State Senator Wants To Turn First Amendment Activity Into 'Economic Terrorism'

from the what-this-nation-needs-is-LESS-dissent-apparently dept

Mon, Nov 21st 2016 10:45am — Tim Cushing

There's a new brand of terrorism on the loose and Washington State Senator Doug Ericksen is the only one who can stop it. (h/t Jeff Pohjola)

State Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, said Wednesday he is preparing a bill that would create a new crime of “economic terrorism...”

Gotta love it when legislators start creating crimes out of thin air. What would compose "economic terrorism" in the eyes of Sen. Ericksen? Would it be market manipulation? Intentional flash crashes? Setting currency on fire in a crowded theater while shouting "Fire!"?

Sadly, no. It would be First Amendment-protected activity. From the senator's website:

- Timely measure criminalizes illegal protests aimed at causing economic damage

- Applies to unlawful disruption of transportation and commerce

- Allows treble damages against funders and organizers

So, calling for a boycott of Starbucks because their "holiday" cups are crafted from pieces of the Shroud of Turin would definitely be "aimed at causing economic damage." Walking around outside and hassling otherwise unoffended coffee buyers would "disrupt commerce." And, at the end of the prosecutorial day, the person who created the "official" boycott Facebook page could be charged with a felony and forced to pay back $10-12 for the one cup of coffee disrupted.

Digging into the details of Ericksen's proposal only uncovers more stupidity.

The measure would allow felony prosecution of those who intentionally break the law in an attempt to intimidate or coerce private citizens or the government by obstructing economic activity.

Weird. This leaves the possibility of unintentionally breaking the law, which presumably should lead to dismissed charges. Mens rea is nice and all, but this is just redundant verbiage meant to show how serious Ericksen is about his proposed law. This new puntitive measure will apparently felonize the hell out of protesters who mean it the most. Or whatever.

“I respect the right to protest…"

Says Ericksen, clearly not respecting the right to protest. If protesters break existing laws, then they can be dealt with accordingly. There's no reason to craft a new law and create a new form of criminal activity that uses the First Amendment as a doormat for its jackboots.

Ericksen feels super-strongly about this new law. So strongly, in fact, that he seems to have almost zero grasp on the logistics of its deployment.

He didn’t indicate who would determine when protesters become economic terrorists.

Great. Let's just leave that in the hands of law enforcement, which has always been wonderful when allowed to exercise its own discretion. Give them a "blue lives matter" law and they'll throw the book at every drunken arrestee who calls them names. Give them the latitude to decide when picketing crosses into "economic terrorism," and I'm sure they'll make the right call.

Speaking of picketing, Ericksen says his proposed law won't target this. Or strikes. But picketing and strikes are often meant to achieve the same ends the senator says should now be criminal actions: economic damage and disruption of transportation or commerce. So, he's set his own bill against itself and feels those in charge of enforcing even the stupidest of laws will just sort it all out for him.

If this somehow becomes law, it will face an immediate First Amendment challenge. If it somehow survives that, it will become a burden for the criminal justice system, with both prosecutors and defenders having to work their way through a slough of trumped-up charges.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, doug ericksen, economic terrorism, first amendment, free speech, protests, washington

104 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 10:52am

Make America Shut Its Cakehole Again!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 10:53am

Dear America
We want you to rebel! If you don't we will put in more and more laws until you do!

~Doug Erickson
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonmylous, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:01am

You got it all wrong!
This will be great news for a whole slew of businesses and peoples throughout the US! Its awesome to see Republicans finally opening up and protecting those they traditionally have tried to oppress! It'll be wonderful to see police able to arrest people protesting outside of abortion clinics at last! I can't wait to see those sad members of Westborough finally arrested for protesting at films and other public venues that support homosexuals and godless heathens like Kevin Smith! Oh and finally, FINALLY, no more protesters outside of Planned Parenthood locations.

Maybe this whole Trump presidency really is signalling the turning of a new leaf for the Republican party!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NotInMyAmerica, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:02am

First they came for our safe zones then they came for...
President Bush created protest zones. People were locked behind chain link fences but given the right to 'free' speech.

Now they want to enlarge 'free' speech protest zones to include any location that disrupts.

The end result is speech without protesting, picketing without disruption in other words if you have anything to say, it must align with those in power.

