Anti-protest bills would 'attack right to speak out' under Donald Trump
May 8, 2017 6:30 AM   Subscribe

The ACLU says more than 30 bills have been introduced amid a huge swell of activism, prompting UN intervention over criminalization of peaceful protest More than 20 states have proposed bills that would crack down on protests and demonstrations since Donald Trump was elected, in a move that UN experts have branded “incompatible with US obligations under international human rights law”. The proposed laws would variously increase the penalties for protesting in large groups, ban protesters from wearing masks during demonstrations and, in some states, protect drivers from liability if they strike someone taking part in a protest.
posted by A. Davey (88 comments total) 43 users marked this as a favorite
 
If you count the Geneva Conventions as part of the body of international human rights law, the US has long since waved away its obligations. Not that these new laws are not deplorable, but even without them, the government has instituted things like "Free-Speech zones" for many years.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:47 AM on May 8, 2017 [2 favorites]


What was that bit about "preserve, protect and defend the U. S. Constitution"? (The amendments including the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution.) If you have only one protest to make, PROTEST THIS. It will be a meta-protest, defending your right to protest in future cases.
posted by homerica at 7:06 AM on May 8, 2017 [4 favorites]


penalties for protesting in large groups

I mean, the first amendment literally refers to "freedom of assembly." I know I shouldn't be surprised about this anymore, but it always amazes me that the first people to crow about patriotism are often the first to try and subvert some of the most important founding values of this country.
posted by lunasol at 7:11 AM on May 8, 2017 [40 favorites]


buckle up, folks because we are now entering the endgame
posted by entropicamericana at 7:15 AM on May 8, 2017 [23 favorites]


An America with the widest possible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the narrowest possible interpretation of the 1st and 4th will not be a fun place to live.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:17 AM on May 8, 2017 [59 favorites]


I am as scared and as pessimistic as just about anyone. But every single one of these laws will be struck down by the Supreme Court. And not 5-4, either. You'll see 6-3 and 7-2 votes on some of these. They will be stayed, they will be litigated, and they will be struck down.
posted by aureliobuendia at 7:17 AM on May 8, 2017 [12 favorites]


I am as scared and as pessimistic as just about anyone. But every single one of these laws will be struck down by the Supreme Court. And not 5-4, either. You'll see 6-3 and 7-2 votes on some of these. They will be stayed, they will be litigated, and they will be struck down.

But it will take years, and state legislatures have shown us that they're cheerfully prepared to play whack-a-mole by passing one version of these after another, so that even if one gets stayed, they'll just change the terms slightly and pass it again. All they need is a single sympathetic district justice, and entire swathes of the country end up in de facto protest-free zones until the case wends its way up to the Supremes. By which time, don't forget, we may be down two more liberal justices, which Trump will replace with the drinking birds from that Simpsons episode where homer gains 60 pounds to work from home.
posted by Mayor West at 7:25 AM on May 8, 2017 [35 favorites]


am as scared and as pessimistic as just about anyone. But every single one of these laws will be struck down by the Supreme Court. And not 5-4, either.

There have been laws banning protestors from wearing masks during demonstrations for many years, and they have been upheld by Federal courts, including a 2004 decision from the Second Circuit court by a panel that included current Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.

I'm not sure where you confidence that the Supreme Court will strike down all these laws comes from.
posted by layceepee at 7:27 AM on May 8, 2017 [14 favorites]


You'll see 6-3 and 7-2 votes on some of these.

Until Trump gets two more SCOTUS nominations in addition to the one he stole from Obama. Those 6-3 decisions will turn into 4-5, and then we have a problem.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:30 AM on May 8, 2017 [7 favorites]


I am as scared and as pessimistic as just about anyone. But every single one of these laws will be struck down by the Supreme Court. And not 5-4, either. You'll see 6-3 and 7-2 votes on some of these. They will be stayed, they will be litigated, and they will be struck down.

If this happens, it will be long after the laws have had their intended deterrent effect and thousands of person-years have been wasted in prison.
posted by enn at 7:32 AM on May 8, 2017 [15 favorites]


I wonder how many instances in the New Testament you could find where the ideal of Trumpist-conservatives—if the same scene were to happen today—is that giant coal-rolling monster trucks would show up and run over Jesus and everyone else, and that any survivors would be thrown into the deepest dungeon.
posted by XMLicious at 7:32 AM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


The people who have been ginning up faux outrage for the past thirty years are going to be really surprised to find out what actual, honest to god blinding rage looks like.
posted by phooky at 7:41 AM on May 8, 2017 [22 favorites]


