Sammyboy RSS Feed
03-04-2017, 02:10 AM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_anti...rming%27_by_UN (https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_anti-protest_bill_deemed_%27Alarming%27_by_UN)
US anti-protest bill deemed 'Alarming' by UN
Wikinews Developing.png This article is under development. You are welcome to contribute to it.
If it is ready to be reviewed and fact-checked, Submit for review by changing the {{develop}} tag to {{review}}
This is not a method to request someone else expand, or complete, an article for you!
If original reporting is contained in this article, you must provide notes.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
A number of US states have introduced bills that have UN rights experts concerned.
Nineteen states have been introduced to the legislation restricting assembly rights by certain degrees. If approved, the proposed bill “would severely infringe upon the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly in ways that are incompatible with US obligations under international human rights law and with First Amendment protections.”
The raised concerns over the proposed bills were sent to US authorities on 27 March 2017. This comes after the years of protests, which have intensified over the past few months.
Experts say “These state bills, with their criminalization of assemblies, enhanced penalties and general stigmatization of protesters, are designed to discourage the exercise of these fundamental rights.” The UN experts emphasise that legislators should be mindful of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the fight for civil rights.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ast-17-states/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/)
Republican lawmakers introduce bills to curb protesting in at least 18 states
By Christopher Ingraham February 24
Since the election of President Trump, Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced or voted on legislation to curb mass protests in what civil liberties experts are calling “an attack on protest rights throughout the states.”
From Virginia to Washington state, legislators have introduced bills that would increase punishments for blocking highways, ban the use of masks during protests, indemnify drivers who strike protesters with their cars and, in at least once case, seize the assets of people involved in protests that later turn violent. The proposals come after a string of mass protest movements in the past few years, covering everything from police shootings of unarmed black men to the Dakota Access Pipeline to the inauguration of Trump.
Some are introducing bills because they say they're necessary to counter the actions of “paid” or “professional” protesters who set out to intimidate or disrupt, a common accusation that experts agree is largely overstated. “You now have a situation where you have full-time, quasi-professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,” said Republican state senator John Kavanagh of Arizona in support of a measure there that would bring racketeering charges against some protesters.
Others, like the sponsors of a bill in Minnesota, say the measures are necessary to protect public safety on highways. Still other bills, in states like Oklahoma and South Dakota, are intended to discourage protesting related to oil pipelines.
Democrats in many of these states are fighting the legislation. They cite existing laws that already make it a crime to block traffic, the possibility of a chilling effect on protests across the political spectrum, and concerns for protesters’ safety in the face of aggressive motorists.
None of the proposed legislation has yet been passed into law, and several bills have already been shelved in committee.
Critics doubt whether many of the laws would pass Constitutional muster. “The Supreme Court has gone out of its way on multiple occasions to point out that streets, sidewalks and public parks are places where [First Amendment] protections are at their most robust,” said Lee Rowland, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.
This is by no means the first time in American history that widespread protests have inspired a legislative backlash, says Douglas McAdam, a Stanford sociology professor who studies protest movements. “For instance, southern legislatures — especially in the Deep South — responded to the Montgomery Bus Boycott (and the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education) with dozens and dozens of new bills outlawing civil rights groups, limiting the rights of assembly, etc. all in an effort to make civil rights organizing more difficult,” he said via email.
“Similarly,” he added, “laws designed to limit or outlaw labor organizing or limit labor rights were common in the late 19th/early 20th century.”
The ACLU’s Rowland says the new bills are not about “creating new rules that are necessary because of some gap in the law.” She points out, for instance, that “every single city and county in the United States” already has laws on the books against obstructing traffic on busy roads.
Rather, Rowland says the laws’ intent is “increasing the penalties for protest-related activity to the point that it results in self-censorship among protesters who have every intention to obey the law.”
Even the accusations of “paid” or “professional” agitators, which Trump has promoted, have been leveled at protesters before.