In my opinion, "Fuck this Doug Erickson guy all to hell".
Will he come to techdirt and demand a DCMA take down because I had a negative opinion of him and expressed in language he may consider foul too?

This is like the little kid in the playground who wants a safe space away from all the other kids because they challenge the kid to a game and the kid is afraid if losing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ANON, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:03am

Well, duh!
It's already illegal to throw stuff at police, break windows, even walk in the street. All this "Oughta be a law" mentality does is pile on the opportunity to make one offense a 35-count indictment if the DA "wants to get you", giving a jaywalker the opportunity to plead guilty on the DA's terms or face 35 years in jail.

If he really wants to make a difference, here's a suggestion - make the law fair. Change the law to match the British system. The most the DA can threaten you with over there is 50% more sentence - so an obviously guilty person is persuaded to plead guilty, but an innocent person has an incentive to fight, since the possible loss is not so expensive.

Creating a new law designed to add charges to an existing offense to make it a much longer sentence is the a maneuver designed to stifle dissent. Let's state the obvious - he wants a bigger hammer to punish those protesting the election of his party's candidate. At least many other crazies who want big-hammer laws are "thinking of the children". This guy's just thinking of the big baby who was elected president.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:05am

I'll just leave this here...
"The best government is that which governs least."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:06am

criminalizes illegal protests aimed at causing economic damage
You mean causing economic damage such as Trump publicly saying that the NY Times is failing. Saying this can have an effect on its stock price, whether true or not. But its worse when this is said just to punish a news organization, whatever you might think of them, for exercising their rights. Maybe Trump should have consequences for this type of behavior? But, then I suppose he could just pardon himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roger Strong (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:06am

I don't want to name names here, but a certain President-elect has called for everyone to boycott Apple until it gives in to the FBI over encryption. He's also called for boycotts of Starbucks, Macy’s, Univision, Mexico, Oreos, Fox News, and Glenfiddich scotch over things like supporting the wrong tennis player and changing a cup design.

All I'm saying is that given the stock market roller coaster ride after the election, perhaps Senator Ericksen is a visionary for calling him an "economic terrorist."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:07am

I suppose the upside is as law enfarcement generally initiates actual disruption, they can have disruption anywhere, abuse demonstrators, plus charge them with yet another crime.

I pretty much smell DAPL here, more so than Starbucks, but yeah. It's already like the weekend-jihadi zone Afghanistan was with Al Qaeda for random LEOs from all over, assaulting people on land they have no jurisdiction over. The perfect excuse for another ridiculous and draconian (and probably selectively enforced) law. What could be better?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:11am

So, calling for a boycott of Starbucks because their "holiday" cups are crafted from pieces of the Shroud of Turin would definitely be "aimed at causing economic damage."

Yes, but they wouldn't be "illegal protests aimed at causing economic damage".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:12am

Would this affect filibustering?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:16am

No Protests Allowed
Consider the people who think it is so horrible that Colin Kaepernick won't stand during the national anthem.

What form of protest would those people like? Would they like it better if he were out burning cars and breaking the windows of businesses as a form of protest?

In fact, what these people want is a form of protest that is totally invisible so that they don't have to be offended by it.

You can have free speech as long as it is impossible for anyone to hear it -- even if they want to. You can exercise your free speech in a location that is out of range of seeing and hearing to other people.

Isn't the purpose of a protest to be able to draw attention to some perceived injustice? Don't we all want to be made aware of injustice, before it happens to us?

First they came for the InstaFaceTwit users, but I was silent because I did not use InstaFaceTwit. Etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:18am

This could get interesting...

The measure would allow felony prosecution of those who intentionally break the law in an attempt to intimidate or coerce private citizens or the government by obstructing economic activity.

Wouldn't this apply to local politicians trying to fuck with prostitution?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:33am

Last time the economy blew up was in 2008. Somebody should tell Doug, GDP doesn't stand for Gullible Domestic Persons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:40am

- Timely measure criminalizes illegal protests aimed at causing economic damage
Um, no need to criminalize ILLEGAL protests when by definition they are already criminal acts!

- Applies to unlawful disruption of transportation and commerce
Um, again, if something is unlawful its already illegal, no need for some new law!

- Allows treble damages against funders and organizers
So can I sue the republican party for causing economic damage to me? They already wasted some of my tax dollars talking about how they want to make illegal things illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:53am

Re: I'll just leave this here...
Here at TD we will not put up with this shit!

