They DO want to equate civil disobedience with terrorism!

[errata]

OK so this is just one state, and I have no idea how much support it has in the legislature yet. But damn, if they don't spell out liberal "paranoid fantasies" completely.
Here's the ACLU's take and the text of the ammendment.
A quote from the ACLU

The bill creates the crime of "terrorism" and defines it so broadly that individuals would be subject to life in prison if any other participant in the same group intended to disrupt commerce, transportation, educational, or governmental institutions (such as, strikes, protests, student food fights)

Some text from the bill

A person commits the crime of terrorism if
the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any
act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to
disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the
State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of
Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State
of Oregon or its inhabitants.

and furthermore

b) When a person is convicted of terrorism under this section,
the court shall order that the person be confined for a minimum
of 25 years without possibility of parole, release to post-prison
supervision, release on work release or any form of temporary
leave or employment at a forest or work camp.

I hope that the rest of the legislature is more sensible than this, but I can see some lobbyist (like the timber industry, a notable force in Oregon) liking this a great deal.

What do you folks think. A good idea? Could it make it to law?

[kniz]

I agree that this is a bad idea. Every once in awhile the ACLU is right. If this bill passes it will most likely be declared unconstitutional, even before it gets to the Supreme Court.

• ^{I agreed with errata!}

[djbdjb]

I don't understand the term "non-violent": How are masses of people using force less violent than one person using force on another person. If I stopped Noam Chompsky from getting in his car because I hate Uday Hussein, I get arrested, but when thousands of people force a large group of random commuters to take hours and hours to commute home because they hate George Bush it is called "non-violent".

Publish all you want, scream all you want from your own property, but do not block roads, divert the attention of police away from more important duties, or damage private property. That I would call non-violent.

[Zoe]

djbdjb, I don't want this to seem like a personal attack on you. But your post is sort of an example of how this bill could cause problems. Who decides what is violent?

Do you really believe that people should be put in prison for a minimum of twenty-five years for intentionally blocking traffic?
Remember, rapists, murderers and child-abusers are already being released when they probably shouldn't be because there is not enough room for all of the people who should be incarcerated. Mandatory drug sentences are partly to blame. Sentencing requirements which undermine the authority of judges are already creating major problems.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

As someone who has defended other anti-terrorism acts suggested by the government, let me just say that I agree this bill is a great big ball of shit.

I agreed with errata. Hell may now commence freezing over.

[djbdjb]

Originally posted by Zoe
Who decides what is violent?

Do you really believe that people should be put in prison for a minimum of twenty-five years for intentionally blocking traffic?

Of course 25 years is excessive. The crime is economic, and can be handled with a fine.

The point I make is that "non-violent" crimes are not non-violent. They are crimes where (usually) large numbers of people all use a little bit of force to cause the same amount of damage as fewer people using more force.

There is no contradiction in being in favor of the civil liberties of being able to think what you want, smoke what you want, have sex with who you want, and in saying that if you block traffic, you must pay a fine.

[Spiritus Mundi]

It has always been an accepted element of civil disobedience that the protesters must be willing to accept appropriaet legal sanctions for their actions, djbdjb. Have you never seen people at sit-ins being cuffed and dragged into police vans?

That said, I can in no way imagine that the penalities called for in this bill are appropriate for acts of civil disobedience. Put me over in the "great big ball of shit" section, please.

[Optihut]

I do hope that this bill gets rejected. After all, people are always preaching about "Learning from history and not making the same mistakes over and over again".

[Mtgman]

Hmm, so taking out a street light with a BB gun in Oregon could get you 25 years in prison without parole. Hurray for proportionate justice!

In an ironic twist, if the President comes to Oregon during the '04 campaign and sets up his "Free Speech Zones" he could be considered a terrorist for disrupting "The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon".

Enjoy,
Steven

[errata]

We haven't even scraped the surface of the crapitude of this bill. But since it seems to be a non-starter debate wise. Let me extrapolate something that might.