“This is standard operating procedure for movement opponents,” Stanford’s McAdam said. “Civil rights workers were said to be ‘outside agitators, and the tea party was dismissed as an ‘AstroTurf’ phenomenon — funded from on high by the Koch brothers and others — rather than a legitimate ‘grass roots’ movement. In all these cases, including the present, the charges are generally bogus, with the vast majority of protesters principled individuals motivated by the force of deeply held values and strong emotion.”
But now, social media has made it possible to organize larger protests more rapidly than ever before. “The older laws are becoming less effectual in dealing with these kind of groups,” said Michael Heaney of the University of Michigan, a political sociologist who studies protest movements. On top of that, “the courts have said, ‘Look, the people have a right to protest in this way.’ ” So on some level the new legislation represents an attempt by lawmakers to catch up with new realities of 21st-century protesting.
Here’s a list of laws that have been introduced or voted on since the election.
Arizona
Arizona’s bill, introduced this week, would open up protests to anti-racketeering legislation, targeting protesters with the same laws used to combat organized crime syndicates. It would also allow police to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent. It recently passed the state Senate on a party-line vote and is now before the House.
Colorado
A bill under consideration in Colorado would strengthen penalties for “tampering” with oil and gas equipment. It’s intended to prevent activists from shutting off pipelines, a tactic that’s been used in other states.
Florida
A bill introduced by Republican George Gainer in the Florida Senate this month would provide criminal penalties for protesters obstructing traffic and exempt drivers from liability if they struck a protester under certain conditions. It was filed this week, and if enacted would take force on July 1.
Georgia
A "Back the Badge" bill recently passed by the Georgia Senate increases penalties for blocking "any highway, street, sidewalk or other public passage." The bill is sponsored by six Republican senators.
Iowa
A bill supported by nine Republican sponsors would make protesters who intentionally block highways subject to felony charges and up to five years in prison. The bill’s lead sponsor told the Des Moines Register it was introduced in response to a November incident in which a protest Trump shut down part of Interstate 80 in Iowa.
Indiana
An Indiana Senate committee recently toned down a bill that would have allowed police to shut down highway protests using “any means necessary.” The current version allows police to issue fines for such behavior.
Michigan
A Michigan bill voted on late last year would have increased fines for certain “mass picketing” behavior, and made it easier for courts to shut down such demonstrations.
Minnesota
Bills under consideration in Minnesota would increase fines for protesters blocking highways and airports. A separate measure before the legislature would make it possible for jurisdictions to charge protesters for the costs of policing the protests.
Missouri
A Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation that would make it illegal for protesters to wear masks, robes or other disguises during protests deemed to be illegal.
Mississippi
A bill before the Mississippi legislature would make obstruction of traffic a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence.
North Carolina
A North Carolina Republican has pledged to introduce legislation making it a crime to “threaten, intimidate or retaliate against” current or former state officials, in response to an incident involving the heckling of Gov. Pat McCrory. The Senator proposing the legislation, Dan Bishop, confirmed via email that he still intends to introduce the legislation, perhaps as early as next week, after consulting with potential co-sponsors.
North Dakota
A number of North Dakota bills have been introduced in response to the long-standing protests there against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The measure that drew the most attention was a bill that would have removed penalties for motorists who strike protesters with their car in some circumstances. That bill failed to make it out of the House, but a number of other measures increasing penalties for certain types of protest action are advancing through the legislature.
Oklahoma
Inspired by pipeline protests in North Dakota, the Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill that would increase penalties for trespassing on certain pieces of “critical infrastructure” like pipelines and railways.
Oregon
A novel piece of legislation in Oregon would require public community colleges and universities to expel any student convicted of participating in a violent riot.
South Dakota
A Senate panel in South Dakota recently approved a bill that would increase penalties for certain acts of trespassing and blocking highways. It’s a response to pipeline protests in North Dakota, and to the potential for similar protests in South Dakota if the Keystone XL pipeline gets built.
