Bill Introduced That Would Make Arrested Protesters Pay Police Overtime, Gov't Expenses

from the rack-up-all-the-overtime-and-arrests-you-want,-guys! dept

Thu, Sep 7th 2017 10:42am — Tim Cushing

When faced with First Amendment activity they don't care for, some legislators attempt to gerrymander this right until it only contains the speech they like. This can take the form of cyberbullying bills, hate speech legislation, and, lately, anti-protesting laws.

The problem with these efforts is they routinely run afoul of the Constitution. Some do better than others trying to stay within the confines of what can actually be controlled by the government, but in most cases, the proposed laws are badly-written rush jobs attempting to paper over the current issue du jour.

Another anti-protesting law is in the works, prompted by oil pipeline demonstrations both in North Dakota and, closer to home, in the district of the state rep introducing the bill, Scott Martin of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

Under the terms of the bill, “a person is responsible for public safety response costs incurred by a State agency or political subdivision as a result of the State agency’s or political subdivision’s response to a demonstration if, in connection with the demonstration, the person is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor offense.”

In other words, they could be on the hook for costs, such as police overtime, medical or emergency response, or other basic public services associated with protests. Whatever felony or misdemeanor offense the protester was convicted of would come with its own independent penalty.

Because the state's laws concerning damage to property and the usual assortment of rioting-related charges apparently isn't enough to deter people from complaining about stuff in Martin's district, a new law must be put in place to hold demonstrators responsible for the actions of others, as well as anything the state might want to add to the final post-protest invoice.

The bill cites -- in support of its First Amendment-chilling efforts -- the millions of dollars spent by government agencies in response to the Dakota Pipeline protests. It's a slick move, one that might convince more bottom-line-oriented legislators to hop aboard despite the obvious Constitutional implications.

In practice, this law could saddle someone picked up during a protest for blocking a sidewalk (a misdemeanor) with a sizable chunk of the costs incurred by the government during the protest. This will discourage most people from showing support for any controversial cause or, indeed, for any cause at all. Any protest of any size will result in additional expenditures by government agencies, all of which can now be passed on directly to the protest's participants.

And it won't be spread evenly among participants. The costs will be borne only by those arrested, which creates an incentive to arrest as many protesters as possible to offset projected expenses. This, in turn, will push prosecutors towards ensuring even the most bullshittiest of charges sticks, as they'll have to answer to lawmakers waving ledger books filled with red ink if they don't.

Sure, this bill won't survive a Constitutional challenge, but someone's going to have to spend their own money to correct the Pennsylvania government's error. Hopefully, the bill will get laughed out of the legislature immediately -- especially since Rep. Martin's intentions may be less than honorable.

DeSmog Blog notes that Martin has close ties to pipeline lobbyists. Prior to joining the Pennsylvania Senate, Martin worked for a firm called Community Networking Strategies. CNS is a subsidiary of the lobbying firm, McNees, Wallace & Nurick — which lobbies for Gulf Oil Ltd, Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania, and Sunoco Logistics.

If it does somehow become law, it will be a statewide embarrassment and a vehicle for government abuse. And it will give the state the ability to rob Peter twice to pay Officer Paul's protest-related overtime.

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: first amendment, payment, police, protests

57 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:07am

We're going to make it harder for citizens to express their opinions.
Citizens should demand an amendment holding the legislators who voted for the project personally liable for clean-up/fix costs.

They'll scream about how that isn't fair, and one just needs to point out that if you are going to suppress the publics right to protest you better have some skin in the game as well.

We have "pet" legislators who have passed laws to protect companies from having their dirty laundry exposed. Oh you took a photo of us processing a very sick cow in violation of the law, well you'll go to prison for exposing a health risk because you lied to expose our wrongdoing.

Dakota pipeline is an interesting case as they paid money to bring in mercenaries from private companies & were doing deep dives into the protesters looking for ways to crack them.

Of course they wouldn't have protested the pipeline if they had stayed on the original path that didn't have to cross the river... but that went by white folk who didn't want it near them in case bad things happened.

It's a pity there isn't a law on the books that removes state reps who propose these sorts of unconstitutional bills for failure to understand the responsibilities that go with the job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ShadowNinja (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:10am

Given that Tom Wolf is still governor of PA, I highly doubt that the PA bill will pass. I'd be very shocked if he signed it given that the GOP is normally the ones who support these anti-protester laws, and Wolf is a Democrat.

