In Arizona, It's a Dry Chill for Freedom to Protest.

[AthenaAwakened]

As Arizonans protest the actions of President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, the Republican-led state Legislature is advancing a bill that could silence future protests before they ever happen — and financially punish the organizers.

Bill supporters cited "paid protesters" who intentionally start riots as the reason for the need for the bill. Some allegations of paid protesters during the presidential campaign have been debunked. Some Republican members of Congress also recently have alleged that protesters at recent town hall meetings have been paid.

The Senate passed Senate Bill 1142 along party lines this week amid heated debate, with Republican supporters arguing the bill is needed to prevent paid protesters from intentionally causing riots and Democratic opponents saying it will have a chilling effect on free speech.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...arizona-bill-arrest-protesters-riot/98302932/


Here's the deal

Under this bill, organizers of a protest could be held legally and financially responsible for the acts of people NOT affiliated with the protesting group, organizers could be held legally and financially responsible for a protest they planned but did not attend.

And the financial responsibility they are talking about is forfeiture.

Rioting (rioting defined as "two or more people acting together") is now covered by the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) statutes and any action against persons or property that can be connected to the protest can now be deemed a riot, prosecuted under RICO and used to take your house.

Think that might have a chilling effect on protesting in the Arizona?

 

[NightSky]

I read the article. Thanks for sharing.

This is indeed chilling.

Does anybody want to volunteer creating an online petition to have the bill be defeated? I'd like to sign it.

Peace.

 

[Derec]

A lot of recent protests have been done for the express purpose of causing economic damage. If you deliberately do that, that goes beyond freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the organizers should be held liable.

I do not think tactics like these are legitimate protests.

I think the AZ law goes too far in some ways, but I do not think we should keep giving a pass to people that deliberately cause economic harm to others under cover of "protesting".

 

[AthenaAwakened]

A lot of recent protests have been done for the express purpose of causing economic damage.

And? one of the goals of the Montgomery Bus Boycott was to cause economic harm to the bus company. Should those boycotters have been locked up under RICO for conspiring to cause economic harm to the bus company? Should they have lost their homes because they didn't ride the buses? What about a guy, passing through Montgomery who gave a boycotter a lift across town, should he lose his car? Would not a law that allowed those things have made the boycott that much harder? Perhaps have scared people into not protesting at all? Do you think that to be a good thing? For people to suffer in silence out of fear of protesting injustice?

If you deliberately do that, that goes beyond freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the organizers should be held liable.

You do know that Francis Marion, The Swamp Fox, held the South for the Patriots during the Revolution by causing economic damage to the Tories, and he is a hero?

I do not think tactics like these are legitimate protests.

So?

 

[NightSky]

A lot of recent protests have been done for the express purpose of causing economic damage. If you deliberately do that, that goes beyond freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the organizers should be held liable.
[IMAGES REMOVED]
I do not think tactics like these are legitimate protests.

I think the AZ law goes too far in some ways, but I do not think we should keep giving a pass to people that deliberately cause economic harm to others under cover of "protesting".

I understand your concerns over protests that do result in economic damage. However, you have to look at the issue from a long-range perspective. For example, in the recent case of Berkley wherein Milo had been set to speak (an event which was subsequently cancelled), the students were peacefully protesting. However, a group known as antifascists then broke in between the lines and started things like the fire and breaking of windows and (from what I understand) getting physical with a few protesters. That's unacceptable, but that's not the fault of the Berkley students who'd been peacefully protesting. To the best of my knowledge, perpetrators pulled a hit and run essentially and no arrests were able to be made.

Think about this from the perspective of this bill's pitfalls. Let's imagine for a moment that there's a man who opposes the taking down of a building that has had historical roots in the community which some corporation has decided should be torn down to outfit a multistory apartment building and the council is voting on this proposal. So, the man rallies the town's people to protest, and they do so outside of the council meeting place. However, what happens is suddenly out of nowhere one or two individuals show up who start breaking things. This results in negative media coverage, and maybe the council feels pressure to not give into "violent protesters's demands" despite the fact that the rest of them had been peaceful and the council agrees to pass the proposal. However, what happens when it's been found out that the corporation hired the two additional protesters to create havoc? The mission has been accomplished and no rewind button will take anyone in history to the time the protesters had not been painted as the bad guys and the proposal had not been passed. So, do we really want to incentivize opponents of a group to commit acts that would result in a de facto shutting down of protests by penalizing the organizers of the protest who assembled the people without an investigation just because an unexpected something happened?

What happens at campaign rallies in which any disruptor can create the commotion which leads to some damage?

Do we want different organizations afraid to fund protests because they don't want to be monetarily penalized? And to what extent will they be monetarily penalized?