Tennessee
A Tennessee Republican wants drivers to be protected from liability if they inadvertently strike a protester who is blocking a roadway.
Virginia
A Virginia bill that would have increased penalties for people who refused to leave the scene of a riot or unlawful protest died in the state Senate last month. The bill had been requested by law enforcement.
Washington state
Washington lawmakers are considering a bill to increase penalties for people blocking highways and railways, acts that the bill's sponsor has characterized as “economic terrorism.”
This story has been updated to include information on legislation pending in Georgia.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/02/protests1.png&w=480
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/...ceful-protest/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/lawmakers-in-eight-states-have-proposed-laws-criminalizing-peaceful-protest/)
Update: Lawmakers in Ten States Have Proposed Legislation Criminalizing Peaceful Protest
Spencer Woodman
2017-01-23T17:34:38+00:00
Over the weekend, millions of demonstrators took to streets across the country to mobilize against the new president and his agenda, assembling in a national turnout that organizers call the beginning of a reinvigorated protest movement. But in states home to dozens of Saturday’s demonstrations, Republican lawmakers are moving to criminalize and increase penalties on peaceful protesting.
Last week, I reported that such efforts were afoot in five states: In Minnesota, Washington state, Michigan, and Iowa, Republican lawmakers have proposed an array of anti-protesting laws that center on stiffening penalties for demonstrators who block traffic; in North Dakota, conservatives are even pushing a bill that would allow motorists to run over and kill protesters so long as the collision was accidental. Similarly, Republicans in Indiana last week prompted uproar over a proposed law that would instruct police to use “any means necessary” to clear protesters off a roadway.
Over the weekend, readers alerted me to two additional anti-protesting bills, both introduced by Republicans, that are pending in Virginia and Colorado. This brings the number of states that have in recent weeks floated such proposals to at least eight.
In Colorado, Republican state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg has introduced a bill that would greatly increase penalties for environmental protesters. Under the proposed law, obstructing or tampering with oil and gas equipment would be reclassified from a misdemeanor to a “class 6” felony, a category of crime that reportedly can be punished by up to 18 months behind bars and a fine of up to $100,000.
A state with a fierce debate over oil and gas extraction, Colorado has seen a number of demonstrations in recent years against fossil fuel industries, and a town in the state recently floated a proposal to support the civil disobedience actions against environmentally harmful drilling methods. (Republican sponsors of North Dakota’s current bill cited activists’ successful actions against the Dakota Access Pipeline as a primary motivation for their current attempt to crack down on protest.)
CANNON BALL, ND - DECEMBER 04: Native American and other activists celebrate after learning an easement had been denied for the Dakota Access Pipeline at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on December 4, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. The US Army Corps of Engineers announced today that it will not grant an easement to the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under a lake on the Sioux Tribes Standing Rock reservation, ending a months-long standoff. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Native American and other activists celebrate after learning an easement had been denied for the Dakota Access Pipeline at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on Dec. 4, 2016, outside Cannon Ball, N.D.
Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images
Although Sonnenberg’s bill touts itself largely as a public safety measure and makes no mention of protesters, its language broadly includes anyone who “attempts to alter, obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the action of any equipment used or associated with oil or gas gathering operations.” In addition to imposing potentially significant terms of imprisonment and fines on anyone engaging in such activity, the bill also includes a clause appearing to buttress the ability of oil and gas firms to pursue their own separate claims against a protester who is also being prosecuted by the state.
With control of Colorado’s legislature split between parties and a Democrat in the governor’s office, the future of Sonnenberg’s bill is uncertain.
In Virginia, state lawmakers are considering an anti-protesting law that is apparently broader in scope. A bill pending in the state’s Senate would dramatically increase penalties for people who engage in an “unlawful assembly” after “having been lawfully warned to disperse.” Currently, this law is classified as a class 3 misdemeanor, which according to Virginia statute carries only a maximum $500 fine. Yet the bill proposed by Republican state Sen. Richard H. Stuart elevates such infraction to a class 1 misdemeanor, which means protesters would expect up to a year of incarceration and a fine of up to $2,500.