But that doesn't change how absurd and draconian this proposal is, and how shocking it is that these 7 legislators would even consider it for a moment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:16am

Overtime? What about that assault vehicle and helicopter we needed to buy just to patrol the protest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:16am

so more privacy and freedom being destroyed, not just removed! and those involved in instigating this bill are supposed to be there to look after the people and their rights, not help turn the USA into a police state, or something other than 'Land of the Free' even quicker! what the hell is wrong with these politicians? is becoming more like China, Iraq or N Korea etc so important, particularly when those countries are constantly condemned? makes no sense!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:16am

"It's a dick move..."

FTFY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:21am

Re:

what the hell is wrong with these politicians?

They want to rule, and not represent. Therefore they will do everything possible to ensure that their word becomes law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:23am

Berkley and the police wanted to charge Milo for extra security when he was supposed to speak. Isn't that about the same issue as this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:25am

Since the costs of policing protest are going to be covered by the protesters then clearly my taxes should be reduced because the police won't need as large of a budget. Seems like politicians and police forces are trying to double dip as usual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:34am

Re:
It could be similar to demanding money ahead of time for a permitted event. Depends on what kind of event and how the event was organized. There are all manner of events where paid police security has always been normal.

On the dissimilar side, no it isn't like police picked out some people at one of that dood's events, beat the crap out of them, made up charges, then asked them retroactively to pay for any police presence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin, 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:34am

If your going to charge protesters then I think you should also charge politicians for any extra resources they use during an election. If they hold a rally that causes police overtime and so on then they should cover the bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:36am

This bill is still alive? I wish i could say i was shocked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:49am

Hmm... I read this immediately after I read https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/09/the-fake-news-pipeline-how-two-small-time-clickbai.ht ml

Interestingly, both chains seem to link back to the same corporations....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 11:54am

Too much free speech
We don't want people to have an excessive amount of free speech. Nor would we want an excess of too much liberty. If they get too much of either, they should have to have to pay for it. Nevermind that it was already paid for in blood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

DudeAbiding, 7 Sep 2017 @ 12:22pm

"The problem with these efforts is they routinely run afoul of the Constitution."
As opposed to DACA?
Let's face it, Techdirt cares about constitutionality only when it is convenient, i.e. lines up with leftist policies.
Their "ethics" are strictly situational.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 12:24pm

In my state, there's already a generic law that someone convicted of a crime shall pay "The necessary disbursements and fees of officers allowed by law and incurred in connection with the arrest, preliminary examination and trial of the defendant", among other things.

Of course, that doesn't allow the state to bill you for the fact that the officer was at the demonstration in the first place. If one person gets arrested at a large demonstration, it is ridiculous for that one person to bear the costs of the entire police presence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 12:26pm

Re:
No, those are free, thanks to the US DoD!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kP (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 12:38pm

If I'm shot...
...do I get billed for the bullet, too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 12:49pm

When the right to free speech is infringed by the government, what do the politicians think will happen next? Do they think everyone will simply stfu and do as they're told? LOL - I doubt it. I think they are trying to start a civil war and it will not take much more in order to accomplish their goal of martial law.

Charging money for exercising one's rights is infringement of that right, it is a violation of the constitution, it is slap in the face of all who fought for this country and it is an insult to all citizens.

I'm sure they have some very twisted pretzel logic to explain why this is copacetic and how this makes them very patriotic. Think I'll go toss my cookies now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 12:51pm

Re:
Please explain how DACA is unconstitutional.
Also please explain how violating the constitution is ok with you simply because you think it has already been infringed upon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kP (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 12:55pm

Re: DACA
DACA has yet to be determined unconstitutional, but please, do continue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oblate (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 12:56pm

Why bother not protesting?
If this passes I suspect the police in PA will just start arresting affluent-looking people who happen to be near protests, just to help foot the bill.

The bill doesn't seem to address the issue of how much of the bill would be charged- if there are 500 people there, and 10 are charged (and of course found guilty) would each person found guilty of something be charged 1/500 or 1/10 of the costs? Or am I optimistic in thinking that they wouldn't each be charged 100% of the costs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 1:12pm

Re:
Interviewer: Nevertheless, Mr. Helpmann, there are those who maintain that the Ministry of Information has become too large and unwieldy...And the cost of it all, Deputy Minister? Seven percent of the gross national product.

