Here we go!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This looks like it will be rightfully squashed, but just the fact that it's going to committee bothers me.

I also love the part about "blocking ambulences." Conservatives in my area tried to pull the same shit when some demonstrators blocked up a highway. Somebody called up the Highway Department and in fact verified that it wasn't true.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14942-2003Apr2?language=printer

washingtonpost.com
Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists

Reuters
Wednesday, April 2, 2003; 9:02 PM

By Lee Douglas

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.

The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation.

Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.

The bill's few public supporters say police need stronger laws to break up protests that have created havoc in cities like Portland, where thousands of people have marched and demonstrated against war in Iraq since last fall.

"We need some additional tools to control protests that shut down the city," said Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host who has aggressively stumped for the bill.

Larson said protesters should be protected by free speech laws, but not given free reign to hold up ambulances or frighten people out of their daily routines, adding that police and the court system could be trusted to see the difference.

"Right now a group of people can get together and go downtown and block a freeway," Larson said. "You need a tool to deal with that."

The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism.

Critics of the bill say its language is so vague it erodes basic freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism under an extremely broad definition.

"Under the original version (terrorism) meant essentially a food fight," said Andrea Meyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposes the bill.

Police unions and minority groups also oppose the bill for fear it could have a chilling effect on relations between police and poor people, minorities, children and "vulnerable" populations.

Legislators say the bill stands little chance of passage.

"I just don't think this bill is ever going to get out of committee," said Democratic Senator Vicki Walker, one of four members on the six-person panel who have said they oppose the legislation.


© 2003 Reuters

[punkgrrrlie10]

um yeah...mandatory 25, sounds like a violation of the 1st and 8th amendments.

[theapportioner]

Two down, eight more to go baby. :)

I'm waiting for the US Secret Police to come and pop a few caps in my chest, and my family's, then burn down the house, and eat the dog.

[Jeanette X]

Hmm...is the A.C.L.U on this?

[VinceZeb]

The reasoning against the bill because of the whole "minority, children, poor, etc" angle is just another liberal whiny-ass tactic to generate symphathy from people.

But the bill itself is wrong. Unless you are committing terrorist acts, you are not a terrorist. We have a Bill of Rights, and this does erode them. Although when protestors block traffic and someone decides to slug them or they get arrested for interfearing with peoples rights to life, liberty and persuit of property and happiness, they need not whine, becuase Actions Have Conquences.

[Bennett]

Although when protestors block traffic and someone decides to slug them or they get arrested for interfearing with peoples rights to life, liberty and persuit of property and happiness, they need not whine, becuase Actions Have Conquences.

Sorry Vince, but the 1st amendment says that people have the right to assemble peacefully, so as long as they are not violently blocking traffic, a la overturning cars, creating a dangerous environment for drivers, then they are completely within their rights.

Unless you're saying that you're against the first amendment. Why, I oughtta!!! You anti-american sumbitch. How can you hate this country?!

[VinceZeb]

But Bennett, you are BREAKING THE LAW if you are preventing me from exercising my rights to life, liberty, pursuit of property and happiness. If you break the law, you go to jail. Simple as that. They can protest as long as you are not breaking a law. Assembling on a street and blocking traffic is not peaceful. That is 1) dangerous to do and 2) interferes with my rights to go to my job, go to church, go to work, go to school, etc. Why should my rights be infringed upon because you want to go to extremes while practicing yours? That is wrong, no matter how you slice it. No matter who does it. Just because you have the right and ability to do it does not make it a tarp to use to cover up common sense.

[Bennett]

Thank you very much, Vince, that was exactly what I was hoping for.
Can we please move this to the Church vs. State Thread, because any teacher who decides to hold prayer in Class, regardless of the religion of all students, rather than hold a group outside of class for all those who wish to participate in prayer is infringing on the rights of those students who do not wish to pray. That is wrong, no matter how you slice it. No matter who does it. Just because you have the right and ability to do it does not make it a tarp to use to cover up common sense.

[kellychaos]

It basically DOES boil down to common sense. One can put it even more fundamentally by applying the Golden Rule that "Your rights end where mine begin." I think at about this time my old political science teacher would be drudging up the old "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" precedent. No one was really hurt here but it certainly does have potential considering "mob mentality" at times. Arguing a case on "potentiality" is kind of weak, though, and puts the debate in a gray area. I guess that you just have to consider what DID happen in the way of public harm, ect ... which was ... nothing. What more is there to say?

[VinceZeb]

Bennett, you are talking down to me like I am supposed to be some kind of cookie cutter conserative that doesn't have outside opinions. I advise that you don't.

There can be a moment of silence in public schools if they choose to, because it can be used for whatever they want. Now, leading a school in prayer is wrong, not because of some Church vs State crapola that liberals like to act like is in the Constitution. It is wrong becuase it is introducing a facet of religion into the schools. Personally, I could care less. I wish kids would learn some morals somewhere, becuase they obviously haven't been learning them in their homes. But, I don't want my kid forced to pray in school to someone/thing I and my family do not believe in. Now, at a game or some kind of large school event, they could easily do so because if the group wants to do it, then the group should have the say, because being at a game is voluntary. School is not. It is a govt school, so it should not be enforced there. But that doesn't mean that we cant metion God or religion in schools. The problem is that is what liberals want for the most part. No metion of anything that may show "intolerance" or "insensativity" to people.

Kids need to learn you have to deal with people that disagree with you. I do it all the time. But I wont piss and moan about it unless it is truly infringing on my rights. Now, if people wanted a prayer setting at a private school or private business, that is ok and perfectly legal. If the person doesn't like it there, go to another school or get another job. No one is forcing you to go there and your tax dollars are not funding it.

Even if its my view the govt is funding, I don't want the govt funding morality. I want my kids to be taught WHY to believe, not WHAT.

[FS]

So, does this mean jaywalking with poor timing could get you imprisoned for a quarter of a century?

[Bennett]

"interferes with my rights to go to my job, go to church, go to work, go to school, etc. Why should my rights be infringed upon because you want to go to extremes while practicing yours?"

"If the person doesn't like it there, go to another school or get another job. No one is forcing you to go there and your tax dollars are not funding it. "

I advise that you don't.

If I do will you call me a nerd and tell me about the boobies you felt last night?

[VinceZeb]

Actually no, I was going to say that I have enjoyed our intellectual discussion until you decided to be a Burbank acolyte and start with the insults. I guess I was mistaken.

[Bennett]

Actually no, I was going to say that I have enjoyed our intellectual discussion until you decided to be a Burbank acolyte and start with the insults. I guess I was mistaken.

:( Sorry, took it more seriously than was intended.

Must say, you are more enjoyable than Ronnie :)

[mburbank]

So is Chlamydia.