State Sen. Jennifer McClellan says there is a possibility that the bill will pass both chambers of the Virginia state legislature and says the state Senate could vote on it as early as Monday afternoon. However, McClellan expects that, if successful in the General Assembly, the bill would likely receive a veto from Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe.
Nonetheless, the legislation has troubled Democratic lawmakers. McClellan says she is alarmed by the move because of the law’s applicability to an enormous range of situations.
“As someone who is a direct beneficiary of the civil rights movement and all the gains that were the direct result of civil disobedience, I strongly oppose this effort to further criminalize dissent,” McClellan said. “The way the bill is worded is very broad: Take the student sit-in leaders — you could put those protesters in jail for up to a year.”
Update: Jan. 25, 2017
This story will be updated as we learn of more anti-protest legislation.
In Missouri, a bill is pending that would make it a crime for anyone participating in an “unlawful assembly” to intentionally conceal “his or her identity by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.” Sponsored by Republican lawmaker Don Phillips, the bill would classify such crimes as a Class A misdemeanor, meaning that anyone caught concealing their identity at such a protest could face up to a year behind bars. The bill contains a section that would exempt identity-concealing coverings for the purposes of religion, safety, or medical needs. The Missouri legislature’s website states that wearing a “hood” would also be included in criminalized coverings, although this language does not appear in the current wording of the bill. The bill does not yet have a hearing date scheduled, according to the state legislature’s website.
In North Carolina, a Republican lawmaker has pledged to introduce legislation to criminalize protestors heckling politicians in the state after an incident over inaugural weekend in Washington, D.C. in which demonstrators persistently shouted at the state’s former governor Pat McCrory.
http://i.imgsafe.org/0592948dea.jpg
What can Gopalan Nair say now?
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (https://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?242486-New-American-FREE-SPEECH-LAWS-to-fuck-Amos-Yee-once-he-gets-out-of-Prison!&goto=newpost).
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_anti...rming%27_by_UN (https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_anti-protest_bill_deemed_%27Alarming%27_by_UN)
US anti-protest bill deemed 'Alarming' by UN
Wikinews Developing.png This article is under development. You are welcome to contribute to it.
If it is ready to be reviewed and fact-checked, Submit for review by changing the {{develop}} tag to {{review}}
This is not a method to request someone else expand, or complete, an article for you!
If original reporting is contained in this article, you must provide notes.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
A number of US states have introduced bills that have UN rights experts concerned.
Nineteen states have been introduced to the legislation restricting assembly rights by certain degrees. If approved, the proposed bill “would severely infringe upon the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly in ways that are incompatible with US obligations under international human rights law and with First Amendment protections.”
The raised concerns over the proposed bills were sent to US authorities on 27 March 2017. This comes after the years of protests, which have intensified over the past few months.
Experts say “These state bills, with their criminalization of assemblies, enhanced penalties and general stigmatization of protesters, are designed to discourage the exercise of these fundamental rights.” The UN experts emphasise that legislators should be mindful of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the fight for civil rights.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ast-17-states/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/)
Republican lawmakers introduce bills to curb protesting in at least 18 states
By Christopher Ingraham February 24
Since the election of President Trump, Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced or voted on legislation to curb mass protests in what civil liberties experts are calling “an attack on protest rights throughout the states.”
From Virginia to Washington state, legislators have introduced bills that would increase punishments for blocking highways, ban the use of masks during protests, indemnify drivers who strike protesters with their cars and, in at least once case, seize the assets of people involved in protests that later turn violent. The proposals come after a string of mass protest movements in the past few years, covering everything from police shootings of unarmed black men to the Dakota Access Pipeline to the inauguration of Trump.
Some are introducing bills because they say they're necessary to counter the actions of “paid” or “professional” protesters who set out to intimidate or disrupt, a common accusation that experts agree is largely overstated. “You now have a situation where you have full-time, quasi-professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,” said Republican state senator John Kavanagh of Arizona in support of a measure there that would bring racketeering charges against some protesters.