Mr. Helpmann: I understand this concern on behalf of the tax payers. People want value for money. That's why we always insist on the principle of Information Retrieval charges. It's absolutely right and fair that those found guilty should pay for their periods of detention and for the Information Retrieval Procedures used in their interrogation.

-Brazil
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 1:12pm

This would incentive police to arrest people for money. Gotta love capitalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DB (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re:
The equipment is free, but it can be extremely expensive to operate and maintain. A Bearcat spare tire is $5K. Helicopters cost at least a few hundred an hour, up to $1K.

Once you can pass the cost to someone else, there is a strong incentive to move every expense in the operating cost column. For instance leasing the equipment instead of purchasing, and have the lease contract include training.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 1:59pm

Re:
The pity is yours and the vast majority of Americans ignorance.

We voted these assholes in, but will not hold the responsible by voting them out.

You made your beds... lay in them!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 2:30pm

Re:
Or you can just stop selling them <i>military-grade weapons</i>. That way, they can <i>stop stealing from the public.</i>
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ThaumaTechnician (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 2:45pm

Brazil! It's only a state of mind.
Haven't these guys ever seen the movie? Don't they know it's not an instruction manual?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSQ5EsbT4cE

/Me, I couldn't stand all the paperwork.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 3:04pm

Do you want violent protests? Because this is how you get violent protests
'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.' -John F. Kennedy

In an attempt to prevent any protests(you may be protesting harmlessly, but someone else may go overboard and you'll have to pay for it, so better not to go at all) such a bill would instead make people even more upset, and even more likely to turn violent as the people more more inclined for harmless demonstrations stay home, leaving the more volatile. And if they're going to be punished for protesting anyway...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 3:08pm

Re:
They already do that, minus the 'arrest' part, this would just give them another way to do it.

"That looks like some mighty suspicious money there, I'll be taking that unless you want to jump through a system designed to make it as difficult and expensive as possible to demonstrate that it is not in fact 'criminal money'."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 3:16pm

Re: Re:
I see you're in the all you can eat paintchip buffet. Try the quarter ecru, I hear it's quite good today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mhajicek (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 4:23pm

Re:
If the protesters are going to be paying the police's wages for the duration of the protest, then the police need to be under the command of the protesters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mhajicek (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 4:24pm

Re: Too much free speech
That blood payment must be renewed on a regular basis. Perhaps it's been too long.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Châu, 7 Sep 2017 @ 4:32pm

Reverse
Chnage police must pay people for their time. Investigations, wrong arrest, traffic stop, ID cards, paperwork. Price is per minute. I think this make police become more efficient.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zugmeister (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 6:34pm

I'd just like to point out...
Right now EVERYONE is paying for the extra resources required to "secure" these events. Yes, it's quite possible your grandmother is paying for the police watching Antifa break things and set them on fire. Doesn't it make sense that the person(s) arrested for doing something illegal at a protest bear a higher cost burden than some random taxpayer who has nothing to do with the protest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 6:38pm

Unintended consequences of this are ....?
Demonstrators who already are prepared for the current set of consequences are going to do what? Submit now??? I somehow think that the the elected politicians who head down these kinds of paths are painting various kinds of targets on themselves, their families and their businesses and properties. Push a people hard enough and some of them will rebel and then you got more problems on hand.

Fear is only effective for a time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 6:44pm

Re: Re: Re:
You jest - but it appears to me that many politicians and their followers are exhibiting behavior indicating health issues, somewhat similar to lead poisoning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 6:48pm

Re:
If LEOs own stock in the private prison industry, is that considered a conflict of interest? Based upon experience in other fields I say yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2017 @ 6:53pm

Re: I'd just like to point out...
Does it make any sense for someone living in Alaska to pay for hurricane cleanup? They don't ever get hurricanes so why should they be paying anything to clean up after hurricanes?

Well, does Alaska need help cleaning up from volcanos?

It's Socialism !!!!!!11111
Oh Noes!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daydream, 7 Sep 2017 @ 7:05pm

I'm too tired to search and rhetoric, could someone do my post for me?
If you do, could you include the following things?