America in 2017: we see the first-ever mass felony charges for protestors at the inauguration, simply on the basis of their presence, while the handwringing classes worry that freedom of speech cannot possibly survive if Ann Coulter doesn't get paid $20,000 to speak on a highly-exclusive platform that is only available to a handful of people.
posted by enn at 8:25 AM on May 8, 2017 [39 favorites]


what [...] blinding rage looks like

That is actually an interesting philosophical question.
posted by heatherlogan at 8:25 AM on May 8, 2017 [14 favorites]


Yeah, I would sooner put faith in being able to force a recall or updated legislation on a state level through mass, concerted pressure than the Supreme Court on this one. And even that'll be a considerable uphill climb.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 8:25 AM on May 8, 2017


It's ok to say these people worship the anti-christ.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 8:29 AM on May 8, 2017 [2 favorites]


I will never understand at a gut level how people who say they love this country and the Constitution keep doing things that demonstrate they don't. And I'll never understand how people who say love love freedom vote for the most authoritarian candidates and the most repressive laws.
posted by rtha at 8:45 AM on May 8, 2017 [6 favorites]


I am so tired. (And I'm a relatively privileged white dude.)

The thing which kills me, though, is that these people can turn me into something I'd like to think I'm not: I have thoughts of bringing hurt and vengeance into their lives, of making them suffer like they so want to make others suffer, and I'm like "WTF, dude" when my brain actually kicks in again.
posted by maxwelton at 8:47 AM on May 8, 2017 [10 favorites]


Echoing maxwelton; it really seems that someone's following the recipe for creating domestic terrorism.

I do have problems with masked protesters; it implies that someone intends malevolence, and it's also the way the authorities insert agents provocateurs so that they can turn any protest violent when they want to, and thereby crack down hard on it.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:14 AM on May 8, 2017 [4 favorites]


Those people think free speech means only the right to spend money on media.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:15 AM on May 8, 2017 [2 favorites]


Should be noted the mask laws at least are in place, litigated, etc. due to problems in past decades with masked groups engaging in organized political violence.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:17 AM on May 8, 2017 [3 favorites]


(i.e. the klan)

of course, it is fine for LEOs to be masked for some reason.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:31 AM on May 8, 2017 [10 favorites]


don't worry guys

i saw this documentary. we've been going about this all wrong.

turns out we just need to give the riot police a delicious refreshing Pepsi, and then the protests can continue unmolested.
posted by Mayor West at 9:35 AM on May 8, 2017 [7 favorites]


There have been laws banning protestors from wearing masks during demonstrations for many years,

Most of these are anti-KKK laws that are just newly being referred to antifa, etc. It's kind of a tough problem because you don't want to loosen the rules for the KKK, especially right now.
posted by corb at 10:04 AM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


of course, it is fine for LEOs to be masked for some reason.

In related news, a state commission in Missouri ruled last year that Officer Go Fuck Yourself of Ferguson fame committed crimes in the course of his threats against protesters. In a cursory search I'm not seeing anything about him being charged by a prosecutor, so that's probably the end of that in Trump's America.
posted by XMLicious at 10:30 AM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


I mean, the first amendment literally refers to "freedom of assembly."

Well, sure. Trump rallies and things, of course.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:33 AM on May 8, 2017 [2 favorites]


Perhaps I am missing something here, but the linked article appears to jumble a lot of disparate activities together. In my opinion, there are multiple protest activities alluded to in this article that are not properly understood as falling under the protection of the First Amendment -- such as walking across interstate highways on foot, vandalizing industrial equipment, and rioting while wearing a mask. Suggesting that this stuff is inherently "peaceful protest" seems to me to be missing an important point.
posted by Mr. Justice at 10:37 AM on May 8, 2017 [2 favorites]


The conduct being regulated doesn't appear to be protected speech. It looks like increased penalties for property destruction, illegally blocking roads, etc.
posted by jpe at 10:42 AM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


The legislative response reminded me of this paper:

From the abstract:

Prior work shows that extreme protest tactics – actions that are highly counter-normative, disruptive, or harmful to others, including inflammatory rhetoric, blocking traffic, and damaging property – are effective for gaining publicity. However, we find across three experiments that extreme protest tactics decreased popular support for a given cause because they reduced feelings of identification with the movement.
posted by jpe at 10:44 AM on May 8, 2017 [3 favorites]


boy i'm glad i live in a country that would never use agents provocateur to incite violence and derail a peaceful protest
posted by entropicamericana at 10:50 AM on May 8, 2017 [8 favorites]


Being able to wear a mask certainly helped during the Scientology protests and helped prevent protestors being doxxed by the cult. Not to mention, followed and harassed. I have a cease and desist letter from Scientology's lawyers (framed and hanging proudly) sent after they discovered my identity by running my car's plates.

