The Dangerous Drift to Redefine Protest as Terrorism

[Zincwarrior]

Crawfish season coming up.

And blue crabs.

Yum.

We had a gumbo cookoff at church last Sunday.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

It's not a drift at this point, it's a headlong charge.

 

[Crepitus]

The real danger is found in what passes for protest but is actually orchestrated violence for the purpose of changing our laws.

NO.

This is the lie they are telling to make this OK.

Do NOT repeat their lies.

 

[Zincwarrior]

It's not a drift at this point, it's a headlong charge.

Can you illuminate?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The real danger is found in what passes for protest but is actually orchestrated violence for the purpose of changing our laws.

Trump’s is the classic fascist regime: vilify, demonize, and criminalize lawful, peaceful protest and political opposition.

 

[scruffy]

Do NOT repeat their lies.

What lies?

Is it orchestrated? Yes.

Is it violent? Yes.

What lies?

 

[Crepitus]

Can you illuminate?

Designating antifa as domestic terrorists, initially called Pretti and Good domestic terrorists, constantly refers to anti ICE protests as terrorism, and so on.

 

[scruffy]

Designating antifa as domestic terrorists, initially called Pretti and Good domestic terrorists, constantly refers to anti ICE protests as terrorism, and so on.

Doofus, these morons throw bricks off overpasses. They scare the shit out of mommies and little children. WTF is the matter with you?

 

[Lockback]

Designating antifa as domestic terrorists, initially called Pretti and Good domestic terrorists, constantly refers to anti ICE protests as terrorism, and so on.

There is no group in America that's more terrorist than these ******* freaks:

All of them total psychos. Weirdos, trannies, creeps, violent anarchists who hate America and will do anything to destroy it.
You're too goddam dumb to understand that so allow me to educate you.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump’s is the classic fascist regime: vilify, demonize, and criminalize lawful, peaceful protest and political opposition.

We’d need actual peaceful protests, first, stupid.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Protesting by sitting in a chair is a bit different than using your car to run over the law enforcement.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There is no group in America that's more terrorist than these ******* freaks:

All of them total psychos. Weirdos, trannies, creeps, violent anarchists who hate America and will do anything to destroy it.
You're too goddam dumb to understand that so allow me to educate you.

That’s the left. Freaks.

 

[Lockback]

Trump’s is the classic fascist regime: vilify, demonize, and criminalize lawful, peaceful protest and political opposition.

You are the living definition of brainwashed.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

LOL. Democrats had the FBI investigating parents of school children as terrorists.

 

[krichton]

Not all filming is doxxing, but certainly some filming is used to dox

It’s funny you cant grasp that

Public servants by the very nature of their job are not doxxable since you're supposed to know who they are. A free and democratic society doesn't live with unidentifiable masked men roaming the streets, disappearing ppl into vans under the so called authority of the federal government. That's Russia, that's Iran, that's North Korea.

 

[krichton]

There is video that clear shows a “protesters” running her car into a police officer

That same video shows it didn't.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

The title of this thread should actually be the dangerous drift to redefine riots as peaceful protest. You can’t attack federal agents blocked their cars interfere with their duties throw rocks, bricks, and frozen water bottles at them and call that civil disobedience.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's weird you need to be trained on how to act safely and lawfully.

Yeah, and I’m sure part of that “civil disobedience training“ is how to block traffic and stop people from going about their day. That’s considered unlawful detainment and is not civil disobedience.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Public servants by the very nature of their job are not doxxable since you're supposed to know who they are. A free and democratic society doesn't live with unidentifiable masked men roaming the streets, disappearing ppl into vans under the so called authority of the federal government. That's Russia, that's Iran, that's North Korea.

Except that’s wrong. Just because you’re a public officer doesn’t mean you give up your right to privacy and safety. This is part of the reason why these agents are wearing masks and no identification is because the left are trying to expose their names and addresses, which put them and their families in danger.

 

[j-mac]

The Orange False Idol's habit of turning pretty much every sentence into comical hyperbole permeates the entire cult now.

Every illegal transgression is an "insurrection", anyone who isn't in the cult is "evil", "Satanic", "Marxist" and "Communist". Trump has given us "the greatest period of anything we've ever seen" (see below), and any non-Trumpster who uses violence is a "domestic terrorist".

We're a cartoon now.

So, what you’re saying is, that violence is justified as long as it’s against Trump?