The function of a government is to prevent any other group from taking control. The duty of a citizen is to control his government. That is why governments always eventually treat citizens as enemies of the state.
"(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. " This idea for a law isn't in it self "fascim, but could be missused as a tool for it. The protests of today are starting their own category by having paid memebers and bus tranportation to events that are funded by individuals. They are not the same as the peace marches of the 60's and 70's. i honestly don't know what the answers are, but I can understand people telling their government that they are tired of outsiders from their community coming in and destroying their property and businesses because someone is paying them to do so. It's a whole new world out there!
Is it, Will...SDS and the Weather Underground?
They were organized, but I didn't think they had a Soros type fund supplier.
Ha ha ha! You don't really believe this law is aimed at Soros or any other of the money men that might be funding this type of organizing do you?
No. I think it is aimed at people being transported in to cause trouble. Maybe I am naive but I believe that was the original intent.
Perhaps, but it is a law ripe to be abused and can and will end up aimed at grassroots organizing of protests, thus infringing on people's right to assemble and protest. As stated by Senator Kavanaugh, this allows them to act before any protest takes place.
If a true peaceful grassroots protest is co-opted by paid "protesters" that just show up, without ever having contact with the grassroots people, that opens every protester present up to racketeering charges. Even should they successfully get the charges dropped, and there is no guarantee they could, it would be both costly in time and money, and probably with their reputations and possibly with their livelihoods as well. And charges being dropped would not guarantee return of any assets siezed.
It also puts anyone even attending a protest in danger of civil forfeiture of assets, and that requires no arrest or conviction. And Arizona places the burden of proving innocence on the owner of assets siezed.
The law also reduces rioting to include "disturbs the public peace" if any threats are made. So conceivably, some idiot spouts off (without actually intending to act...we all know such people) at someone during a protest and everyone participating is then subject to arrest and civil forfeiture. This might even include innocent bystanders who were not even protesting. Conceivably, someone could claim a threat was made, even if there was not, and that would open protesters up to arrest and forfeiture...and they would then have to prove their innocence in order to get their property back, a costly and largely ineffective battle. Arizona was ranked a "D-" on their forfeiture laws by the Institute for Justice.
Original intent aside, this law is ripe for abuse. At best, it stifles freedom of assembly. At worst it encourages "policing for profit".
Is it fascism to want to prosecute those who do damage to others property while they are excersing their right to protest? I don't think so. One has the right to protest, but one does NOT have the right to harm others or damage property while doing so.
Right, but it is already illegal to riot and cause property damage in Arizona. What this bill will do is make protest organizers accountable for any riot that takes place, even if the rioting is done by people not affiliated with those protest organizers.
Furthermore, it allows the government to stop a protest before it even gets started!! The bill in Senator John Kavanaugh's own words:
"We can now go after organizing groups that are preparing and planning and nip it in the bud before they destroy our community, before they injure our citizens, before they destroy our reputation."
So the Arizona government wants to be able to prevent assemblies before they happen. Sounds like something that will be decided in the Supreme Court.
There are already laws against rioting, damaging property, etc. The possibilty of using this law to suppress free speech through pre-crime measures is disturbing. What is mind-boggling - to me - is that if enacted, tbe right should realize the left can then use it against them when/if the demographics change.
True true. Most arguments we see in politics come back around on the other side of the fence though. Ha!
The issue isn't the protest - it's the protesters rioting, destroying property, etc. They are no longer protesters at that point, but thugs who need to be jailed and damages they caused paid for by them.
I believe you have been suckered by leftist propaganda. When protesting gets to the level of property damage, breaking windows, starting fires, etc - they've gone beyond first amendment rights. The bill seeks to address protests found to be disruptive. The article (and the OP) seems to assume that if we whisper the word protest that Big Bother will stomp his big black boot on us.
Settle Down Dude!
They shouldn't be acting like Troglodytes, screwing everything up for everyone..
That's what people being stupid cause,.
Causing people to want to make more laws..
How about just protest without destroying things..
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes..
The way they were destroying property, setting fires, harassing people and so forth that is terrorism. They need to be prosecuted.