I 100% understand why not giving more power to the KKK is a good thing, but mask laws can hurt honest protestors too.
posted by Twain Device at 10:51 AM on May 8, 2017 [8 favorites]


I wonder how many instances in the New Testament you could find where the ideal of Trumpist-conservatives—if the same scene were to happen today—is that giant coal-rolling monster trucks would show up and run over Jesus and everyone else, and that any survivors would be thrown into the deepest dungeon.

The Christianity that is practiced by a lot of self-identified Christians has basically nothing to do with the Christianity attributed to Jesus in the New Testament. It's a means of cultural identification, not a moral compass. We can no longer feign surprise at this, and we can't keep expecting any behavior other than this. It's been the case for every "majority Christian" society since Theodosius.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 10:55 AM on May 8, 2017 [18 favorites]


I 100% understand why not giving more power to the KKK is a good thing, but mask laws can hurt honest protestors too.

Not to mention that there's a concerted effort on places like 4chan's /pol/ and reddit's physical_removal to identify antifa protesters (or really, anyone protesting against them) for doxxing purposes.
posted by spinifex23 at 11:04 AM on May 8, 2017 [4 favorites]


I'm not sure how giving drivers the power of vigilante justice as long as a judge thinks they practiced "due care" helps ensure either public safety or the right to assembly.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:13 AM on May 8, 2017 [4 favorites]


the first amendment literally refers to "freedom of assembly."

In 2017 this means you get to shop at an IKEA.
posted by srboisvert at 11:20 AM on May 8, 2017 [10 favorites]


"Freedom of assembly" was already tested to its limits by the Occupy movement - turns out that "freedom" stops after a few weeks of annoying nearby locals.

Some, maybe many, of these new laws will get thrown out by the courts, but some are likely to slip through and make it harder to regain the rights they're trying to take away. The courts don't have a good track record in protecting privacy, as opposed to the right to be somewhere and say something. (Which, as mentioned, is generally interpreted as "as long as you don't keep reminding people after you've already told them.")
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:21 AM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


Perhaps I am missing something here, but the linked article appears to jumble a lot of disparate activities together. In my opinion, there are multiple protest activities alluded to in this article that are not properly understood as falling under the protection of the First Amendment -- such as walking across interstate highways on foot, vandalizing industrial equipment, and rioting while wearing a mask.

I imagine some of the sponsors of these various pieces of legislation were similarly disingenous. As lunasoi pointed out, the First Amendment guarantees not only freedom of speech but freedom of assembly as well, and the intent of these laws seems to make it harder to exercise both those rights. Vandalizing industrial equipment and riot are already illegal; what's the purpose of laws specifically targeting those activities in the context of political protest? If there's an answer besides "to make it more perilous to publlcly oppose government policy or action," I don't know what it is.
posted by layceepee at 11:22 AM on May 8, 2017 [9 favorites]


what's the purpose of laws specifically targeting those activities in the context of political protest?

To increase deterrence. Current penalties obviously aren't working.

the First Amendment guarantees not only freedom of speech but freedom of assembly as well

True, but the government is allowed to and does impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of those assemblies.
posted by jpe at 11:27 AM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


To increase deterrence. Current penalties obviously aren't working.

I know, right? You can't just kick indigenous people off your work site that is poisoning their food and water without repercussion like you could back in the 1840s. Nor can your modern white supremacist just up and run over some thugs and welfare queens like back in the Jim Crowgood ol' days. Thankfully these laws will help close such nefarious loopholes!
posted by zombieflanders at 11:35 AM on May 8, 2017 [14 favorites]


A relatively small, but significant point to consider about the 'wearing masks' ban in the 21st century is how the ever-advancing technology of facial recognition may become involved in the future.

I don't mean it's application of the technology for use in identifying someone caught on video or photographed while committing an obvious criminal act, but it's potential to be used as a means to identify, locate, and then remove 'key individuals' from the area that authorities have previously identified from other demonstrations before any law is broken. While that may be justifiable in certain circumstances (person X has performed or incited violent acts in several past demonstrations), the potential for it to be abused is significant.

Consider the database of such a system. At some point in the future, we're going to have to decide if it's OK for the government to be able to call up what demonstrations you have been to in the past, regardless of your conduct, and use that information in whatever way it pleases to draw conclusions about you that may or may not be correct, and then act upon it - perhaps even before any law is broken. To what degree will the knowledge that your presence will be logged for potential future use create a chilling effect that may interfere with citizen's right to assembly?

In what ways will the definition of 'mask' be expanded when methods are devised that are designed to primarily confuse a facial recognition system? IIRC, such systems can be confused to varying degrees by methods such as facepaint/makeup (similar to how Dazzle Camouflage was used on ships in WWII) and even cheap Halloween prosthetics like a false chin that would change how the computer sees the shape of your face. If interfering with such a system's ability to identify one by methods similar to those above, but not affect other, more 'manual' forms of identification would be considered a crime, then the question of what is and is not a mask becomes rather important.

