Except you cited: felony battery (not protected); interference with police operations (not protected); organized threats and doxxing (not protected in a state level generally, I don't know Fed).
There is video that clear shows a “protesters” running her car into a police officer
When college students sat down at segregated lunch counters in 1960, they were breaking the law. They trespassed on private property, refused police orders to disperse, and sometimes violated court injunctions specifically designed to stop their demonstrations. In an effort to maintain public order, local authorities arrested them by the hundreds and charged them with disturbing the peace.
But these students were also exercising their constitutional rights.
This paradox—that civil disobedience can be simultaneously illegal and constitutionally protected—has been a constant source of tension in the U.S. But how the law talks about it has changed. Increasingly, the language of national security is creeping into spaces once governed by public-order statutes and First Amendment doctrine. We are no longer debating whether protesters who break the law should face charges. The new question is whether they should be investigated as terrorists.
What happened in Minneapolis—and what threatens to happen more broadly—reveals how quickly that transformation can occur, and why it should alarm anyone who cares about democratic dissent.
We have been here before, repeatedly. In his comprehensive study “Perilous Times,” legal historian Geoffrey Stone traces a recurring American pattern: Perceived crisis triggers expanded executive power—which gets directed not just at genuine threats but at unpopular dissent—until the crisis passes and retrospective analysis reveals how badly we overreacted.
The Dangerous Drift to Redefine Protest as Terrorism
The line between civil disobedience and terrorism is collapsing. History warns us what comes next.www.lawfaremedia.org
The alarm is especially pertinent given the regime's penchant for authoritarian governance. Something it has made no secret of in threatening to invoke the Sedition Act to stifle political dissent and criticism from American citizens.
The entire article is a worthy read.
Yesterday in Pawtucket, we saw one of a group of people who are murdering children also, commit an act of terrorism. Weare seeing transexuals kill other people's families and their children in suicide acts. Of course, the Progs are calling it domestic violence. It is time to put these people in psyche hospitals.
When college students sat down at segregated lunch counters in 1960, they were breaking the law. They trespassed on private property, refused police orders to disperse, and sometimes violated court injunctions specifically designed to stop their demonstrations. In an effort to maintain public order, local authorities arrested them by the hundreds and charged them with disturbing the peace.
But these students were also exercising their constitutional rights.
This paradox—that civil disobedience can be simultaneously illegal and constitutionally protected—has been a constant source of tension in the U.S. But how the law talks about it has changed. Increasingly, the language of national security is creeping into spaces once governed by public-order statutes and First Amendment doctrine. We are no longer debating whether protesters who break the law should face charges. The new question is whether they should be investigated as terrorists.
What happened in Minneapolis—and what threatens to happen more broadly—reveals how quickly that transformation can occur, and why it should alarm anyone who cares about democratic dissent.
We have been here before, repeatedly. In his comprehensive study “Perilous Times,” legal historian Geoffrey Stone traces a recurring American pattern: Perceived crisis triggers expanded executive power—which gets directed not just at genuine threats but at unpopular dissent—until the crisis passes and retrospective analysis reveals how badly we overreacted.
The Dangerous Drift to Redefine Protest as Terrorism
The line between civil disobedience and terrorism is collapsing. History warns us what comes next.
The alarm is especially pertinent given the regime's penchant for authoritarian governance. Something it has made no secret of in threatening to invoke the Sedition Act to stifle political dissent and criticism from American citizens.
The entire article is a worthy read.
Special as in mentaly deficient.
The Orange False Idol's habit of turning pretty much every sentence into comical hyperbole permeates the entire cult now.
When college students sat down at segregated lunch counters in 1960, they were breaking the law. They trespassed on private property, refused police orders to disperse, and sometimes violated court injunctions specifically designed to stop their demonstrations. In an effort to maintain public order, local authorities arrested them by the hundreds and charged them with disturbing the peace.
But these students were also exercising their constitutional rights.
This paradox—that civil disobedience can be simultaneously illegal and constitutionally protected—has been a constant source of tension in the U.S. But how the law talks about it has changed. Increasingly, the language of national security is creeping into spaces once governed by public-order statutes and First Amendment doctrine. We are no longer debating whether protesters who break the law should face charges. The new question is whether they should be investigated as terrorists.
What happened in Minneapolis—and what threatens to happen more broadly—reveals how quickly that transformation can occur, and why it should alarm anyone who cares about democratic dissent.
We have been here before, repeatedly. In his comprehensive study “Perilous Times,” legal historian Geoffrey Stone traces a recurring American pattern: Perceived crisis triggers expanded executive power—which gets directed not just at genuine threats but at unpopular dissent—until the crisis passes and retrospective analysis reveals how badly we overreacted.
The Dangerous Drift to Redefine Protest as Terrorism
The line between civil disobedience and terrorism is collapsing. History warns us what comes next.
The alarm is especially pertinent given the regime's penchant for authoritarian governance. Something it has made no secret of in threatening to invoke the Sedition Act to stifle political dissent and criticism from American citizens.
The entire article is a worthy read.
Not all filming is doxxing, but certainly some filming is used to dox
Were you not citing the author’s work?
No. The example specifically was doxxing. Videoing is the First Amendment.
Like Louisiana, not real smart, but we have a good time.
I waa discussing the example cited.
Happy Fat Tuesday!