We only subscribe to this when a person we do not like is in power, but when a person we do like gets into power, we want them to rule with an iron fist through regulation!

Just about everyone here has already forgotten what America was meant to be or just never learned in the first place! Which explains our current predicament!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:53am

SCARRY..
So if a company creates a Placebo product,
Sells it as a real Cure/Fix/???
You cant STOP them??

If a company takes 100 metro stores and Fires everyone..
Only to open 1 MEGA store with 1/50 the employed people, leases, and bills...AND NOT 1 penny to Raise Wages..
--------------------
ECONOMY include Employees..
If you dont HIRE people, People CANT BUY things, If they CANT BUY THINGS, the Store looses money..
So, NOT hiring people causes Economic problems??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:53am

Nope
This nation didn't even burp up this idea of economic terrorism when hundreds of American bookstores refused to sell or carry the work of Salman Rushdie, because of a threat levied on him and his publisher from a foreign dictator. If you couldn't call THAT economic terrorism, nothing in this law should be worthy of the title, either....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:54am

I support this
If there's someone who would end up qualifying under this statute...it's Donald J Trump. Easy to impeach a 'terrorist' isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:55am

Re:
No, he works for the GOP...

Gullible Old People!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:56am

Re: You got it all wrong!
But would they arrest Kevin Smith for protesting Kevin Smith?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
D.C. Pathogen (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:58am

I seem to remember a story of another case of economic terrorism....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
We all know how that ended up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 21 Nov 2016 @ 11:59am

Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...

We only subscribe to this when a person we do not like is in power, but when a person we do like gets into power, we want them to rule with an iron fist through regulation!

Seems to me that TD has been pretty consistent in opposing government action it doesn't like (mass surveillance) and supporting government action it does (net neutrality regulations) regardless of who's in power.

Can you name an example of an issue that the site has changed its mind on based on who's "in power" (presumably you mean President, but I'll take any other political office or private-industry leadership role)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:00pm

Re: Re:
Good point
-ex GOP member, bout 20 years ago. I got out before I got old. =b
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:00pm

Re:
And the police would *never* arrest anyone for a legal protest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:15pm

Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
I'm sure we're pretty fond of some kinds of regulation. Meat inspection, net neutrality, electrical standards, what your neighbor can or cannot acceptably do with drones, and so on.

We could use some additional agencies we don't have, say a public advocate of the public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:16pm

If it was "economic terrorism ON A COMPUTER"
...it would have passed in a heartbeat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:16pm

Name that economic terrorist activity
So, economic terrorism, would that include NOT watching NFL games? If you don't watch your a terrorist, intent upon depriving over paid ego maniacs of their livelihood, not to mention the worthless corporate entities that get taxpayers to build temples to their cause, just before they move out of town.

Then there is ESPN, the economic entity that makes its living on displaying the antics of overpaid ego maniacs, and currently going down for the count because economic terrorist are failing to subscribe.

Oh, and don't forget the cable companies. Chord cutting is economic terrorism. That Internet thingy with all of its streaming is just not cutting it from an economic standpoint. The content controllers are losing control of their content and feel economically depressed, or is that just depressed?

How about civil asset forfeiture, if we stop allowing the police to legally rob people of their money and possessions (which might be involved in economic activities) it would prevent those agencies from spending that money on things they don't really need and shouldn't have. Economic terrorist of the highest order, maybe worth quadruple damages.

Of course we need to include the legal system. What would we do with a bunch of unemployed lawyers? Slowing down the governments attack on citizens, for no good reason or no reason at all, would empty out the for profit prisons and bring our economy to a grinding, screeching halt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:19pm

“I respect the right to protest…”

Says Ericksen, clearly not respecting the right to protest.

This behavior is called Gertruding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mr. sim (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:27pm

if i read this right does that mean if i refuse to buy a company because i don't like their policies regarding something then i can be arrested.

this will get struck down harder than your kid brother does when you get the hammer in smash brothers and it becomes HAMMER TIME!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
Tom Wheeler and the FCC.

too long to expand in detail... so here is the short version.

The new rules clearly give the FCC more power than it should have had to begin with it. This means that when the next corruption gets in they can undo everything Wheeler does. TD likes the new rules.