Of course, these are questions for the future, but a future that is a heck of a lot closer than one might think.
posted by chambers at 11:35 AM on May 8, 2017 [10 favorites]


What future? It's going on right now, on 4chan in /pol/.

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/124575647/antifa-facial-database.

(it's 4chan pol. Really Reeeeeeeally NSFW. And linked thread has slurs galore.)
posted by spinifex23 at 11:45 AM on May 8, 2017 [8 favorites]


I do have problems with masked protesters; it implies that someone intends malevolence...

Huh. To me, it implies that they don't want to inhale tear gas. But then, I've inhaled tear gas and would go to some lengths to avoid it, even if it makes you think I'm malevolent.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:13 PM on May 8, 2017 [5 favorites]


Am I naive to have thought that 4chan's anarchic spirit would be inherently antifascist? (I mean I'm aware that at its core 4chan has a racist, misogynistic, willfully ignorant, teenage rebellious non-soul, in all its cruelty and stupidity, but I thought it would be at odds with fascism...)
posted by nikoniko at 12:20 PM on May 8, 2017


The car thing is actually really tricky, more so than it appears. Because on the one hand, obviously you don't want to encourage people to run over anyone! But on the other hand, at what point does swarming a car become kidnap? Especially when sometimes we see things like people hammering on the windows? When people are trapped in a car and can't move or get out or escape and there's a rioting crowd outside? When people have been ripped from cars and killed in the past, at what point can you just try to get away?
posted by corb at 12:29 PM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


(To be clear, most of the "ripped from cars and killed" I've seen has happened outside the US: my grandfather was murdered this way, but in Latin America, not here.)
posted by corb at 12:31 PM on May 8, 2017


In that case, they can argue self-defense at trial, right?
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 12:34 PM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


Oh, come on. Not only do the laws being discussed do nothing to address that, there are already laws for those kind of actions. And given the context that these laws are being proposed in, it's obvious that these are not intended for the public safety, but for the suppression of free speech. There's no need to defend their shitty actions with hypotheticals when you damn well know why they're doing it.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:37 PM on May 8, 2017 [11 favorites]


But every single one of these laws will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

But that would take someone wanting to charge someone with the law and feel strongly enough VS using the existence of the law to start the legal process so the entry in mugshot.com can exist for all of time forward and the case eventually being dropped.

"You may not do the time but you will ride the ride."

(As I understand legal history - the 1920's when some corrupt supreme court judges got nailed in NY help to bring about the idea of standing. And while I've not seen evidence of the 1946-ish rewrite of the rules surrounding federal Grand Juries that stopped a citizen from walking into the Grand Jury would seem to be tied to members of the integrated armed forces trying just that and the system wanting to put an end to THAT kind of activity.)
posted by rough ashlar at 12:39 PM on May 8, 2017


But on the other hand, at what point does swarming a car become kidnap?

Whatever the answer to that question might be, if your vehicle was a rocket-powered jetpack, no matter what happened there wouldn't be any circumstance in which you'd be justified in taking off and immolating everyone standing around you in a crowd. So I don't think there's any way to justify attacking people with your vehicle based upon your feelings of being threatened.
posted by XMLicious at 12:45 PM on May 8, 2017 [5 favorites]


The NRA has been pushing for civil immunity for decades now, so I guess it's no surprise that the lives of The Others have became so devalued that "floor it first and ask questions later" could be sold as a reasonable reaction to domestic protests.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:50 PM on May 8, 2017 [2 favorites]


4chan's anarchic spirit

Do you think this is happening spontaneously? Like we plopped a huge pile of disaffected teens down without adult supervision and don't think anyone decided to take advantage of that?
posted by phooky at 12:50 PM on May 8, 2017 [4 favorites]


In a cursory search I'm not seeing anything about him being charged by a prosecutor, so that's probably the end of that in Trump's America.

You think that is somehow new in Trump's America? You must not spend any time courtwatching.

The last case I sat down on featured a guy who SELF represented (aka was PRO-SE in a 3 count criminal case against him) and was acquitted. Think about that: A pro-se who BEAT THE DA. When he tried to get charges pressed VS the person on the public payroll he was blocked by the prosecutor and the case was delayed by the Chief Judge long enough for the statute of limitations to have run on any actions the person on the public payroll. And the Chief Judge holds the casefile, not the Clerk of the Courts and says I need to "write a note" if I want to see the casefile. Guess who's office controls the Court Reporter - yup the chief Judge. So if I want a transcript - gotta go to the Chief Judge's office.
This happened in a blue county in a state that ended up going for Trump.