This bill is sponsored by a state senator who heads the judiciary committee that this bill is being considered in. This wasn't just some schmoe who got his inbred relatives to vote for him in an underpopulated district. Therefore I think we can conclude from this that he actually represents a certain sentiment that is at least somewhat popular and powerful. If people like this can get elected to his office here they can get elected elsewhere and they can also get elected to be DA's and judges who interpret our current anti-terrorism laws.

More than the penalties in this bill, I'm disturbed by it's insistence of using the word "Terrorism" to attack political enemies. Notice also that the bill isn't even careful enough to suggest that people need to be breaking previous laws to be considered for this crime.

Therefore, I propose that there exist political forces that are actively trying to use the fear of terrorism to suppress political dissent and they just might be powerful enough to do it. It's obvious here in Oregon, and I think it's likely to happen elsewhere and even in DC.

[rjung]

The thing is, the way the bill is worded, you could get tossed for 25 years just for standing on the sidewalk outside the Oregon Capitol Building and yelling loudly -- after all, someone could claim that you were "disrupting" their daily activities, and making it hard for them to do whatever their tasks du jour were.

Stupid, stupid, stupid legislation. What is it with Republican lawmakers?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Legislators propose idiot legislation all the time. A few years ago here in NC, an anti-death-penalty legislator proposed that we bring back public hangings -- he seemed to think that it would turn more people away from supporting the death penalty. He apparently doesn't realize that its main effect would be to siphon audiences away from Nascar.

Daniel

[Yeticus Rex]

Pink Floyd had it right:

"You better stay home and do as your told
Get outta the road if you wanna grow old"

Song: Sheep
Album: Animals

[Mtgman]

You want an actual debate? Ok, let's see what we can do. The issue here seems to be one of responsibility. The legislators want to be seen as being tough on terrorists/terrorism, but they don't want to take the responsibility of clearly defining it. This would leave the possibility of loopholes which could let someone off later or letting their political opponents have ammunition in a future campaign(The legislation my opponent sponsored would not punish a terrorist who (insert terrorist act which would slip through loophole here)). So what they do is write some BS, over-broad law and pass the whole thing off on the courts to handle. The courts, at least the first level, are simply screwed. The prosecutors job got a lot harder all of a sudden because they have to figure out which law to prosecute an offender under. The defense's job got harder because all of a sudden there is some new law a prosecutor could choose to prosecute their client under and finding precedent and mustering a defense would be a much more difficult proposition. Plus they'll have to fight the propaganda war which is almost a certainty whenever someone is accused of "terrorism". IF you can even find a defender(aside from a public defender) who is willing to "defend an accused terrorist."

Now the first string of courts can't throw out laws, if the DA decides to push for a terrorist conviction the law is written so vaguely that railroading could occur. The letter of the law is so damn vague that judges are virtually FORCED to legislate from the bench. Many judges are reluctant to do that(for good reason) so they take a broad interpretation. Suddenly our mischevious 17 year old with a BB gun is facing 25 years without parole. The appeals courts, in many states, are not there to determine if the findings of the lower court were accurate or not, they are more interested in verifying that the accused did get a fair trial. Questions of the legitimacy of the law may come up here, but most of these courts don't have the ability to modify laws either. We've got to go to state supreme courts to do that.

Anyone who wants to know why the justice system is screwed up has no further to look than chickenshit legislatures who pass laws like this one. The purpose of the legislature is to clearly define laws. Over-broad language in a law, like this bill, is a greater hindrance to Justice in America than pretty much anything else. The entire point of the legislative branch is to create specific laws. Junk like this bill just creates a mess. Moreover it starts us on the slippery slope towards a police state. Certainly not the vision of America the Framers had in mind. With laws like this there literally are no innocent men. There's something fundamentally wrong with the legal system of a country where 100% of your citizens are criminals.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Kalashnikov]

Even if the intent of this were'nt so scary, the wording is absurd.