The new rules only work if we have a decent person in power and can be easily abused when someone terrible replaces that person. Congratulations, you have only succeeded in ensuring your own failure with the device you devised to obtain salvation!

The FCC is the beginning of just about all of the problems with the Telco Monopolies and TD still cheers it on, because right now... they like Wheeler. That story alone is proof!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:45pm

Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
How many times does it have to be said?

Regulation only results in capture. America's manufactures foods and label requirements are a fucking damn joke. The FDA is a paid whore for the industry, the FCC created the telco monopolies, FEMA is a logistics fuckup, EPA is completely political and also creates environmental disasters it is supposed to stop.

Government was created to secure our liberty, instead it destroys it and you cheer it on because you need it to protect you from yourself, your insipid ignorance of life, and your contagious cowardice of terrorists... instead of just protecting your liberty and a free market.

The government does only 1 thing now, creates a shell game of liberty where the person with the most money gets a staggering advantage over the little guy and you clowns keep begging for more. It like you want your poverty and second class citizen status.

We have 535 public fucking advocates already. Why are you so stupid as to ask for more? Take care of business there first! They are largely ignored and are a bigger menace than Bush\Obama\Trump can ever be!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:45pm

Civil Rights
If this were law in 1955, then the Civil Rights movement would not have been able to boycott the buses in Montgomery, Alabama and would have been denied the right to bring about peaceful change.

And...

Oh, by the way...

It tramples all over the Constitution of the United States of America.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I.T. Guy, 21 Nov 2016 @ 12:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
You forgot to sign in whatever.
"they like Wheeler."
No... Mr. Moron. They like what Wheeler is doing and would support WHOEVER is trying to... ya know... do the right thing.

But rant on my brother. It always makes me laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 1:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
Besides when Wheeler first took power. Techdirt was reporting how he was previous cable lobbyist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 1:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
Yes, and Wheeler did turn out to be a surprise there. However, that made TD drop its guard and liked his new rules more than they should have.

Did you catch the calls for Obama to begin to reign in the Surveillance state before Trump gets into office? The same applies here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 1:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
I actually doubt that. No one walks the earth immune from this shit, it's the fundamental reason I say it is bullshit to expect that true unbiased news is possible.

Did you remember the whole Redskins vs Trademark crap that TD had to change its mind on here? I am saying this will be like that, except well it is already starting to look like that via the Zero Rating stuff, not to mention the cock blocking by Congress on net neutrality to begin with. But let me assure you, the new rules that TD likes, will not and has not been changing the landscape in any meaningful ways.

So yea... no change in landscape and TD is too happy about it. That makes TD either stupid or just exactly what I accused this place of being. And I don't mean just TD alone, I include you clowntopia 'pro regulation' zealots.

I don't hate ALL regulation but way more than enough compared to you guys to be considered anti-regulation!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 1:24pm

Re: Civil Rights
"It tramples all over the Constitution of the United States of America."

But that is the part everyone likes about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 1:27pm

Re: Dear America
You say that as a joke, but JFK said it very seriously: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eca (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 1:35pm

Re: SCARRY..
No handicap access

If I want I can hire immigrants to do work at 1/2 price

If I don't like state tax I won't pay

Making money is not the same as paying taxes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 1:44pm

Re: Re: Dear America
Oh no... not a joke at all. You are directly on target, I have been watching the US Government since 9/11 begin to turn the wheels of tyranny to clamp the citizens down as the peasants they think us to be.

The US Government is directly fomenting the unrest of its citizens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 1:49pm

Re:
I thought they just called that sort of stuff lying, or hypocrisy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 21 Nov 2016 @ 1:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...

Tom Wheeler and the FCC.

Ah, but you see, there are a couple of very good reasons people (not just Techdirt but the EFF, among others) have changed their minds about Wheeler.

The first and simplest is that Wheeler has turned out to be a much more consumer-friendly FCC head than initially (and reasonably) assumed.

The second is that it's become very, very clear that Congress isn't going to do anything to enforce net neutrality. I was very much in the camp that felt we needed to leave net neutrality to the legislative branch rather than the executive branch -- until it became clear that it wasn't a choice between executive and legislative, it was a choice between executive and nothing. Title II is an imperfect solution to the net neutrality problem, but it's the only one we've got.

This means that when the next corruption gets in they can undo everything Wheeler does. [...] The new rules only work if we have a decent person in power and can be easily abused when someone terrible replaces that person.