Oh and I was the only person there in the gallery. Got moved to behind the plaintiff's attorney because the soundsystem is NFG.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:52 PM on May 8, 2017 [2 favorites]


Am I naive to have thought that 4chan's anarchic spirit would be inherently antifascist?

Yes.

4chan's ethos is not anarchism, it's don't-tell-me-what-to-do-momism.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:54 PM on May 8, 2017 [6 favorites]


What future? It's going on right now, on 4chan in /pol/.

Consider also the more polished versions of this activity, at such sites as Canary Mission, which doxxes BDS activists, and KeyWiki, which doxxes left-wing activists in general. This isn't limited to 4chan, though I'd bet some /pol/ users have helped these organizations.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:58 PM on May 8, 2017 [8 favorites]


You think that is somehow new in Trump's America? You must not spend any time courtwatching.

No, I'm saying that the state commission declaring Ray Albers to have committed criminal acts (which occurred before last November's election) is probably the end of the specific pursuit of justice in the case of Ray Albers in Trump's America, whereas perhaps in the Clinton 45 parallel universe he may be under prosecution after such a finding. (But I'm not any sort of legal professional, much less a traveler between parallel universes, so I really don't know.)
posted by XMLicious at 1:00 PM on May 8, 2017


...and don't think anyone decided to take advantage of that?

One example,

Trolling Scholars Debunk the Idea That the Alt-Right’s Shitposters Have Magic Powers
the 4chan and Anonymous of 2017 is not the same as the 4chan and Anonymous of 2008. On 4chan, this shift is most directly attributable to changes within its userbase.

That white supremacists from Stormfront decided to recruit on 4chan's /pol/ board, for example, in the process drawing new participants into the 4chan fold, speaks to this variability .
posted by Buntix at 1:09 PM on May 8, 2017 [4 favorites]


I'm confused by the bill as worded:
(a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way is immune from civil liability for such injury.

(b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton.
Isn't this already the existing way it would be handled? "Due care" is the standard by which we assess whether a driver is acting tortiously. Failure to exercise due care is negligence, and drivers who strike pedestrians due to lack of due care are subject to civil penalties. In addition, those who are acting willfully and wantonly are subject to civil penalties. However, if a driver is exercising due care - exercising every caution for the circumstances, not acting intentionally or recklessly, and it was an accident in which he is not at fault - then the driver would not be subject to civil penalties, as a basic matter of tort law, with or without this bill.

So it's like: "Civil immunity for people who are deemed not subject to civil fines". Completely redundant. If that's the case, then the question becomes, why have this law at all, why introduce this bill? Is it wink-wink-nudge articulating a different standard that judges should apply, even if it's not stating so outright? Or is it purely a scare tactic to discourage protests without actually changing anything at all?
posted by naju at 1:21 PM on May 8, 2017 [5 favorites]


Isn't this already the existing way it would be handled?

If you intentionally drive into someone, that's likely an intentional tort no matter how slowly you're driving. The fact that the other person is dumb enough to just stand there may reduce liability, but wouldn't eliminate it.
posted by jpe at 1:24 PM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


The bill as stated applies to people who are NOT intentionally driving into someone. "Willful" and "wanton" are legal terms of art that more or less mean "acting intentionally". So the law is saying that people who strike someone accidentally, non-deliberately, through no fault or negligence of their own, are immune from civil liability. But they're already not liable.
posted by naju at 1:28 PM on May 8, 2017 [3 favorites]


In that case, they can argue self-defense at trial, right?

As I understand, mobs make everything, especially self-defense pleas, complicated, because the power and threat of a mob is not in any one individual actor. Self defense laws are largely written for circumstances where you are in direct danger of harm from an individual. But in a mob, no one individual alone is stopping you.

The other problem is that by the time you can effectively differentiate between a mob stopping someone's car because they are angry and trying to Make A Point, and a mob stopping someone's car and eventually going to hurt them, you are often beyond the time when you can get free. And mobs dragging people out of cars to hurt them is a real thing that happens. We cannot allow American exceptionalism to let us think it could never happen here, and mobs banging on cars must just be tolerated.
posted by corb at 1:31 PM on May 8, 2017


There may simply not be a situation where you can morally attack a mob of people en masse because you feel threatened. Choosing to do what is right may necessitate doing nothing, if the only response to feeling threatened you can come up with in a given situation is to indiscriminately lethally attack a group of people.
posted by XMLicious at 1:39 PM on May 8, 2017 [8 favorites]


And mobs dragging people out of cars to hurt them is a real thing that happens. We cannot allow American exceptionalism to let us think it could never happen here, and mobs banging on cars must just be tolerated.

