Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Rioting or Protesting? Authoritarian Republicans again take aim at Shredding 1st Amendment and Public Dissent.

The Republican war on protesters continues to morph into what can only be described as an authoritarian dictatorial one party state. Nope, I'm not being hyperbolic.

Shredding the 1st Amendment, again, Republican State Rep. John Spiros wants to kind of blur the line between "protesting" and "rioting." After all, who's to say what active loud protesters are doing exactly...maybe rioting, maybe protesting...find the right court, who knows. Depends on whether you want to arrest them, to send a message. ACLU where are you:
State Representative John Spiros (R-Marshfield) introduced a package of three bills that would seek to define the actions of a riot and provide a criminal penalty as well as provide a penalty for blocking traffic and/or carrying a firearm while rioting. 
What, a penalty for carrying a firearm...weren't guns supposed to make us safer. Guess that was an inadvertent slip of the truth, for once. 

These armed brave rugged "freedom and liberty" loving independent real Americans can't take the 1st Amendment heat from their constituents. Maybe people are angry over Republican policies? No, they just hate the fact they lost the election...: 
“I have been deeply affected by the news reports all around the country and in our own state of individuals who are seriously damaging property, creating general chaos, and threatening the safety of innocent bystanders with danger and in some cases, life threatening injuries. 
Fear of "the other" motivates Spiro to protect us against "outside" ideas that challenge the authority.

Under the lie that Republicans want to keep us safe...isn't that what guns/concealed carry was supposed to provide...protesters and/or rioters must be punished as felons. 
Rep. Spiros said, "Senator Wanggaard and I are introducing these bills to ensure our public remains safe from these sorts of actions, while protecting the right to peaceful assembly,” blah, blah, blah.
Riot or Protest? Hey, no problem here for the 1st Amendment because they said so: 
These anti-riot bills accomplish the following three goals: define a riot, prohibit carrying a firearm while rioting, and prohibit blocking traffic while rioting. Under these new laws:
1. Any individual who chose to participate in a riot; 

2. Carry a firearm during a riot;

3. Or block traffic during a riot would be subject to criminal penalties. 
And just in case you were worried about Republicans cracking down on your 1st Amendment rights, naw, they say there's nothing to worry about:
Rep. Spiros said, “These bills were intentionally crafted to protect both 1st and 2nd Amendment US Constitutional Rights, while providing law enforcement the proper tools to keep public safety and order. I believe it is important to protect our citizens and ensure civil liberties while punishing those who seek to cause harm and destruction." 
How'd we ever live without this crackdown? To use an often repeated Republican line..."can't we just enforce the laws we have on the books already?"

1 comment:

  1. Don't think the statutes would pass First Amend scrutiny for political speech - chilling effect and so forth.

    Repubs writing about First Amend degrading just amplifies the message that liberal types should stay away and go to Yale and so on. Part of a project of loudly passing poke-in-the-face statutes meant to suppress intelligent people from re-locating here and chasing people out.

    Going to be fine on this one.