Others, like the sponsors of a bill in Minnesota, say the measures are necessary to protect public safety on highways. Still other bills, in states like Oklahoma and South Dakota, are intended to discourage protesting related to oil pipelines.
Democrats in many of these states are fighting the legislation. They cite existing laws that already make it a crime to block traffic, the possibility of a chilling effect on protests across the political spectrum, and concerns for protesters’ safety in the face of aggressive motorists.
None of the proposed legislation has yet been passed into law, and several bills have already been shelved in committee.
Critics doubt whether many of the laws would pass Constitutional muster. “The Supreme Court has gone out of its way on multiple occasions to point out that streets, sidewalks and public parks are places where [First Amendment] protections are at their most robust,” said Lee Rowland, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.
This is by no means the first time in American history that widespread protests have inspired a legislative backlash, says Douglas McAdam, a Stanford sociology professor who studies protest movements. “For instance, southern legislatures — especially in the Deep South — responded to the Montgomery Bus Boycott (and the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education) with dozens and dozens of new bills outlawing civil rights groups, limiting the rights of assembly, etc. all in an effort to make civil rights organizing more difficult,” he said via email.
“Similarly,” he added, “laws designed to limit or outlaw labor organizing or limit labor rights were common in the late 19th/early 20th century.”
The ACLU’s Rowland says the new bills are not about “creating new rules that are necessary because of some gap in the law.” She points out, for instance, that “every single city and county in the United States” already has laws on the books against obstructing traffic on busy roads.
Rather, Rowland says the laws’ intent is “increasing the penalties for protest-related activity to the point that it results in self-censorship among protesters who have every intention to obey the law.”
Even the accusations of “paid” or “professional” agitators, which Trump has promoted, have been leveled at protesters before.
“This is standard operating procedure for movement opponents,” Stanford’s McAdam said. “Civil rights workers were said to be ‘outside agitators, and the tea party was dismissed as an ‘AstroTurf’ phenomenon — funded from on high by the Koch brothers and others — rather than a legitimate ‘grass roots’ movement. In all these cases, including the present, the charges are generally bogus, with the vast majority of protesters principled individuals motivated by the force of deeply held values and strong emotion.”
But now, social media has made it possible to organize larger protests more rapidly than ever before. “The older laws are becoming less effectual in dealing with these kind of groups,” said Michael Heaney of the University of Michigan, a political sociologist who studies protest movements. On top of that, “the courts have said, ‘Look, the people have a right to protest in this way.’ ” So on some level the new legislation represents an attempt by lawmakers to catch up with new realities of 21st-century protesting.
Here’s a list of laws that have been introduced or voted on since the election.
Arizona
Arizona’s bill, introduced this week, would open up protests to anti-racketeering legislation, targeting protesters with the same laws used to combat organized crime syndicates. It would also allow police to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent. It recently passed the state Senate on a party-line vote and is now before the House.
Colorado
A bill under consideration in Colorado would strengthen penalties for “tampering” with oil and gas equipment. It’s intended to prevent activists from shutting off pipelines, a tactic that’s been used in other states.
Florida
A bill introduced by Republican George Gainer in the Florida Senate this month would provide criminal penalties for protesters obstructing traffic and exempt drivers from liability if they struck a protester under certain conditions. It was filed this week, and if enacted would take force on July 1.
Georgia
A "Back the Badge" bill recently passed by the Georgia Senate increases penalties for blocking "any highway, street, sidewalk or other public passage." The bill is sponsored by six Republican senators.
Iowa
A bill supported by nine Republican sponsors would make protesters who intentionally block highways subject to felony charges and up to five years in prison. The bill’s lead sponsor told the Des Moines Register it was introduced in response to a November incident in which a protest Trump shut down part of Interstate 80 in Iowa.
