Demonstrations large and small have been met with disproportionate police presence over the last several years. Peaceful protestors have faced aggressive, jackbooted riot police armed with semi-automatic rifles, tear gas, rubber bullets and sonic cannons. Organizers of demonstrations have been harassed and even preemptively arrested before major events like the Democratic and Republican Conventions in 2008, and the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh in 2009. Organizers have also faced propaganda efforts that have attempted to demonize the protestors, which have effectively reduced turnout, while some cities have established "free speech zones" which serve to reduce turnout and visibility of protests. Meanwhile, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) criminalizes basic protest tactics like picketing, boycotts and educating the public -- all activities that are protected by the First Amendment.
On the other side of the political spectrum, smaller protests have been targeted by laws that seek to keep protestors away from their targets: abortion clinics in some cases, military funerals in others.
Government
Tactics to Limit or Stop Protests:
-
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
-
Buffer zones and other restrictions on protest activity
-
Disproportionate Police Response to Peaceful Protests
-
SLAPPs, RICO and other curious ways to quash protest
-
Surprise Quiz!
But
we keep on protesting!
-
Reports from protests large and small
-
Updates on lawsuits stemming from protests
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (S. 3880) was introduced at the behest of the pharmaceutical and biomedical industries in early 2006.
AETA denies equal protection to social justice activists and restricts our freedom of speech and assembly. It unfairly brands as terrorism any activities that cross a state line and interfere with the operation of an animal enterprise or of any entity that deals with one. Such activities may include website posts, peaceful vigils, nonviolent civil disobedience, undercover investigations, and whistle-blowing.
AETA is excessively broad and vague by covering nearly all enterprises and by implicating individuals who merely attempt or discuss "interference" with their operation. It imposes excessively harsh penalties when compared with other similar federal offenses. It has a chilling effect on social justice advocacy. It deters investigation of federal law violations committed by animal enterprises. It detracts from prosecution of real terrorism against the American people.
Blum
v. Holder
The Center for Constitutional
Rights has filed a lawsuit on behalf of five animal rights activists
challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act (AETA), arguing that the law is too broad, too vague and singles
out animal rights activists based on their political beliefs. The
five plaintiffs are longtime activists whose advocacy work has been
chilled due to fear of being prosecuted as terrorists under the AETA.
Read more here.
AETA
4
In July, 2010, a judge dismissed an indictment against four animal
rights activists who were charged with conspiracy to commit animal
enterprise terrorism because the indictment didn't include any details
about specific activities that the government considered terrorism.
Lawyers for the activists say that's because a detailed indictment
would have shown that the "terrorist" activities were actually
standard political protest actions clearly protected by the First
Amendment such as picketing, chanting, leafleting and leaving chalk
drawings on the sidewalk.
"This decision is a huge victory for people everywhere who care about the First Amendment. When our government seeks to punish speech and protests as a crime, it cannot avoid First Amendment scrutiny by failing to provide details about what that defendant is alleged to have said or done," said Rachel Meeropol, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights and a member of the activists's defense team (and I know that name will ring a bell for many readers, she is daughter of Robert Meeropol and granddaughter to the Rosenbergs). The case is an important test of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), a terrible law that defines many clearly First Amendment activities as "terrorism". Click for more info on this case.
Occupy Wall Street
November
21, 2011: Stop Police Use of "less than lethal" weapons
against protesters
Peaceful protesters, sitting on a sidewalk at UC Davis were doused
with pepper spray at point blank range; in Seattle, police pepper
spray a peaceful, 84 year-old woman; in Oakland, an Iraq war veteran
is critcally injured by a projectile launched by police. In too many
cities across the country, police are responding to protesters with
disproportionate force. Sign
and share the petition to put an end to unjustified use of dangerous
weapons.
October
27, 2011: Defending Dissent
Foundation Condemns Excessive Police Force
Washington, DC | www.defendingdissent.org
|, October 27, 2011-- On Tuesday evening, police in Oakland, California,
armed with lethal and “non-lethal” weapons, dressed in riot gear,
protected by helmets, shields and bullet proof vests responded to
unarmed protesters with excessive force, resulting in the critical
injury of one protester, Scott Olsen. See
the video here and here.