Look at what the article says:

This bill would put rioting under the state's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statutes that are typically used to prosecute organized crime and allow police to take items acquired through criminal activity. The sentence for racketeering can include more than a year in prison. It would allow police to seize protesters' or organizers' assets and make them financially responsible for any property damage.

Seizure of assets of an organizer can mean a freeze on being able to do any work for some time and chill the possibility of being able to accomplish any delineated goals the office. It can also serve to chill the momentum on a movement.

I feel that the women who marched in the Women's March to protest did so because they wanted to have their power and voice acknowledged and also show resistance to the ugly rhetoric that had shaped President Donald's campaign trail. That's not only their right but a fundamental freedom enshrined in the constitution. Reports say no arrests were made during the Women's March as it was a peaceful protest. But I do know that some people from sizable crowd can quickly turn somewhat unruly in places should the right conditions occur like provocation. So, I don't like the idea of holding organizers accountable in terms of nothing untoward happening. How can they possibly guarantee or predict a thing like that?

Or how about the Not My President movement after the election? While I'd personally felt at the time of the election that we should give President Donald Trump a fair chance, others hadn't felt that way. Why should then group who'd thought to protest for what they felt was their just cause be penalized for the actions of a few who did get physical at one point in time?

There are a lot of people who feel uncertain about President Donald Trump's presidency not because he's the quintessential villain but because he doesn't seem to be able to break away from his ego to reassure the people about his motivations and aims and doesn't seem to care about healing the fissure that he'd made more prominent with his rhetoric from the time he'd been in campaign mode. And he's still there, campaigning for plaudits (e.g. recent Florida rally), when most of the country just wants him to move forward and get on the business of being our (everyone's) President, even the ones who didn't vote for him. Since he seems unwilling or incapable of so doing, many people then feel they need to be able to form pockets of resistance whenever he or the GOP get out of line, including staging protests. That right shouldn't essentially be chilled because of the actions of an ignorant or belligerent few.

Peace.

 

[Derec]

And? one of the goals of the Montgomery Bus Boycott was to cause economic harm to the bus company. Should those boycotters have been locked up under RICO for conspiring to cause economic harm to the bus company?

Boycotting is a bit of a gray area. While individuals have the right to decide whether or not to ride the bus, organized boycotts are often illegal.
My examples were of things that are in of themselves illegal. You do not have the right to block an interstate highway. You do not have the right to occupy an airport runway. You do not have the right to chain yourself to a backhoe, much less to destroy it.

And while we can both agree that the Montgomery bus authority was in the wrong here, groups trying to shut down things they don't like by causing them economic damage is not limited to things you and/or I might approve of.

But take a different example. Imagine Operation Rescue takes a page out of #BLM/#nodapl playbook and starts engaging in "direct action" designed to economically damage Planned Parenthood to make them abandon a new clinic they are building. They chain themselves to construction equipment delaying work for hours. They break into the fenced yard damaging equipment and materials. They block access roads.
And for all that, they get arrested for a few hours and pay a small fine, a fine which OR gladly pays because the economic damage these action cause greatly exceeds the costs incurred by the protesters. In the end Planned Parenthood might decide to abandon the project because it is getting too expensive with all the property damage and delays. Is that right?

Should they have lost their homes because they didn't ride the buses?

You have the right not to ride the bus. Now had they chained themselves to the buses, that would be more akin to the tactics I am talking about here.

For people to suffer in silence out of fear of protesting injustice?

Do you think there are ways to protest injustice (real or perceived) that do not involve "direct action" that deliberately damages the object of your protest economically?

You do know that Francis Marion, The Swamp Fox,

Are you saying that these people are waging war against the United States? Or why else would bringing Marion up be relevant?

So?

So they are not covered by freedom to protest.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

BTW, You can be arrested if they think the protest may cause a riot... you don't even have to assemble.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Boycotting is a bit of a gray area. While individuals have the right to decide whether or not to ride the bus, organized boycotts are often illegal.
My examples were of things that are in of themselves illegal. You do not have the right to block an interstate highway. You do not have the right to occupy an airport runway. You do not have the right to chain yourself to a backhoe, much less to destroy it.

And you can be arrested for doing such things. The person who posts on Facebook, "Hey let's go down and peacefully assemble" should not face civil actions if they do not participate.

But take a different example. Imagine Operation Rescue takes a page out of #BLM/#nodapl playbook and starts engaging in "direct action" designed to economically damage Planned Parenthood to make them abandon a new clinic they are building. They chain themselves to construction equipment delaying work for hours. They break into the fenced yard damaging equipment and materials. They block access roads.
And for all that, they get arrested for a few hours and pay a small fine, a fine which OR gladly pays because the economic damage these action cause greatly exceeds the costs incurred by the protesters. In the end Planned Parenthood might decide to abandon the project because it is getting too expensive with all the property damage and delays. Is that right?

They still get arrested and can face civil penalties.

For people to suffer in silence out of fear of protesting injustice?