Indiana
An Indiana Senate committee recently toned down a bill that would have allowed police to shut down highway protests using “any means necessary.” The current version allows police to issue fines for such behavior.
Michigan
A Michigan bill voted on late last year would have increased fines for certain “mass picketing” behavior, and made it easier for courts to shut down such demonstrations.
Minnesota
Bills under consideration in Minnesota would increase fines for protesters blocking highways and airports. A separate measure before the legislature would make it possible for jurisdictions to charge protesters for the costs of policing the protests.
Missouri
A Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation that would make it illegal for protesters to wear masks, robes or other disguises during protests deemed to be illegal.
Mississippi
A bill before the Mississippi legislature would make obstruction of traffic a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence.
North Carolina
A North Carolina Republican has pledged to introduce legislation making it a crime to “threaten, intimidate or retaliate against” current or former state officials, in response to an incident involving the heckling of Gov. Pat McCrory. The Senator proposing the legislation, Dan Bishop, confirmed via email that he still intends to introduce the legislation, perhaps as early as next week, after consulting with potential co-sponsors.
North Dakota
A number of North Dakota bills have been introduced in response to the long-standing protests there against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The measure that drew the most attention was a bill that would have removed penalties for motorists who strike protesters with their car in some circumstances. That bill failed to make it out of the House, but a number of other measures increasing penalties for certain types of protest action are advancing through the legislature.
Oklahoma
Inspired by pipeline protests in North Dakota, the Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill that would increase penalties for trespassing on certain pieces of “critical infrastructure” like pipelines and railways.
Oregon
A novel piece of legislation in Oregon would require public community colleges and universities to expel any student convicted of participating in a violent riot.
South Dakota
A Senate panel in South Dakota recently approved a bill that would increase penalties for certain acts of trespassing and blocking highways. It’s a response to pipeline protests in North Dakota, and to the potential for similar protests in South Dakota if the Keystone XL pipeline gets built.
Tennessee
A Tennessee Republican wants drivers to be protected from liability if they inadvertently strike a protester who is blocking a roadway.
Virginia
A Virginia bill that would have increased penalties for people who refused to leave the scene of a riot or unlawful protest died in the state Senate last month. The bill had been requested by law enforcement.
Washington state
Washington lawmakers are considering a bill to increase penalties for people blocking highways and railways, acts that the bill's sponsor has characterized as “economic terrorism.”
This story has been updated to include information on legislation pending in Georgia.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/02/protests1.png&w=480
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/...ceful-protest/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/lawmakers-in-eight-states-have-proposed-laws-criminalizing-peaceful-protest/)
Update: Lawmakers in Ten States Have Proposed Legislation Criminalizing Peaceful Protest
Spencer Woodman
2017-01-23T17:34:38+00:00
Over the weekend, millions of demonstrators took to streets across the country to mobilize against the new president and his agenda, assembling in a national turnout that organizers call the beginning of a reinvigorated protest movement. But in states home to dozens of Saturday’s demonstrations, Republican lawmakers are moving to criminalize and increase penalties on peaceful protesting.
Last week, I reported that such efforts were afoot in five states: In Minnesota, Washington state, Michigan, and Iowa, Republican lawmakers have proposed an array of anti-protesting laws that center on stiffening penalties for demonstrators who block traffic; in North Dakota, conservatives are even pushing a bill that would allow motorists to run over and kill protesters so long as the collision was accidental. Similarly, Republicans in Indiana last week prompted uproar over a proposed law that would instruct police to use “any means necessary” to clear protesters off a roadway.
Over the weekend, readers alerted me to two additional anti-protesting bills, both introduced by Republicans, that are pending in Virginia and Colorado. This brings the number of states that have in recent weeks floated such proposals to at least eight.
In Colorado, Republican state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg has introduced a bill that would greatly increase penalties for environmental protesters. Under the proposed law, obstructing or tampering with oil and gas equipment would be reclassified from a misdemeanor to a “class 6” felony, a category of crime that reportedly can be punished by up to 18 months behind bars and a fine of up to $100,000.