If you go to some protest (with a permit and all) , and carefully stay where you are supposed to, and don't disrupt anything, you can still go to prison because one of the other protestors (a total stranger to you), INTENDS to disrupt something even if they never actually DO disrupt anything?

[rjung]

Originally posted by Kalashnikov
If you go to some protest (with a permit and all) , and carefully stay where you are supposed to, and don't disrupt anything, you can still go to prison because one of the other protestors (a total stranger to you), INTENDS to disrupt something even if they never actually DO disrupt anything?

Maybe your imprisonment was a pre-emptive one?

[ElwoodCuse]

BZZZZT.

The word of the day, kids, is "overbroad". There's no way that this law, if passed, would survive judicial review.

[McDuff]

I have a really good idea!

Let's call EVERYONE who breaks the law a terrorist, thus completely diluting all normal, human usage of the word! Yeah, I like the sound of that.

Alternatively, we could look in that big box marked *a clue* over there, but, naaah!

[Mtgman]

But! Before a judge ever gets to review it some poor bastard has to be prosecuted under it(and quite possibly convicted as a "terrorist" and/or spending time in jail over it). Judges only review cases, not laws as a matter of course. Now if the state government allows govenors to veto bills(especially line-item veto) then the govenor should send this guy right down the crapper. Still, this would obviously leave the govenor up for criticism as being "soft on terrorism" by his next opponent, so there is no clear cut view on how this bill will do in the law-making process. It needs to be killed in the legislature, before it has the chance to ruin some poor bastard's life by branding them a "terrorist" under some dubious definitions and circumstances.

Enjoy,
Steven

[The Ace of Swords]

So I wasn't paranoid after all?

Hey, DCU, don't run so fast.

What do you think it means that "Republican Legislator of the Year" in 1994 would submit such an obvious ball of shit?

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally posted by The Ace of Swords
Hey, DCU, don't run so fast.

What do you think it means that "Republican Legislator of the Year" in 1994 would submit such an obvious ball of shit?

Oh, I dunno, maybe that, like any large group, the Republican Party has its fair share of morons? Do you want to defend everything that's come from the desk of, say, John Dingell?

And as for those kinds of awards -- please, they're meaningless. I hear next year the award is going to an inanimate carbon rod.

[Dreaming of Maria Callas]

Originally posted by djbdjb
Publish all you want, scream all you want from your own property, but do not block roads, divert the attention of police away from more important duties, or damage private property. That I would call non-violent.

Sorry, but often this is the only meaningful way to social progress. Police could have argued that Martin Luther King's marches were taking their attention away from more pressing duties, his speech at the Lincoln Memorial could be argued blocking public property. But he was still right. Followers of Gandhi in India used truly disruptive non-violent techniques, but history applauds them.

UnuMondo

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally posted by djbdjb
Of course 25 years is excessive. The crime is economic, and can be handled with a fine.

If you look at the actual act involved, I agree it's minor. No one is injured, and no property is damaged. But if you consider the number of victims, i.e., the hundreds of folks who had to take an extra hour out of their day trying to find an alternate route to wherever, then it seems quite a bit more serious.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus
If you look at the actual act involved, I agree it's minor. No one is injured, and no property is damaged. But if you consider the number of victims, i.e., the hundreds of folks who had to take an extra hour out of their day trying to find an alternate route to wherever, then it seems quite a bit more serious.

However, I am willing to concede that 25 years is much too harsh.

[PatriotX]

So what happened?

Did the gov veto it?

Has it passed?

Anyone prosecuted under it yet?

[Dogface]

Originally posted by djbdjb
Publish all you want, scream all you want from your own property, but do not block roads, divert the attention of police away from more important duties, or damage private property. That I would call non-violent.

The way the bill is worded, it would be "terrorism" for bus or truck drivers to strike. By so doing, they are disrupting "commerce" of the state of Oregon.