The Defending Dissent Foundation condemns the use of excessive force and calls on police departments across the country to immediately pledge to stop using “non-lethal” weapons including rubber bullets, bean bags, tear gas, baton rounds or concussive (“flash bang”) grenades against unarmed protesters. DDF Executive Director, Sue Udry said “There is no justification for employing these weapons against unarmed protesters. Use of these weapons can seriously injure protesters, and make a volatile situation more dangerous for both protesters and police. Our police are sworn to uphold the Constitution, we urge police to respect that pledge, and to respect the rights and well-being of protesters.”
We welcome your omments on the DDF Facebook page
Press Release is here.
Enjoy Jon Stewart's take on the Oakland Police overreaction:
October
13, 2011: Mayor Bloomberg Threatens to "Clean-up" OWS Protest
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement proves that dissent is alive
and well in the U.S. With protests in cities and towns all over the
country, the movement is also giving us a pretty good picture of where
freedom rings in the U.S. .... and where officials are trying to snuff
it out.
See
the alert here.
See
the press release here
Smaller
protests around the country:
August
9, 2010: Protest at the Pentagon
(Do We Live in a Representative Democracy or a Police State? False
Arrests at the Pentagon - blog post by Joy First)
April 2010: Photographer arrested taking pictures of NYC protest
July 2009: Anti-war t-shirts not allowed at West Point games
September
2009 G20 Economic Summit (Pittsburg, PA)
September
2009: What a welcome!
A report on the G20 summit protests in Pittsburg
--
Follow up: More on the G-20 protests
--
Follow up: Criminal Twittering at the G-20 protests?
September
2008: Republican National Convention (St. Paul, MN)
Surveillance before the convention: in
Iowa
Report
on the convention - excessive force against peaceful protestors,
mass arrests, tear gas....
Who
are these protestors, really?
A closer look at those dangerous RNC protestors
Update on lawsuits filed by or against protestors
September, 2011:
$$ Awards in Two RNC Lawsuits
RNC activists are still winning cases stemming from law enforcement
raids during the Republican Convention in 2008. Earlier this summer,
the ACLU of Minneapolis announced that three plaintiffs won $50,000
for politically motivated raids on their home. In another case, six
plaintiffs who charged that local law enforcement had unlawfully seized
vast amounts of constitutionally protected literature during the execution
of search warrants in the days leading up to the 2008 RNC, won a $27,000
settlement .
Celia Kutz, one of the six plaintiffs, stated "We took on this case because we knew that the police raids, mass arrests and indiscriminate collecting of information was a violation of our rights. In this case Ramsey County used fear, by the way of raids and false accusations, as a tactic to intimidate people speaking up for justice. We chose to not be intimidated and want this to serve as a reminder to Ramsey County Sheriff's Office and other law enforcement agencies that there is a cost to illegally suppressing political organizing."
The activists intend to donate their litigation proceeds to local organizations that support infrastructure and capacity for social justice movement building.
September 2008: Republican National Convention Lawsuit Updates, visit www.RNC8.org
August
2009: Civil Rights protestors pardoned
Better late than never? Birmingham mayor pardons 1960's protestors.
March
2009: Los Angeles Agrees to Pay Almost $13 million
The City Council of Los Angeles agreed to pay out $12,850,000 to activists
injured during a May Day rally in 2007.
Buffer zones and other restrictions on protest activity
August
11, 2011: Shame on BART!
On August 11, the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) cut off cell
phone service in order to prevent a protest. That's bad enough, but
then officials took to the airwaves to demonize the protesters by
claiming the protests could have turned violent. The irony is that
the protests were all about BART police violence: the killing of an
unarmed passenger on July 3. BART's tactic was a temporary success,
and the protests failed to materialize on the 11th, but since that
date, protestors have organized successful weekly protests at BART
stations. The transit system has come under a storm of criticism,
and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating the shutdown
of cell service. Read
more here (Huffington Post)...