Do you think there are ways to protest injustice (real or perceived) that do not involve "direct action" that deliberately damages the object of your protest economically?

Yes, but this law silences those too, since technically the police can shut down any assembly by declaring it a potential riot. This law is trying to circumvent the "true threat" principle.

 

[Derec]

I understand your concerns over protests that do result in economic damage. However, you have to look at the issue from a long-range perspective. For example, in the recent case of Berkley wherein Milo had been set to speak (an event which was subsequently cancelled), the students were peacefully protesting. However, a group known as antifascists then broke in between the lines and started things like the fire and breaking of windows and (from what I understand) getting physical with a few protesters. That's unacceptable, but that's not the fault of the Berkley students who'd been peacefully protesting. To the best of my knowledge, perpetrators pulled a hit and run essentially and no arrests were able to be made.

That's the part where I think the law goes too far. One should not be held liable for things other groups or individuals commit.

But so far in the US it has been the case that protesters engaging in illegal activity, not the organization who organized that illegal activity, have been held liable to damages they cause. I think that is wrong. If the antifa group who organized the Berkeley riot is identified, I think they should pay for the damages they caused.

Do we want different organizations afraid to fund protests because they don't want to be monetarily penalized? And to what extent will they be monetarily penalized?

If these organizations fund illegal activity such as blocking highways or sabotage then damn right they should be afraid to fund it.

Seizure of assets of an organizer can mean a freeze on being able to do any work for some time and chill the possibility of being able to accomplish any delineated goals the office. It can also serve to chill the momentum on a movement.

All too often the tactic of the 'direct action' protests is to cause so much economic damage to their target that they are forced to abandon what they are doing. If an organization is engaging in such tactic, why should their assets not be frozen? Why should they be allowed to damage legal activity they don't like by engaging in illegal activity?

How can they possibly guarantee or predict a thing like that?

You can't. As I said, one should not be penalized by what others do. But groups/individuals engaging in illegal 'direct action' that causes economic damage should be held liable for such damage.

When a #BLM group shut down an airport causing 10s of thousands of pounds damage (if not more), they did not suffer any real punishment.
White ‘Black Lives Matter’ Protesters Walk Free After Shutting Down London Airport
They should have been not only held criminally responsible, but also held liable for all the damage they caused to the airport.

Giving these people slaps on the wrist merely encourages such actions to be repeated as they are effective in causing damage and do not cost the protesters much. When Minneapolis #BLMers shut down an interstate in the name of Michel Brown, they were given a pass. That resulted in them repeating the stunt when Jamal Clark was shot, but they also escalated and also took over a police station entrance for weeks as well as taking over a mall and an airport briefly.
Protesters March To Mpls. City Hall, Bringing I-35W To Halt
Jamar Clark death: Demonstrators shut down Minneapolis interstate to protest fatal police shooting

When #BLM protesters shut down BART transit in the SF area, the Alameda County DA refused to prosecute them.
Alameda County D.A. drops charges against Black Friday 14

A statement posted to the Black Lives Matter Bay Area Facebook page declared victory in having the charges dropped, but emphasized that the goal of the protests — to disrupt business as usual to bring attention to their cause — remained the same.

Of course that merely encouraged similar protesters to shut down a busy bridge a month later.
Protesters Shut Down Bay Bridge to ‘Reclaim Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s Radical Legacy’
Local authorities did not learn their lesson, however, and the protesters got away with it again.
Charges dismissed against Bay Bridge protesters
Even the very feeble charges that the DA filed (just infractions, not even misdemeanors) were dismissed by an activist judge. Un-fucking-believable!
Not only should these people be prosecuted aggressively, they should pay for the economic damage their action caused.
Again, their actions. They should not pay for anybody else's actions, just their own. The individuals and the organization ("black seed" in the case of Bay Bridge shutdown) should be held responsible for the damage they cause. Anything else is aiding injustice.

 

[Derec]

And you can be arrested for doing such things.

Arrested, released after a few hours and often not charged with anything or if charged, then with ridiculously low-level offenses. Hardly a deterrent, which is why highways and bridges get blockaded so often - there are hardly any consequences.

The person who posts on Facebook, "Hey let's go down and peacefully assemble" should not face civil actions if they do not participate.

I never said they should. But if a group such as black.seed organizes a bridge shutdown they should be held liable. Both the individuals involved and the group which organized it.

They still get arrested and can face civil penalties.

Catch and release. Hardly any charges and no civil liability either. They get away pretty much scot-free except for spending a few hours in jail. Which is why these laws need to be made stronger.

Yes, but this law silences those too, since technically the police can shut down any assembly by declaring it a potential riot. This law is trying to circumvent the "true threat" principle.

I acknowledged that the law is going too far in places, but there is a real problem with non-peaceful protests that the law is trying to address here.