[Payton's Servant]

Originally posted by UnuMondo
Police could have argued that Martin Luther King's marches were taking their attention away from more pressing duties, his speech at the Lincoln Memorial could be argued blocking public property. But he was still right.

Actually every march that King led/was a part of had all of the proper permits required of it. Plus, the whole March on Washington event in 1963 wasn't unusual in the least, and since that particular event was widely publiced, people had time to aler their traffic patterns.

As for King's non-violent protests being violent, how is sitting at a lunch counter violent?

How is not riding at the back of a bus, or riding a bus at all, violent?

In those cases the only violence came from the AssHatted Bigots/Klansmen/White Supremacists/Racists who attacked the sitter-inners.

And, being typical of the time, the attackers weren't arrested or charged with any crime.

[chula]

Originally posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus
If you look at the actual act involved, I agree it's minor. No one is injured, and no property is damaged. But if you consider the number of victims, i.e., the hundreds of folks who had to take an extra hour out of their day trying to find an alternate route to wherever, then it seems quite a bit more serious.

When the big anti-war protests were going on, people here were saying that they should express their opinions some other way, because taking to the streets is disruptive and delays traffic, blah blah blah. Funny, I didn't hear anyone saying the same thing about the big "support our troops" rally. (I didn't get a chance to report this at the time and it's been bugging me.) Or the St. Patrick's Day parade, or the Thanksgiving Parade. Somehow, I don't see how the efficient flow of vehicles should be our overriding social policy concern. When mass numbers of people feel the need to exercise their first amendment rights, of course it's going to be disruptive. Is the first amendment intended to apply to only small groups of people? Once people organize into groups large enough to potentially make a difference, the government can take away their freedoms?

[capacitor]

The pro-war rallies were not as big ironically.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by capacitor
The pro-war rallies were not as big ironically.

No need to 'demonstrate' in favor of a popular opinion.

[rjung]

...especially not when the shooting had already started.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

But did it pass?!?

[PatriotX]

AFAICT, it hasn't been voted on yet.
The last notation on it was 03/24 Public Hearing held.

Maybe the measure was tabled?

errata, what do you know? Have you been following it?

[Jimmy1]

Well I think it is worth noting these are legitimate state interest the state is trying to protect.

The state can prohibit any conduct that does implicate these interests.

On its face it is content neutral and as a result no strict scrutiny. At least no strict scrutiny right away.

Nor does it appear to facially be after expressive acts and so no strict scrutiny, at least once again not right away.

The real problem then, since this is a facially content neutral law, and applying the time, place, and manner analysis, intermediary scrutiny, the law must be narrowly tailored to serve the states interests.

The law may not burden a substantial amount of speech than doesn't implicate the government's interest. This test is not met. Here is why. Suppose Errata, myself, Dewey, Brutus, and all the participants here decide to march down the sidewalks of Seattle to protest GWB's tax plan. Now lets suppose, however, it is my intention to obstruct commerce, disrupt the transportation system, and the educational institutions in the area and I act upon my intent by walking out into the middle of the road but everybody else remains on the sidewalk. Under this law, those on the sidewalk are just as guilty as I am although I am the only one with the intent to do what is proscribed by the statute and have solely committed the act to achieve my goal of doing what is prohibited by the statute. Under this situation more speech is burdened then is necessary to protect the state's interest because only I have done something that could possibly implicate the state's interest and nobody else has but the entire message has been censored since those on the sidewalk expressing the message and not possibly implicating the state's interest. are also arrested.

Hence, the law would be over-inclusive and unconstitutional.

[summerbreeze]

Aw, Daniel, you gotta be kidding. A mere public hanging wouldn't drag me away from watching Terry & Bobby & Little E whup Jeff's ass.

[errata]

Originally posted by SimonX
AFAICT, it hasn't been voted on yet.
The last notation on it was 03/24 Public Hearing held.

Maybe the measure was tabled?

errata, what do you know? Have you been following it?

