Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists
I was wondering how long it would take before Conservatives would begin to look for ways to stifle dissent. I just never thought that it would come from my former home.
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.
I would agree that behavior which disrupts public safety or the delivery of fire and police services needs to be dealt with effectively. Nonetheless, stifling all anti-war protests and jailing the protesters as "terrorists" could itself be characterized as a terrorist act. In his quest to find a simplistic solution to a complex problem, Larson would put protesters in jail for 25 years for the "crime" of expressing their point of view. I shouldn't have to point out that said self-expression is a CONSTITUTIONALLY- GUARANTEED RIGHT. We may be at war, but let's keep our wits about us, shall we??
Where do you draw the line? If anti-war protests can be legally defined as "terrorist" activity, what other sorts of behaviors will later be defined as such. Voting Democratic? Watching American Idol? Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys (actually, that might not be such a bad idea....)? It's a slippery slope, and once you start down it, you can't help but pick up speed.
Never mind that this bill, if enacted into law, would never pass any sort of constitutional test. Any judge with even the most rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution and case law (not to mention a grip on reality) would strike such a law down in a heartbeat. Thankfully, Larson's assault on the Bill of Rights has no realistic chance of being enacted into law.
During my time in Portland, I'd always thought of Lars Larson as a fairly intelligent and thoughtful person, though I seldom agreed with his opinions when he was at Channel 12. Clearly, I've overestimated the man. He actually makes Rush Limbaugh seem the very essence of reasoned discourse.
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.
Thankfully, common sense still has a foothold in the Pacific Northwest. I'm just glad that this bill wasn't introduced in the Texas Legislature. I think it would have a much better chance of passing the lunatic-fringe-Republican-controlled Lege, though it would fare no better in a court test here.
They call it freedom of speech for a reason, folks....