Sorry, but this makes zero sense. Who is "tolerating" a protestor dragging someone out of a car and hurting them? Definitely not any prosecutor in America I've ever heard of. There are already laws that adequately address this.
posted by naju at 1:43 PM on May 8, 2017 [11 favorites]


We cannot allow American exceptionalism to let us think it could never happen here,

It does and did happen here. See the 1992 LA Riots. Although it is pretty rare. And those who were caught pulling the truck driver out and beating him were prosecuted. So this additional law seems necessary.

There may simply not be a situation where you can morally attack a mob of people en masse because you feel threatened. Choosing to do what is right may necessitate doing nothing, if the only response to feeling threatened you can come up with in a given situation is to indiscriminately lethally attack a group of people.

A group of people surround and banging on my car, while scary, would not be enough to justify plowing through the crowd. If while that is going on, someone opens my door or breaks my window and they can put hands on me, you better believe I'm flooring it. I'll do my best to not hit anyone in the vicinity, but I personally would not allow myself to be dragged out of a car and beaten.
(I am about 99% sure this will never happen to me though. This is rare in the US, currently.)
posted by LizBoBiz at 1:58 PM on May 8, 2017 [2 favorites]


Really, though? Even if you can't see beyond the people standing immediately in front of your car and you don't know how many people you'll be running over, and there might be a bunch of children you're going to hit?

I mean I can understand doing it, or doing many other things out of fear, it's just the judging it as the morally correct choice to make that seems insane to me. Much less creating a special legal carve-out to ensure that it's always the legally and practically correct choice.

It reminds me of this talk given by Native American scholar Chad Uran exploring how zombie-movie zombies are the ultimate "other" who you can attack and mistreat without restraint.
posted by XMLicious at 2:18 PM on May 8, 2017 [5 favorites]


I think once you get into the trolley problem level of hypothetical "take deeply questionable action or experience immediate grave injury" situations we're past where we can get very far with an appeal to abstract morality in either direction. Of course it's not okay to drive into a crowd. Of course it's not okay to expect someone to accept getting the shit beat out of them. If we reduce it to those being two sides of a coin, the coinflip is never going to come out okay. I'd say focusing further on heads vs. tails there isn't gonna go much of anywhere useful
posted by cortex at 2:27 PM on May 8, 2017 [6 favorites]


Whatever the answer to that question might be, if your vehicle was a rocket-powered jetpack, no matter what happened there wouldn't be any circumstance in which you'd be justified in taking off and immolating everyone standing around you in a crowd. So I don't think there's any way to justify attacking people with your vehicle based upon your feelings of being threatened.
XMLicious

This is actually not true. Self-defense largely does rest on your reasonable fear of being threatened. Many jurisdictions allow the use of deadly force in self-defense when a person reasonably believes that the use of such deadly force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

There could indeed be circumstances where a person wearing such a jetpack is surrounded by a group of people and reasonably believes that they intend to harm or kill them, and that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent it, especially in jurisdictions that don't require attempting to retreat before using force. In this case, the use of their jetpack.

Interestingly, this jetpack example is probably more clear-cut than the car one for the reason you give:

Really, though? Even if you can't see beyond the people standing immediately in front of your car and you don't know how many people you'll be running over, and there might be a bunch of children you're going to hit?

Since the jetpack is going up rather than forward, the damage would be limited to those directly around you who you felt were threatening you with immediate harm.

This isn't speaking to the morality of such an act, just the legal aspect.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:40 PM on May 8, 2017


A relatively small, but significant point to consider about the 'wearing masks' ban in the 21st century is how the ever-advancing technology of facial recognition may become involved in the future. ... photographed ... used as a means to identify. ... At some point in the future, we're going to have to decide if it's OK for the government to be able to call up what demonstrations you have been to in the past, regardless of your conduct, and use that information in whatever way it pleases to draw conclusions about you that may or may not be correct, and then act upon it - perhaps even before any law is broken.

You mean like how in the pro-communist people photographed after WWI were then used during the time of Sen. McCarthy? Best I know the Communist party was never an illegal party in the US of A.

Or how about using pictures/news reports about a Klan rally that mentioned the father of someone running for office?

It looks like people are A-OK with such data mining. And such data mining is OK by the court system.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:49 PM on May 8, 2017


To those who say the courts will strike it down: do you really want to make that bet?
posted by fings at 3:53 PM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


Sangermaine—I didn't say anything about only harming the people who you feel are threatening you, which would seem to conflict with the harm being unintentional. Or, I don't know, perhaps legally speaking targeting specific people and taking an action you know will harm them is compatible with a technical meaning of "unintentional"; but in any case the scenarios I laid out were about harming everyone around you and indiscriminately using lethal force against a group of people.