I haven't heard much on it in a while. Last I heard, it's chances weren't that good.
I think it was probably a thinly veiled reaction to anti-war protests that hopefully will fade now that the war is over.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by Jimmy1
Well I think it is worth noting these are legitimate state interest the state is trying to protect.

The state can prohibit any conduct that does implicate these interests.

Twenty five years in prison if bus drivers in Yakima go on strike, that's what the law boils down to. Their strike would disrupt commerce and transportation.

Is it legal to make a bus driver strike a felony punishable by 25 years in prison?

[Jimmy1]

Dogface I said the ends, the goals, are legitimate, not necessarily the punishment.

[PatriotX]

Isn't Yakima in WA?

[Oy!]

Are the goals legitimate? Do we feel the need to shut down completely all dissent in this country? Because most of what is described there are the legitimate tools of dissent.

Stopping terrorism is a good thing. But we don't need special laws to do it. If what a person is doing doesn't violate the law, how can we call it terrorism? If it does, we prosecute them as an ordinary criminal; to do anything else grants a political recognition of stature which I for one am unwilling to grant. A killer is a killer whether he claims it was for money or Allah or the Holy Mother Church or for drugs.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by Jimmy1
Dogface I said the ends, the goals, are legitimate, not necessarily the punishment.

So, you are saying that the goal of punishing bus drivers for striking, no matter how bad their working conditions is legitimate, eh? Now that's just daft.

[Jimmy1]

Dogface do you know what the goals are? You want to focus on the "punishment" aspect and simultaneously fail to realize there is a difference between the "means" chosen to reach the goals, in this case the "means" is the punishment of 25 years. I have never said the "means" or the punishment is legitimate but the "goals" the "objectives" of the law is legitimate. Know the difference.

Are the goals legitimate? Do we feel the need to shut down completely all dissent in this country? Because most of what is described there are the legitimate tools of dissent.

AVHines what are you talking about? The goals, the legitimate ends sought to be achieved by this legislation, is the protection of commerce and make sure it runs without interruption, to protect the educational institutions and the government from interference in doing their jobs, and these goals are legitimate.

This legislation is not designed to shut down completely all dissent and you are creating nothing more than a false dilemma. This law permits people to have contrary views, to protest against the government, to voice their opposition so long as they don't storm into the middle of a state congressional session and interrupt the session, or protest on public school property while school is convened. The protection of these interests are legitimate and the state is not silencing any dissent but only designating a time, place, and manner restriction of when and how the people can voice their dissent. Your are simply going to an extreme that is not created by the statute but by your own paranoid imagination.

[Jimmy1]

Dogface one final comment. I would also like to add the bus drivers who strike may not actually be punished under the statute unless they had the requisite intent necessary to bring them within the purview of the statute.

Even if they had the requisite intent, they may still not be capable of being punished under the statute because of the holding in Brandenburg v. Ohio and how the Court has interpreted Brandenburg in subsequent cases. Additionally, the goal of the statute is not to punish striking bus drivers. So your "striking bus driver" example is not a good one.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Jimmy1
This law permits people to have contrary views, to protest against the government, to voice their opposition so long as they don't storm into the middle of a state congressional session and interrupt the session, or protest on public school property while school is convened.

Yes, god forbid any public school students should want to protest! The threat of 25 years in prison does a nice job of discouraging any walkouts or sit-ins organized by those young terrorists.

[Jimmy1]

Yes, god forbid any public school students should want to protest! The threat of 25 years in prison does a nice job of discouraging any walkouts or sit-ins organized by those young terrorists.

I think you are missing the other side of this Mr. 2001. There are other students in school for the purpose of learning, of acquiring an education. The state has a legitimate interest in creating an atmosphere conducive to this learning process and can prohibit any conduct, including speech, that would substantially interfere with this process. See Tinker v. Des Moines. If protesting on school property while school is convened is likely to provide enough of a distraction and interfere with others student's rights to receive an education, then this speech or conduct can be prohibited so long as school is in session. This is really common sense.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Jimmy1
If protesting on school property while school is convened is likely to provide enough of a distraction and interfere with others student's rights to receive an education, then this speech or conduct can be prohibited so long as school is in session.

