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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I agree that it’s a legitimate interest for the state as a whole, but it’s an invalid basis for this bill (or any other new bill), because the necessary means are already in place.