Wait, which is it? Is the next head of the FCC going to repeal Wheeler's rules, or abuse them? He can't very well do both.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 21 Nov 2016 @ 1:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...

How many times does it have to be said?

Inane, incoherent ranting?

Zero. Zero times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 2:04pm

Re: No Protests Allowed

What form of protest would those people like?

A letter to the editor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 2:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
Regulatory Capture is, yes, a hazard. As is Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

And yes, we need a better way to combat these eventualities than we have.

But to say we shouldn't regulate anything is to say the United States has failed, because the experiment of unregulated (or insufficiently regulated) capitalism has only proven to be worse.

Or maybe you like child labor and toxified water tables and cell phones that auto-immolate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 2:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...

Yes, and Wheeler did turn out to be a surprise there. However, that made TD drop its guard and liked his new rules more than they should have.

So you're saying TD started supporting Wheeler because he was doing good work, and then kept supporting him only because he was doing good work and not because... um... what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 2:40pm

The proposed law also reads like it would also be used to pad charges against whistleblowers or those who violate "ag-gag" laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 2:40pm

Win-Win for the lawmaker
Anyone against it is "soft on terrorism" during the next election cycle. And, any judge against is is also "soft on terrorism".

In short, the a-hole is playing the long game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 21 Nov 2016 @ 2:57pm

Re: Win-Win for the lawmaker
There are three things lawmakers say to try and get people to shut off their brains and blindly support whatever overreach they're proposing:

It fights drugs.
It stops terrorism.
It protects children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Norahc (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 3:08pm

I wonder
I wonder if it will be considered "economic terrorism" the next time some activists oh, I don't know, decide to boycott a bakery for not wanting to cater to a same sex marriage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 3:15pm

This is what happens when road start getting blocked
What do people expect when they start holding interstate roads hostage and damage hundreds if not thousands of people in the process?

It will have some bad repercussions also, but I have had enough of businesses being destroyed by a dozen idiots and interstates shutdown by a group of fools.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 3:52pm

Re: No Protests Allowed
Everyone has the inalienable human right to my opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 3:56pm

Re: Re:
Guardians Of Privilege
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 4:05pm

Re: This could get interesting...
hahahahahaha

Sure, in "theory" they would apply to politicians doing a lot of things from "fucking with prostitution" to "favoring my buddies industry" to "kissing my coffers ass", but WHO IS GOING TO ENFORCE THEM?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 4:09pm

Re: Re: This could get interesting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Norahc (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 4:10pm

Re: Re: This could get interesting...
History has shown us repeatedly that there is no shortage of law enforcement willing to use laws like these against people they don't like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 4:17pm

"Applies to unlawful disruption of transportation and commerce"

Otherwise known as the Rosa Parks get to the back of the bus clause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 5:41pm

Re: You got it all wrong!
You see, the anti abortion folk are simply exercising their religious freedoms while those protesting extra judicial executions by law enforcement are terrorists - see? .. makes complete sense, now that wasn't all that hard was it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 5:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
So - anarchy then .. and just how is this going to work out?

I'll give you a clue - it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 5:48pm

Re: criminalizes illegal protests aimed at causing economic damage
Two words that do not belong in the same sentence; Trump and consequences, as they are mutually exclusive and he has no idea what that word means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 5:48pm

Re: No Protests Allowed
The ideal protest is clicking a Like button and sharing it with your contacts. Armchair activism at its finest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 5:53pm

Re: This is what happens when road start getting blocked
And none of that is illegal already?
I call bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Nov 2016 @ 6:01pm

Re: Re: Win-Win for the lawmaker
They sometimes argue that it's tough on crime, usually meaning that it assures more convictions on false pretenses than before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ambrellite, 21 Nov 2016 @ 6:43pm

Intentionally pedantic
"The measure would allow felony prosecution of those who intentionally break the law"

"Intentionally" is the key word that will be used to distinguish good speech from bad. No supporters of Ericksen would be prosecuted under this law, because *they* would never intentionally disrupt commerce.