Is self-defense as a legal argument compatible with that? You make it sound as though it involves fairly specific judgments of risk and specific actions.
posted by XMLicious at 3:56 PM on May 8, 2017


I should also probably note that I was being handwavy by talking about a "rocket-powered jetpack", which is a contradiction in terms; I was trying to convey the idea of something that would harm people based on proximity.
posted by XMLicious at 4:00 PM on May 8, 2017


You didn't say anything about unintentional harm in your comment, which I quoted in its entirety. You just said there's no circumstance in which such an action would be justified, and that one's feeling of being threatened wouldn't matter, which isn't true. For example, removing the obviously silly jetpack and replacing it with a gun, there could be circumstances in which you'd be justified in firing at people surrounding you if you reasonably believed they were going to harm you otherwise.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:04 PM on May 8, 2017


You just said there's no circumstance in which such an action would be justified, and that one's feeling of being threatened wouldn't matter, which isn't true.

Yeah, but that's not relevant. We know such laws are about giving cover to people intentionally running over protestors.
posted by hoyland at 4:09 PM on May 8, 2017 [3 favorites]


It's frustrating that the digression into hypotheticals has distracted from the timing and context in which these laws are being introduced. This country has seen no shortage of passionate and at times protests over wars, trade policy, environmental protection, and many other issues. Where were these legislators when those protesters needed their rights to be protected? The automobile has been around for quite a while, and blocking streets and impeding traffic has been part of the protesting toolbox for some time as well. What has changed about these protests that has necessitated the unusual step of granting civil immunity? Or is it that the protests themselves are the same, but the targets are different?
posted by tonycpsu at 4:14 PM on May 8, 2017 [6 favorites]


You didn't say anything about unintentional harm in your comment, which I quoted in its entirety. You just said there's no circumstance in which such an action would be justified, and that one's feeling of being threatened wouldn't matter, which isn't true.

I mean, I didn't mention self-defense either.

So, just to be clear, you're saying that intentionally harming everyone around you to escape harm yourself could be justified by a self-defense argument?

I guess if you had some way to know what the intentions of every person who might be harmed by your vehicle were and knew what you needed to do to obstruct their ability to harm you. But that seems unlikely enough to me that it's not really relevant, and if it were really the basis of this law permitting a "person who is participating in a protest or demonstration" to be harmed without incurring liability it would be more about stigmatizing the protesters and implying that mere participation in protest is adequate to assume an intention of violence.
posted by XMLicious at 4:22 PM on May 8, 2017


A thought occurs to me: cattle and other livestock can obstruct roads the same way people exercising their right of assembly can. Is harming that kind of property unintentionally something which can't incur civil liability in the state or states considering these laws, or are they only looking at making it consequence-free when you strike people?
posted by XMLicious at 4:27 PM on May 8, 2017 [3 favorites]


It looks like people are A-OK with such data mining. And such data mining is OK by the court system.

Yeah, I suppose it's not worth bothering about. A public assembly is public after all, and one should not expect any level of anonymity in such a situation. My concerns were more about how that aggregate data could be used (or misused) in various ways rather than the act of collecting that data. I suppose at the very least, it sure will be interesting to see how such tools will be used and who uses them.
posted by chambers at 5:36 PM on May 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


The U.S. military uses something called the Identity Dominance System for tracking people via biometrics in Afghanistan.
posted by XMLicious at 6:06 PM on May 8, 2017


The younger guys in my office are now blathering about antifa as if they are some sort of coherent terrorist group, and are sending around links to dubious news sources. Get ready for the protestor crackdown.
posted by benzenedream at 6:15 PM on May 8, 2017


I'm really torn about the mask thing. I brought bandanas for Kid Ruki and I when we went to the WMW in case of tear gas. And we ended up getting as close as possible to the White House, where I started a trend of people taking pictures of themselves flipping off the WH. But there was also a group of masked white kids up there with us, and they made me nervous. In my personal protesting experience, it's been the masked white kids who have put the rest of us in dangerous situations with their provocations. There are so many legitimate reasons why people would want to be masked in protests, and I get that, but the (again, in my experience) wealthy white anarchist kids (I know who they are, so this isn't conjecture) fuck shit up because they know there are no consequences for them. I hate feeling this way. The assembly and car things are absolute bullshit, though.
posted by Ruki at 7:49 PM on May 8, 2017


there was also a group of masked white kids up there with us, and they made me nervous.

I saw a similar bunch at the same march and felt the same way. It was out of place and seemed calculated to heighten tension - or at least, promote a fantasy of being an actor amidst tension. Which is a dangerous mindset.
posted by Miko at 8:18 PM on May 8, 2017


We know such laws are about giving cover to people intentionally running over protestors

I think on things like this it's really important to challenge our assumptions. How do we know that? What is meant by "intentionally running over protesters"? Do you think that this is /designed/ for people who could leave without hitting people and who intentionally steer at them, or do you think it's meant for people who can't leave without hitting people, but might be used by bad actors looking for cover for their actions?
posted by corb at 10:28 PM on May 8, 2017


Oh my god, do not let your mind be so open your brain falls out. These laws are being seriously considered/passed in states with majority Republican legislatures. The sound you hear is hoofbeats of horses, not zebras.