-Reference to this article.
-Substantiate 'very sick cow' allegation in comment above with a link.
-Provide links proving pattern of prosecution of whistleblowers.
-Provide links demonstrating gross mistreatment of civil disobedients/protestors.
-Link to articles about; current prison conditions in America, lack of legal support for the accused, loss of income/employment for victims of the 'legal' system.
-Link to stories about gross abuses of asset forfeiture, murders committed by police, and other misconduct for which the police were not prosecuted.
-Link to stories about big corporations violating the law, abusing legal processes, etc, without being prosecuted.
-Tie it all together with a statement about how these groups with money and weapons regularly steal from and assault the common people, killing and/or enslaving those who disobey or resist.
-Quote or link the definition of chattel slavery, compare formal definition to above evidence to substantiate a match.
-End with snarky comment (e.g. 'What Thirteenth Amendment?'), and/or demand for violent revolution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr Big Content, 7 Sep 2017 @ 8:52pm

Make Them Pay DOUBLE If Their Aqcuitted.
That way, theyll plead guilty and save everybody teh expense of a trial. More liberal troublemakers locked up -- win-win all round!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 9:04pm

Re: Do you want violent protests? Because this is how you get violent protests
You left out that since they are only billing those they catch, people are going to try very hard to avoid that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zugmeister (profile), 7 Sep 2017 @ 9:12pm

Re: Re: I'd just like to point out...
Hurricanes and volcanic eruptions are not directly caused by the people affected by them.

OTOH, if I get arrested for breaking the law at a protest I elected to attend, it would be difficult to argue I don't bear some responsibility for my actions.

If you choose to burn your house down, I don't feel the urge to buy you another one. This is not "Socialism !!!111" this is called personal responsibility.

Violent protests are not the same as natural disasters. The idea they should be treated in the same way is silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 6:11am

Re: I'm too tired to search and rhetoric, could someone do my post for me?
Are you working on your thesis?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 6:25am

Re: Re: Re: I'd just like to point out...
Perhaps the point was missed, overlooked more likely.

I have a few questions that I suspect will not be answered, but - wth:

Should protesters be held financially responsible for the violent acts of others?

Is any proof of ones culpability required?

Is this third party liability on steroids?

What is the minimum distance required in order to be considered a participant in said protest?

What about the LEO funded instigators, do they also have to pay?

These questions, and many more, are unanswered and will remain so even after implementation in order to allow maximum disruption of your first amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 7:03am

Re: Unintended consequences of this are ....?
Yeah, because the black owned businesses in poor areas of Baltimore, St. Louis, Newark, Watts, NYC and other areas that were torched during riots painted targets on themselves too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 7:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's less individual issues and more mob mentality. One person is smart, a group of people are stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 7:45am

Re: I'm too tired to search and rhetoric, could someone do my post for me?
Here you go:

https://www.techdirt.com

Wow! That was easy! ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 8:05am

Re: Reverse
Heh - they don't pay to fix what they blow up at the wrong address, surely they will not do this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcy, 9 Sep 2017 @ 5:15am

Protesters held accountable
Abuse of the law can happen.
But, we also have laws to protect and give us legal recourse from this kind of abuse. We must have laws that will hold the people accountable for the damage they do to us all in these protests! So.. protest to your hearts desire, just don't damage anyone or anything or you'll be held accountable. And this is right and good for us all.

Protesters who follow the law and do no harm to anyone or anything, in peaceful protests (as they're all supposed to be), have no problem and aren't arrested. If they're innocent and this law is abused by the state... there is legal recourse.

Unfortunately, when protesters become violent and disruptive they're not held accountable. This invites more and more violence and disruption to manifest.

When you become aware that in MANY of these protests, some protesters are paid to protest and disrupt as much as possible... you understand that these people are not protesters, they are employees following their employers instruction. This may not be in all protests but it's been proven that this has frequently happened in the recent past and that some of these employees of the protest are the ones doing the damage. So far no one is accountable for the damage or the cost that their bad behavior has caused to the city/state and individual. And this behavior will continue until these violent, damaging people understand that they'll be personally accountable for the damage they do and the extra cost to our state/city! It's about time we had this law!!!!!