Yes, and there's already a legitimate way to do that: Make a school rule. Branding student protestors as terrorists and sending them to prison is ludicrous.

[Stormfield]

Originally posted by Jimmy1
The goals, the legitimate ends sought to be achieved by this legislation, is the protection of commerce and make sure it runs without interruption, to protect the educational institutions and the government from interference in doing their jobs, and these goals are legitimate.

Originally posted by Jimmy1
Additionally, the goal of the statute is not to punish striking bus drivers. So your "striking bus driver" example is not a good one.

The goal is "the protection of commerce"? It seems to me that any sort of protest or strike(even by bus drivers) could be considered to be an interruption of commerce. Assigning such a great value to commercial rights and property rights diminishes the value of civil rights and human rights.

[abdul]

So if I go down to the "transit mall" in downtown Salem and realize that I'm going to be late for my bus, and try to run and catch it, I could go to prison for 25 years. Or at least that's the way it sounds. Not only would I be disrupting the system, but when I realized moments earlier that I was going to, I'd already conspired to do so?

I realize it's quite blown out of proportion, but someone in our judicial process needs to take a breather, or their head will explode and they'll be prosecuted for terrorism.

[abdul]

Ok, here's another stupid hypothetical situation; I realize it doesn't really apply in Oregon, but say you have one of those incredibly large TVs (like Times Square), and somebody decides to show some particularly controversial or attention-grabbing footage at a high-traffic point in time. If their actions, by programming the screen to display certain materials, caused a disruption in the general workings of the populace, would THAT be terrorism? Can you be a terrorist without ever physically leaving a chair?

[Jimmy1]

Yes, and there's already a legitimate way to do that: Make a school rule. Branding student protestors as terrorists and sending them to prison is ludicrous.

Mr. 2001 just in case you are missing my exchange with some of the other posters here. I am not stating the means are legitimate so focusing on the fact they are labelled a terrorist or sent to prison does not really concern my argument becaue I am focusing upon the goals. One of the goals is to protect the educational process from interruption. This is something the state can legitimately do and this is a legitimate state interest. You want to focus on the "means" like some of the others. I will not gratify you on such a focus because I am not looking at the "means" but rather focusing upon the ends and finding them to be legitimate goals the state may pursue.

The goal is "the protection of commerce"? It seems to me that any sort of protest or strike(even by bus drivers) could be considered to be an interruption of commerce. Assigning such a great value to commercial rights and property rights diminishes the value of civil rights and human rights.

Well it must first be understood that human rights and civil rights are not absolute. At times property rights do take paramount importance over human rights and civil rights. The state can make it illegal for an individual to burn a cross in an African Americans front yard although the burning of this cross can be used to convey a particular message. In such an instance free speech rights have to yield in this instance to the property and privacy rights of the land owner. So it is not an anomaly for human and civil rights to surrender to property, privacy, or even commercial rights.

This is why generally speaking protesters can't protest in the middle of the street tying up traffic in all directions but normally must seek permission from the city to designate a street specifically for them to protest or designate a site for them to protest. You do not have a First Amendment right to protest in the middle of a highway thereby congesting up the free flow of commerce on the highway.

So I don't see any problem with civil and human rights yielding to property, privacy, or commerce interests as this has been done since the creation of the Republic and can be seen as a necessity in some instances not to forgotten totally reasonable restrictions on human and civil rights as opposed to unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.

Now I am not contending this statute is not overinclusive. All I am saying is the goals are legitimate and the state most certainly has the power to ensure the protection of these goals within reason. Maybe this law goes to far, and I have already contended it does so, but make no mistake the state may protect these legitimate interests.