protesting. The crime is punishable by a maximum of two years in prison and
up to $6,250 in fines.

In November, over 100 protesters shut down I-80 during a “Not My America”
protest. Interim Iowa City Police Chief Bill Campbell reported no arrests
or known injuries.

Chapman said the bill came up out of “concern” for the protesters. But
Democratic Sen. Joe Bolkcom pointed out that the state already has laws
pertaining to obstructing traffic and questioned if the legislation is
specifically in response to the protests being against Trump.

“So I hope this bill doesn’t go forward. The last thing we need is more
penalties on the books,” he said.

Republican Rep. Bobby Kaufmann is drafting his own version of the bill that
he hopes will satisfy both parties and will specifically address protests
that block highway traffic.

“I want to target those that organize the shutdowns to hopefully diffuse
them from happening in the future,” he said. “I don’t want an 18-year-old
kid to have a felony on their record. I think that most people wouldn’t
participate in these things if there wasn’t someone at the head of it
organizing it.”


Indiana

Legislation in Indiana also leaves protesters in potential danger. SB 285,
authored by State Sen. Jim Tomes (R), pertains to protests causing “a mass
traffic obstruction.” According to the bill, after learning of the
“obstruction,” officials have 15 minutes to “dispatch all available law
enforcement officers … with directions to use any means necessary to clear
the roads of the persons unlawfully obstructing vehicular traffic.”

“I don’t care if the folks want to be 10 deep on the sidewalks, I want the
streets opened up,” Tomes said. When asked to recall an example of a time
when a protest interfered with an emergency responder going to a scene, he
reportedly did not have an answer.

Action on the bill has not yet been taken. The phrase “any means necessary”
raised eyebrows of state officials. The chairman of the committee said the
bill will likely not pass without revisions.


Colorado

Colorado’s bill pertains specifically to environmental protesters, who may
grow larger in numbers following Trump’s inauguration. SB17-035, sponsored
by Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg (R), changes the penalty for tampering with oil
and gas equipment from a misdemeanor to a class 6 felony. The new penalty
can mean 18 months in prison and a $100,000 fine, The Intercept reported.

Almost immediately after Trump’s swearing-in, the White House website
removed all mention of climate change, now calling the Climate Action Plan
“unnecessary” in a section called “An America First Energy Plan.” And Scott
Pruitt, nominee for secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency, has
previously denied climate change. He flip-flopped on this belief during his
confirmation hearing when grilled by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.


Michigan

In December, the Michigan House voted in favor of a bill that severely
restricts workers and union members from picketing. HB 4643 allows
employers to seek an injunction to halt their employees from protesting.
Those who continue protesting could be fined $1,000 per day, and unions
could be fined $10,000 per day.

Republicans said the current laws are not sufficient, but Democrats largely
disagreed. State Rep. Leslie Love (D-Detroit) brought up civil rights
protests that were necessary to make progressive change.

“That landmark legislation didn’t pass because we had polite protesters. We
did it on buses and bridges and lunch counters. And those protesters were
attacked by dogs, water hosed down,” she said. “I’m deeply appalled by
these bills because I grew up in a union household and my mother took me to
pickets and it was always a safe environment.”

The bill awaits confirmation from the Senate.


Virginia

In Virginia, SB 1055, which on Monday was rejected, would have amended
existing legislation referring to protesters “remaining at place of riot or
unlawful assembly after warning to disperse.” The existing bill states that
these protesters “shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.” The bill
proposed by Sen. Richard Stuart (R) changes this to “is guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor” — reportedly punishable by one year in prison and a $2,500
fine.

Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke) called the bill “one of the worst” he has
seen.

“This is contrary to what we believe in as Americans, what we believe in as
Virginians. I think Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he
thought we were considering something like this,” he said.
Kimi Wei
kimi () thewei com  @kimiwei
facebook.com/thekimiwei
862-203-8814


Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/2690044-48a970ad> | Modify
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>
Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20170126031217:223D6854-E39F-11E6-8096-D6D0FD1B2DFE>
<http://www.listbox.com>



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170126044606:3FE01A2A-E3AC-11E6-A616-FB168B6C65A1
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com