Time to rally, America: Efforts to stifle protesters are out of line

By Las Vegas Sun Staff (contact)

Friday, March 3, 2017 | 1:40 p.m.

After a motorist struck workers who were protecting protesters at a rally against a national leader, a lawmaker in that country filed legislation to shield drivers from liability if they hit someone deliberately blocking a street.

So where did the protest happen? Syria? Russia? Hungary?

Try Nashville.

The legislation — which might as well have been named the Open Season on Protesters Act, as it would absolve drivers who hit demonstrators — came from a Republican lawmaker in Tennessee.

That’s horrible, but what’s even more vile is that it’s not an isolated case.

As detailed in a story in the New York Times, Republican leaders in at least 16 states have introduced legislative proposals to rein in protesters or impose harsher penalties on demonstrators who break the law. The trend apparently is a GOP reaction to demonstrations such as the Occupy Wall Street movement and the protests that dissolved into rioting in Ferguson, Mo.

But at least some of those measures, like the one in Tennessee, come from President Donald Trump boosters or as responses to demonstrations against him.

Here are a few other examples:

• In the aftermath of the Dakota Access Pipeline protest, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum enacted four bills aimed at giving government officials more power to squelch such demonstrations. Among them were a measure giving the attorney general more authority to call in outside law enforcement officials.

• Lawmakers in Iowa and Mississippi filed proposals to boost penalties for blocking high-speed roads. In Iowa, those found guilty would face up to five years in prison and $7,500 in fines. The Mississippi bill would impose a fine of up to $10,000.

• In North Carolina, a Republican state senator said he would file a proposal making it illegal to “threaten, intimidate or retaliate” against state officials. This comes after a group of people heckled former GOP Gov. Pat McCrory, who lost a bid for re-election in November.

This is distressing, especially when coupled with a new Pew Research Center poll showing that only 68 percent of Republican respondents believed people had a right to protest and just 66 percent believed people with unpopular opinions deserved protection. (For Democrats, those numbers were 88 percent and 80 percent, respectively.)

The right to lawfully protest and to criticize public officials is a fundamental freedom in the U.S., going back to that most American of acts — the Boston Tea Party. Let’s not forget that the British, who considered that protest a criminal act, caught and imprisoned one of the protesters for his participation. Which begs a question for the Republicans who are clamping down on demonstrators today: Which side would you have been on back then?

Now, as was the case in the 1770s, any effort by the government to erode the right to assemble must be met with full-force opposition, utilizing every legal means available.

Some of the most important steps forward in our nation’s history came after people took to the streets to demand such reforms as civil rights, women’s suffrage, an end to the Vietnam War, LGBTQ rights and more. The conservative tea party movement was born amid huge demonstrations aimed at reducing government spending and eliminating infringements on personal liberties.

That being the case, it’s hypocritical for the GOP to target protesters based on the Dakota Access Pipeline demonstrations, given that the pipeline protesters were also taking a stand against overreach by federal authorities.

The remedy for disruptive protests lies in freedom of expression and constructive dialogue to get at the root causes of the protesters’ concerns. It’s not to dial up the punishment against demonstrators, or enact laws aimed at creating a chilling effect on civil disobedience.

If protesters block a few roads, big deal. Constitutional rights are far more important than the rights-of-way of motorists.

Stifling protests is an affront to patriotism, and anyone who doesn’t believe that should get a second opinion from the U.S. armed services veterans who went to North Dakota to support the pipeline protesters and raised funds for them.

Demonstrators who break the law should be punished, but there’s already a long list of criminal statutes that can be put to use when that happens. Although the Republicans who are proposing harsher penalties on demonstrators would have you believe they’re doing it in the name of law and order, that’s garbage. The point is to prevent protests, or crack down on those who dare to exercise their rights.

It’s wrong. Fundamentally wrong.

In Nevada, where lawmakers are four weeks into the 2017 legislative session, it does not appear that any similar bills have been filed.

That’s good news, and we should keep it that way. In a nation where some leaders would happily steer us into authoritarianism, Nevada can and should be a guiding light in protecting the right to demonstrate.