 

[Elixir]

if a group such as black.seed organizes a bridge shutdown they should be held liable.

But if Chris Christie does it, that's just fine as long as his opposition learns their lesson from it.

See, Derec? Anyone can play your stupid "but THEY did THIS!" game.

 

[credoconsolans]

As Arizonans protest the actions of President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, the Republican-led state Legislature is advancing a bill that could silence future protests before they ever happen — and financially punish the organizers.

Bill supporters cited "paid protesters" who intentionally start riots as the reason for the need for the bill. Some allegations of paid protesters during the presidential campaign have been debunked. Some Republican members of Congress also recently have alleged that protesters at recent town hall meetings have been paid.

The Senate passed Senate Bill 1142 along party lines this week amid heated debate, with Republican supporters arguing the bill is needed to prevent paid protesters from intentionally causing riots and Democratic opponents saying it will have a chilling effect on free speech.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...arizona-bill-arrest-protesters-riot/98302932/


Here's the deal

Under this bill, organizers of a protest could be held legally and financially responsible for the acts of people NOT affiliated with the protesting group, organizers could be held legally and financially responsible for a protest they planned but did not attend.

And the financial responsibility they are talking about is forfeiture.

Rioting (rioting defined as "two or more people acting together") is now covered by the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) statutes and any action against persons or property that can be connected to the protest can now be deemed a riot, prosecuted under RICO and used to take your house.

Think that might have a chilling effect on protesting in the Arizona?

It absolutely will.

This is how a totalitarian government starts to shut down public protests.

By painting them as 'protecting the public' from riots.

From Hitler to the communists to Emperor Palpatine in a galaxy far far away.

 

[Ford]

Think that might have a chilling effect on protesting in the Arizona?

Only certain kinds of protests. If you and a bunch of (Gadsden) flag-waving, AR-15 carrying alt-right folks want to have an armed standoff with federal agents, well that's just Freedom at work. Want to take over a national monument and threaten to shoot any park rangers that try to stop you? No problem...you're fighting the evil gubmint!

Liberals blocking a road so Joe BMW can't get to his house in North Scottsdale? Be prepared to have your assets seized, you communists!

 

[Derec]

But if Chris Christie does it, that's just fine as long as his opposition learns their lesson from it.

Do you have any evidence that Christie was involved? If so, please bring it to the prosecutors.
In any case, several people were prosecuted and convicted for serious crimes. So it's hardly "just fine". Also note that this is in stark contrast to left-wing protesting blockaders who get away with it due to friendly local prosecutors and judges.

See, Derec? Anyone can play your stupid "but THEY did THIS!" game.

And got prosecuted and convicted. Unlike idiots from #BLM and black.seed.

- - - Updated - - -

Want to take over a national monument and threaten to shoot any park rangers that try to stop you? No problem...you're fighting the evil gubmint!

Both of those are wrong. The Bundy Bunch being in the wrong does not imply that #nodapl occupying federal land for months is ok or that it's ok for #BLM/black.seed to blockade highways and bridges.

 

[laughing dog]

Both of those are wrong. The Bundy Bunch being in the wrong does not imply that #nodapl occupying federal land for months is ok or that it's ok for #BLM/black.seed to blockade highways and bridges.

True. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I don't recall you whining about the Brady Bunch's acquittal or that they should be held financially liable for their damages.

 

[Derec]

True. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I don't recall you whining about the Brady Bunch's acquittal or that they should be held financially liable for their damages.

Why should I bother? That's not a controversial opinion on here. I might as well be posting about sky being blue.

The more interesting question is why do you think Bundys were not justified in occupying federal land, while #nodapl were.

 

[laughing dog]

True. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I don't recall you whining about the Brady Bunch's acquittal or that they should be held financially liable for their damages.

Why should I bother? That's not a controversial opinion on here. I might as well be posting about sky being blue.

So, the fact you only whine when black people are involved is just a coincidence?

The more interesting question is why do you think Bundys were not justified in occupying federal land, while #nodapl were.

A more interesting question is where did you get the straw man from?

 

[Elixir]

Do you have any evidence that Christie was involved?

Poor alt-snowflake offended by the fact that there's more evidence that Christie was involved in Bridgegate than that Obama's birth certificate is fake?

- - - Updated - - -

I might as well be posting about sky being blue.

Kind of like pointing out that Cheato is a mendacios, avaricious lowlife who has no place in public service.

 

[J842P]

Poor alt-snowflake offended by the fact that there's more evidence that Christie was involved in Bridgegate than that Obama's birth certificate is fake?

- - - Updated - - -

I might as well be posting about sky being blue.

Kind of like pointing out that Cheato is a mendacios, avaricious lowlife who has no place in public service.

Derec is neither alt-right, nor has he ever expressed the view that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Protesting is not the problem in the OP. Govt moves to quash protesting and thereby quash speech is the problem in the OP.