A state with a fierce debate over oil and gas extraction, Colorado has seen a number of demonstrations in recent years against fossil fuel industries, and a town in the state recently floated a proposal to support the civil disobedience actions against environmentally harmful drilling methods. (Republican sponsors of North Dakota’s current bill cited activists’ successful actions against the Dakota Access Pipeline as a primary motivation for their current attempt to crack down on protest.)
CANNON BALL, ND - DECEMBER 04: Native American and other activists celebrate after learning an easement had been denied for the Dakota Access Pipeline at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on December 4, 2016 outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota. The US Army Corps of Engineers announced today that it will not grant an easement to the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under a lake on the Sioux Tribes Standing Rock reservation, ending a months-long standoff. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Native American and other activists celebrate after learning an easement had been denied for the Dakota Access Pipeline at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on Dec. 4, 2016, outside Cannon Ball, N.D.
Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images
Although Sonnenberg’s bill touts itself largely as a public safety measure and makes no mention of protesters, its language broadly includes anyone who “attempts to alter, obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the action of any equipment used or associated with oil or gas gathering operations.” In addition to imposing potentially significant terms of imprisonment and fines on anyone engaging in such activity, the bill also includes a clause appearing to buttress the ability of oil and gas firms to pursue their own separate claims against a protester who is also being prosecuted by the state.
With control of Colorado’s legislature split between parties and a Democrat in the governor’s office, the future of Sonnenberg’s bill is uncertain.
In Virginia, state lawmakers are considering an anti-protesting law that is apparently broader in scope. A bill pending in the state’s Senate would dramatically increase penalties for people who engage in an “unlawful assembly” after “having been lawfully warned to disperse.” Currently, this law is classified as a class 3 misdemeanor, which according to Virginia statute carries only a maximum $500 fine. Yet the bill proposed by Republican state Sen. Richard H. Stuart elevates such infraction to a class 1 misdemeanor, which means protesters would expect up to a year of incarceration and a fine of up to $2,500.
State Sen. Jennifer McClellan says there is a possibility that the bill will pass both chambers of the Virginia state legislature and says the state Senate could vote on it as early as Monday afternoon. However, McClellan expects that, if successful in the General Assembly, the bill would likely receive a veto from Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe.
Nonetheless, the legislation has troubled Democratic lawmakers. McClellan says she is alarmed by the move because of the law’s applicability to an enormous range of situations.
“As someone who is a direct beneficiary of the civil rights movement and all the gains that were the direct result of civil disobedience, I strongly oppose this effort to further criminalize dissent,” McClellan said. “The way the bill is worded is very broad: Take the student sit-in leaders — you could put those protesters in jail for up to a year.”
Update: Jan. 25, 2017
This story will be updated as we learn of more anti-protest legislation.
In Missouri, a bill is pending that would make it a crime for anyone participating in an “unlawful assembly” to intentionally conceal “his or her identity by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.” Sponsored by Republican lawmaker Don Phillips, the bill would classify such crimes as a Class A misdemeanor, meaning that anyone caught concealing their identity at such a protest could face up to a year behind bars. The bill contains a section that would exempt identity-concealing coverings for the purposes of religion, safety, or medical needs. The Missouri legislature’s website states that wearing a “hood” would also be included in criminalized coverings, although this language does not appear in the current wording of the bill. The bill does not yet have a hearing date scheduled, according to the state legislature’s website.
In North Carolina, a Republican lawmaker has pledged to introduce legislation to criminalize protestors heckling politicians in the state after an incident over inaugural weekend in Washington, D.C. in which demonstrators persistently shouted at the state’s former governor Pat McCrory.
http://i.imgsafe.org/0592948dea.jpg
What can Gopalan Nair say now?
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (https://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?242486-New-American-FREE-SPEECH-LAWS-to-fuck-Amos-Yee-once-he-gets-out-of-Prison!&goto=newpost).