Just ask the Bundy brothers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 7:37pm

Re: No Protests Allowed
Their ideal protest? Whatever agrees with their opinions and doesn't touch their sacred cows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 8:46pm

Americans will just have to boycott everything that is incorporated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 8:49pm

Re:
Just let the grass grow over everything taking America back 200 years!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 8:58pm

Maybe he's pushing this for a company he hopes to get on the board of directors when he's finished with politics!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 9:33pm

Re:
OR maybe the pres elect doesn't want every democrat calling boycotts on Trump's enterprises, but that's stupid right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2016 @ 9:38pm

Re: Name that economic terrorist activity
This law would become bigger than the internet. in terms of the playground it would be for lawyers in the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 12:39am

So...

Do Trump's tweets against NYT (an other companies) count for #1?

Does Chris Christie's Bridgegate fall foul of #2?

Is this an attempt to "drain the swamp"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 22 Nov 2016 @ 12:42am

“Economic Terrorism” ...
... such an Israeli term...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Nov 2016 @ 1:42am

Re: Re: Re: Dear America
"since 9/11"

It certainly started before that, 9/11 just scared the populace sufficiently for enough time to allow restrictions to be passed that would never have been acceptable before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Nov 2016 @ 1:43am

Re: Re: You got it all wrong!
That was definitely one of his funniest anecdotes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 22 Nov 2016 @ 4:07am

"with protest" is the new "with a computer"
The president-elect has already promised such an (unconstitutional) law, so mr. Ericksen is just a follower with this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Padpaw (profile), 22 Nov 2016 @ 5:23am

any bets he has stock in the privately run prison complex
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 5:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
I think he forgot to take his meds
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 5:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
"Regulation only results in capture."

The all inclusive "only" makes the statement most likely incorrect. All inclusive statements are usually like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 5:36am

Re: Re: Re: Win-Win for the lawmaker
and it is good for their private prison dividends - double plus good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 5:37am

Re: I wonder
No - that's religious freedom.

I think they use a different dictionary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 5:39am

Is "Economic Terrorism" the same thing as "Criminal Interference with a Business Plan" ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 6:14am

Re:
Dont scare people like that

The protest for the FBI would offcourse be pre-approved
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 7:03am

Re: Re:
What would a "legal protest" look like under the Trump kingdom? I imagine it would be a well advertised event where all the crazy people are allowed to congregate, disrupt and cause general mayhem all in the name of bigotry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 7:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
Yeah, it's not like Techdirt wrote anything about reining (not reigning) in surveillance until a couple of weeks ago https://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=surveillance&search=Search&edition=techdirt&tid=&a mp;aid=&searchin=stories&start=0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 22 Nov 2016 @ 7:38am

Re: Re: No Protests Allowed
But I don't use InstaFaceTwit. Yes, really. Never have. Never will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seegras (profile), 22 Nov 2016 @ 7:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
> So - anarchy then .. and just how is this going to work out?

Badly, as all anarchist states were wiped out by foreign invaders. But I'd guess you won't even get there, because anarchy happens to be much more difficult to achieve than democracy.

Or maybe you're just talking about chaos and the rule of the mighty. That will work of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 7:42am

Re: SCARRY..
Company's are in business to MAKE MONEY! They don't exist to create jobs! Creating jobs is a side effect of needing more hands to grow the business. I don't have a problem with a so called MEGA store. Startup your own business and see how hard that is these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What a Shitshow, 22 Nov 2016 @ 7:45am

The word terrorism doesn't even mean what it's supposed to mean anymore, now it's synonymous with dissidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2016 @ 8:02am

The greatest act of economic terrorism in recent history
was the 2008 AIG securities insurance scam. CEO's of half a dozen banks were aware of it, were culpable, and abetted the crime. Which was essentially a simple insurance fraud, concealed under a cacophony of securities transactions.

Many were called before congress. Some were twitching and licking their lips they were so high on cocaine during their testimony.

The terrorist plot was probably engineered by a former executive of AIG, who had been appointed to the cabinet of George W. Bush. It is reasonable to infer that the appointment was as a result of outside pressure to make POTUS culpable, so as to suppress any real criminal investigation.

The fallout was international. The terrorists should have been brought before the Hague. But congress just shook its head, put out it's greasy palm for its share, and then kicked back a billion dollars of tax payer funding to the terrorists.

In the aftermath, banks that were responsibly managed (Wachovia) before the crash, were acquired using taxpayer supplied dollars and folded into the insolvent banks (Wells FuckedMo) who had been the jihadists in the plot. That is how the big banks balanced their books. After paying CEO bonus's of course.