In any case, intent is not magic, especially when it comes to law. Disparate impact is an actual thing, and all the good intentions in the universe don't erase it. (Though it's probably not relevant in these laws, but IANAL.)
posted by rtha at 10:48 PM on May 8, 2017 [6 favorites]


Selective and uncritical assumption of good faith is a hell of a drug.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:56 PM on May 8, 2017 [3 favorites]


The crowd provides all the necessary anonymity the individual needs to ease any apprehensions about expressing his or her views in public. Even the most rabid and boorish, individual Red Sox fan is going to refrain from screaming “Yankees you suck” in a hotel lobby if the they happen to see half the Yankee’s team checking into their Boston hotel eight hours before a night game.

Despite any assurances the Boston fan has that the Yankee’s are as sucky in a hotel lobby as they are on the field, yelling “Yankee’s You Suck” in the lobby is going to attract unwanted scrutiny to the individual, from the individual’s perspective. The individual needs the anonymity of the crowd to express his views, which many believe have real merit, even if Yankee fans don’t agree.

Since the crowd provides the individual with the anonymity to express a view, wearing a mask is redundant. A mask is not required unless the crowd believes its anonymity must be protected. Individuals in an anonymous crowd may not have the intent to engage in actions above and beyond simply expressing a view, but the anonymous crowd certainly has the ability to subvert the individual’s intentions. Soldiers wear uniforms, among other reasons, to elevate the anonymity of the individual and subvert his or her apprehensions about engaging in acts they might find difficult to perform on their own because of their inclinations as an individual. As Mark Twain said, a company of soldiers is a “mob” with a leader. A group of individuals expressing a common view does so as an anonymous crowd. A crowd that expresses a common view, that is also collectively anonymous because they are masked, is a “mob” without a leader.
posted by otto42 at 3:44 AM on May 9, 2017


Your definition of anonymity is unique. Authorities have been identifying individuals in crowds of protestors since at least the 1960s. Many people whose only public political expressions are participation in protests now have FBI files.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:37 AM on May 9, 2017 [5 favorites]


I just want to follow some of what's been posted above regarding the alt-right and surveillance. With not only doxxing, but swatting, being current tools of the alt-right, one might consider how being filmed at a protest, very carefully, for an extended period of time, by a known member of the alt-right, might lead you too to consider what tools you may have to increase your anonymity.
posted by dysh at 5:01 AM on May 9, 2017 [3 favorites]


FTFA (emphasis mine):
In Tennessee, a bill is currently under consideration by the state senate which would give “civil immunity for the driver of an automobile who injures a protester who is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way if the driver was exercising due care”. The state’s Republican governor, Bill Haslam, signed a separate bill into law in April which increased the penalty for obstructing streets and highways in a way which restricts emergency vehicles. A similar bill is being considered in Minnesota.
Interestingly enough, Pajamas Media cofounder and bigoted conservative shitstain Glenn Reynolds is a U of Tennessee professor, and was suspended from USA Today for--wait for it--tweeting that drivers should run down protesters. And in another "coincidence," a St Paul, Minnesota cop urged fellow cops to do the same after a driver ran over a 16 year-old protester. Just in the Ferguson protests alone, there's several easily-found examples of peaceful protesters being attacked by drivers:

Car breaks through protesters shutting down I-70 on ‘Moral Monday’
Car plows through protesters during Ferguson rally in south Minneapolis
Hit-and-Run Driver Targets "Black Lives Matter" Protest in Ferguson

So let's take the stupid "but what if..." handwaving out of the equation already. These aren't "assumptions" that need to be challenged (WTF?!), these aren't hypotheticals, and you don't need to keep on coming up with excuses for why protesters totally deserve to be run over. And really, to repeatedly try to come up with situations that are either not applicable or are already covered by other laws only serves to underline how the problem isn't with how the protesters are exercising their rights.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:02 AM on May 9, 2017 [11 favorites]


I recently had an hour-long argument with my brother -who is a truck driver- over whether or not it's morally defensible to plow through people blocking the road. Even if someone is trying to get into the cab, you cannot drive a big-rig into a crowd. It makes about as much sense as getting mugged, then pulling a gun and emptying your clip into the surrounding area. By all means, fight back against your attacker(s), but don't expect to get much sympathy for killing bystanders.
posted by domo at 9:23 AM on May 9, 2017 [1 favorite]


« Older Living on minimum   |   Appleseed WA 38 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments