I assumed that there were already laws in place to deal with the violent type of traffic blocking protesting and "Disturbance of the Peace" covers all but the protester - vandals who jump on cars, break windows and attempt to terrorize those stuck in traffic.
While I am generally against more new laws, this is a fairly new phenomenon and genuinely "peaceful protests" seem to be fewer and fewer.
Therefore, I think that the rights of the victims stuck in traffic should be considered too in any Bills considered by Congress.
It is at least my opinion that the Rights guaranteed by Freedom of Speech stops when it comes to accosting other free citizens and restraining their freedom of movement.
Thanks,
The only law in place (every state has those in place) refers to "disturbing the peace" or "breach of the peace"
In its broadest sense, the term is
synonymous with
crime itself and means an indictable offense.
In another and more common sense, however, the phrase includes only those crimes that are punishable primarily because of
their disrupting effect upon the peace and
security of the community. Among these offenses is
unlawful assembly.
In its third and narrowest meaning, the phrase is confined to
willful conduct that does not fall within the definition of any other specific crime but that
unreasonably disrupts the public tranquillity or has a
strong tendency to cause a disturbance.
In common law and under many statutes, such a disturbance or breach of peace is punishable as a
misdemeanor.
Misdemeanor charges include: 1. Traffic offenses, such as
DUI - or e.g. needlessly honking your car in a residential area, or blocking another vehicle due to e.g. reckless parking.
Therefore if a glue-bastard participates in an "unlawful assembly" - "willful conduct" - "strong tendency to cause a disturbance" and hits into a sympathetic judge or prosecutor, they can file charges and a pass a verdict confined to a
misdemeanor. So in order to avoid a "lenient" sentencing, the law pertaining to "disturbing the peace" would need to be amended.
AFAIK, a state e.g. Colorado, doesn't need the US Congress and Senate - to approve the amendment of an existing State law - that does not violate the constitution.
And IMO - conducting an unlawful assembly, causing damage to public property, and intentionally hindering others from free movement, causing economic damage and maybe even endangering the safety of others - is NOT protected via Free-Speech.