You don't want to get arrested while you protest... don't break the law, be a peaceful protester and don't fight or ignore instructions from Police. It's real easy.

We all respect the right for citizens to protest. However, we're all sick and tired of spending our private and city/state funds to clean up and replace the things destroyed by these disruptive and damaging people.

Personal accountability for one's actions is what's been missing all this time. Without personal accountability these protests will only continue to become more violent.

Who knows.. perhaps with some of these blaming SJ people it will cause them to look at themselves, you know, their own personal accountability- responsibility for their own lives instead of blaming everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zugmeister (profile), 9 Sep 2017 @ 9:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'd just like to point out...
"Should protesters be held financially responsible for the violent acts of others? "
Categorically not! That's why (as you seem to have missed or overlooked) they're going after protesters who have been arrested for doing something illegal.

"Is any proof of ones culpability required?"
I'd imaging this is something the court would handle... You know, did the person arrested commit a crime. I hear that's kinda what they're about.

"Is this third party liability on steroids?"
Right now all taxpayers are liable for these extra costs. This puts more cost on people caught breaking the law at the protest. This is the opposite of third party liability.

"What is the minimum distance required in order to be considered a participant in said protest?"
I have no idea. Maybe you could do your own research to answer your question.

"What about the LEO funded instigators, do they also have to pay?"
Logic is awesome. That would mean the state would be paying money to... the state! If by some fluke a paid protester ended up losing some of their own money, would anyone be upset for them?

"These questions... are unanswered and will remain so..."
Well, now they're answered and you're welcome.

"... in order to allow maximum disruption of your first amendment rights."
Don't be so melodramatic. You still have free speech.
You do NOT have a right to do anything illegal, for which you might be arrested. Do you understand the difference?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2017 @ 11:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'd just like to point out...
"arrested for doing something illegal."
- arrested for not following my orders is more like it - Sorta like the nurse in SLC

Proof? You can't handle the proof.
You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

Minimum distance is what I say it is mister

agent provocateurs will be "arrested" to maintain their cover but will silently be released after a good laugh with their cohorts.

Why yes - and now I will have all my answers questioned

Hello? You can be arrested for non-existent laws, if you have money you can beat the rap but you still get the free ride. Caution, it could be a bit bumpy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2017 @ 11:16am

Re: Protesters held accountable
"Protesters who follow the law and do no harm to anyone or anything, in peaceful protests (as they're all supposed to be), have no problem and aren't arrested."

Hahahahha - good one!

Oh, wait, you are serious?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Teamchaos (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 7:57am

Re:
They already do that. Traffic tickets for meaningless offenses have been a staple of funding for local police departments for decades. This just expands the pool a bit to add those who run their months to those who drive a bit over the limit or fail to signal when changing lanes.

I think most people would support making those nasty Nazi's pay or those nasty Antifa's, or those nasty Christians, or those nasty gays, or those nasty free speech advocates, or those nasty BLMs, or those nasty... <insert group you're affiliated with here>
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zugmeister (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 8:11am

Re: Re:
So we shouldn't pass laws because police will selectively enforce them for their own benefit?
If the issue is with enforcement, might there be a better answer to the problem than advocating inaction?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 1:20pm

Re: Milo
> Berkley and the police wanted to charge Milo for extra
> security when he was supposed to speak. Isn't that about
> the same issue as this?

It very much is, but Milo is a conservative, so attempts to chill his speech don't get nearly the coverage and sympathy in the media and elsewhere as attempts to limit leftist speech do.

(E.g., Did TechDirt write a pearl-clutching article over Berkeley's attempt to hang the cost of protests on the person being protested? The archive search says no.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re:
> Please explain how DACA is unconstitutional.

Easy. It was enacted by the president (Obama) via memo, not even an executive order, which usurped the powers of the Legislative Branch. In other words, the president doesn't have the power to enact things like DACA all by himself. That's what we have Congress for. Per the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ted, 12 Sep 2017 @ 1:27pm

fake news
Subject says "Bill Introduced That Would Make Arrested Protesters Pay Police Overtime, Gov't Expenses"

story says "Under the terms of the bill, “a person is responsible for public safety response costs ... if, in connection with the demonstration, the person is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor offense.""

arrested is not synonymous with convicted
[ link to this | view in thread ]