August
2010: Westboro Baptist
A US District Court judge ruled that two Missouri laws restricting
protests near funerals are unconstitutional. The laws were passed
in 2006 after funeral protests by the Westboro Baptist Church and
banned protests within 300 feet of a funeral location, and within
one hour before and after a funeral. As a reminder, these are the
offensive anti-gay protests staged outside military funerals. Church
members promote the idea that God is punishing America for tolerating
homosexuality by killing U.S. soldiers. Clearly idiotic, but also
clearly protected by the First Amendment. The Missouri Attorney General
plans to appeal the ruling.
Follow-up: in our April letter we reported that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear another case, Snyder v. Phelps, involving the church's funeral protests. The case is popular with politicians: the Attorneys General of 48 states have filed an amicus brief in support of the state's right to limit protests (referred to as "psychological terrorism" in the brief), as have forty-two members of the Senate.
July 2009: Massachusetts court upholds buffer zones at clinics
SLAPPS, RICO and other curious ways to quash protest
Parents
Beware
A group of Iowans have been visiting their Senators' offices each
week over the last several months to deliver anti-war petitions. In
early April, two of the activists, Christine Gaunt, 53, and Frankie
Hughes, 12, decided to stage a sit-in in Senator Harkin's office.
They refused to leave when the office closed, and were duly arrested.
Pretty typical story so far, right? Until the next day when police
charged Frankie's mom with contributing to the delinquency of a minor
for refusing to make her daughter leave the protest. Des Moines Police
Sgt. David Murillo told the Des Moines Register: "I understand
and fully appreciate a person's constitutional right to free speech.
However, this was a case of bringing a child into a criminal arena."
Response from the activist community (including DDF) was swift and vocal. Police dropped the charges against Frankie's mom. (May 2010)
SLAPP
(Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)
It was a clever stunt: a
group of activists called Yes Men staged a mock press conference pretending
they were representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, announcing that
the Chamber would end its opposition to strong climate change legislation.
Although it was quickly revealed as a hoax, the Chamber was not amused.
They demanded that footage of the 'press conference' be taken from
the group's website because it displayed the Chamber's trademark,
and they have SLAPPed (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)
the Yes Men with a merit less lawsuit claiming trademark infringement.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Davis Wright Tremain, LLP,
representing the activists, have filed a motion to dismiss, arguing
that the Chamber's suit was designed to punish core political speech,
rather than to vindicate any actual trademark harm. "U.S. courts
have long recognized that trademark rights do not include the right
to control language and silence critics," said EFF Senior Staff
Attorney Corynne McSherry, "This political parody was clearly
protected by fair use and the First Amendment."
Take
Action!
We've covered the issue
of SLAPPs before, and now I'm happy to report that we have an action
step you can take to fight SLAPPS: Representative. Steve Cohen (D-TN)
has introduced the Citizen
Participation Act of 2009 (HR 4364).
Click
here to send an email to your Rep
Or
Call and ask your Representative to co-sponsor HR 4364. Reach your
Representative via the Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Talking
points:
- SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation) are a pernicious threat to the constitutional
rights of petition and free speech. Such lawsuits, brought not to
vindicate legal rights but to harass, intimidate and silence those
that engage in petition or expression on matters of public interest
must not be allowed to interfere with First Amendment rights.
- There is only limited protection for federal claims in federal court against SLAPPs, and many states lack any SLAPP protection at all. I urge you to co-sponsor HR 4364, the Citizen Participation in Government and Society Act of 2009.
- Representatives who are interested in co-sponsoring should contact David Greengrass in Rep. Steve Cohen's office at 202-225-3264.
ACTIVISTS
: RICO Strikes Again
Environmental activists
in Indiana dreamed up a clever civil disobedience action to protest
the building of a superhighway: they 'evicted' the company building
the highway from their project office by removing the furniture and
staging a sit in. The activists also staged sit-ins in trees, and
blocked the entrance in front of one construction site. Two of the
activists, Hugh Ferrell and Gina Wertz, have been arrested and charged
under RICO. The charges were drafted in a way that turned these misdemeanors
into felony racketeering, with charges of conspiracy and theft; by
sitting in trees they deprived the owners of the value of the tree.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of eight years. Read
More…
QUIZ: Protests are "Low Level Terrorism"
The question,
"Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism
activity?" and your choices are:
o Attacking the Pentagon
o IEDs
o Hate crimes against racial groups
o Protests