The unholy trinity of cabal news did it's part with propaganda and misdirection. They insured there would be no uniform view of how a financial rape on this scale happened. (again, it was a simple insurance fraud) By keeping everyone's fingers pointing in different directions the trinity functioned as the "cleanup man" during the heist. And they were successful in diffusing what may have otherwise been a violent national populist response.

So I'm glad that Ericksen discovered a new term. (Yay reading!) But perhaps he should consider what it means before using it as a catchall for all the people he doesn't like. Or more to the point, maybe the guy should actually return to school for a few years before being let loose on anything more complex than say, comic books.

Protesters are terrorists? Such legislation is self fulfilling. I am split between fighting people like this, (because they are sandbagging the Constitution) and supporting them because at some point, you just have to let it burn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roger Strong (profile), 22 Nov 2016 @ 1:33pm

Re: Re:
It is indeed. Demanding and popularizing boycotts isn't the way to prevent boycotts in the other direction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 22 Nov 2016 @ 4:49pm

Re: Re: SCARRY..

If I don't like state tax I won't pay

Huh?

Most state taxes are sales tax. Everybody pays sales tax. Unless you're in NH or some other place with no sales tax.

Making money is not the same as paying taxes

No, but using money generally is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 22 Nov 2016 @ 4:51pm

Re: Civil Rights
You say that as if people didn't get their skulls cracked by the police and the National Guard for peaceful, lawful protests in the Civil Rights era.

Or didn't and don't might be the more accurate way to frame it. It's not like the Civil Rights Movement has ended.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 22 Nov 2016 @ 4:52pm

Re: This is what happens when road start getting blocked
Which people are they damaging, and how?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2016 @ 4:20am

Re: Re: Re:
Repercussions or other attempts to interfere with homeless persons being paid to infiltrate protests to disrupt and cause general mayhem. Would that run afoul of this law too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Wanderer (profile), 23 Nov 2016 @ 7:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
I think the idea is "now that we've granted the FCC the power to make rules like this, the new head will abuse that power, including by repealing the rules Wheeler's FCC made".

I.e., the problem with supporting the FCC being able to do such things is not what Wheeler's FCC did with that power, but what the next one will do now that it has the same power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 23 Nov 2016 @ 7:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
A valid concern, but the alternative is letting the telcos continue to abuse the power they've been given. It's not as though we have a choice between an awesome consumer friendly regime rife with competition and choice, and an abusive government regulator. The choice is between letting the FCC write the rules, and letting AT&T, Verizon et al do it. I'll take the FCC, along with the risks that entails.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Wanderer (profile), 23 Nov 2016 @ 8:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
Oh, I agree. I just have a minor compulsive tendency when it comes to explaining a viewpoint which I think is being missed, whether I agree with that viewpoint or not.

Although the general principle of being careful what powers you grant to people whose policies you like because you can't be sure you'll like their successors' policies is valid, I'm not at all sure the case at hand is a good example of that. In particular, I'm not sure the powers granted to the FCC in the net-neutrality fight thus far are ones which are much subject to abuse in ways I'd find problematic, no matter who is able to wield them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 24 Nov 2016 @ 1:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
It is definitely a valid viewpoint, but the thing that the anti-FCC folks who comment here is - what instead? Free market doesn't exist here, allowing these companies to trade unregulated will clearly be a disaster. So, if not the FCC, then what?

I've never seen an answer to this, only vague paranoid ramblings and the assertion that monopolistic abusers will act like saints if only non-existent competition were allowed to abuse rules in the same way as they would.

I don't think the concerns about the FCC's rules are being missed, it's just that without a valid realistic alternative it's still demonstrably the best option.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 25 Nov 2016 @ 1:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll just leave this here...
Better someone who is accountable to an elected power than some company that isn't?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 25 Nov 2016 @ 1:53am

Re:
Only if green eggs and ham are involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 25 Nov 2016 @ 1:55am

Re:
Or redoing the same investigation 6 times. Or trying to repeal a law 50 times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 25 Nov 2016 @ 1:57am

Re:
Can we apply this law retroactively? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 7:06am

So, calling for a boycott of Starbucks because their "holiday" cups are crafted from pieces of the Shroud of Turin would definitely be "aimed at causing economic damage."

I worked for my money, it belongs to me, and so I have every right to make an informed decision before making a purchase with my dollar. That's exactly what free speech is intended to protect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]