SB 22-04: ANTIFA Act

[Former President tack50]

Great bill overall! I am kind of inclined to strike ppikt 8 of section 2 though

[Former President tack50]

Introducing the following amendment

Assuring Nonviolent Treatment by Interfering with Fascist Authorities Act

HOUSE BILL

Be it resolved in the Atlasian Congress Assembled,

SECTION 1. TITLE

1. This Act may be cited as the "Assuring Nonviolent Treatment by Interfering with Fascist Authorities Act”, or, alternatively, the "ANTIFA Act".

SECTION 2. PROTECTING FREE SPEECH RIGHTS

1. Regions and localities may not require permits or fees for protests occurring in public spaces, as the right to freely assemble is protected by the Constitution of Atlasia.
2. Therefore, people may freely assemble in any public place for any reason.
3. Police may only interfere with protests or arrest protesters if it can be reasonably determined that the protesters in question committed violent acts.
4. Mass arrests of non violent protesters due to violent actions of one or more in the group are prohibited.
5. Police may not use tear gas, pepper spray, or similar substances in attempts to contain protests, unless the protests become violent.
6. Police may not fire rubber bullets in attempts to contain protests, unless the protests become violent.
7. While protesters may request police protection, police may not block protesters from going to certain areas, unless protestors are blocking access to hospitals, medical centers, police stations, and court houses.
8. Colleges and universities receiving federal funding may not block protests or assemblies from taking place on their campus, or punish students for protesting or otherwise exercising their rights to free speech on campus, in a peaceful manner. Colleges and universities may regulate which protests get the right to use the college grounds and under which conditions.
9. Employees, including teachers, may not be fired or otherwise punished for participating in strikes or pickets.

SECTION 3. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
1. No special penalties may be applied for vandalism or other crimes occurring near oil or natural gas pipelines, drills, or equipment.
2. No criminal penalties may be applied for planning or engaging in protests designed to block construction of oil or natural gas pipelines, buildings, or other man-made structures, or to block demolition of said structures, or to block roadways or waterways.
3. No special penalties may be applied for crimes committed while wearing a disguise, including a mask or other facial covering.
4. Protesters may not be held liable for costs of police response to protests.

My reasoning is that even if a college is a public college, the college grounds are still property of the college. Therefore they might want to disassociate themselves from certain kinds of speech by disallowing certain protests. However, no students should be punished for exercising their right to free speech.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[Former President tack50]

After reading the bill again, I am kinda wondering if points 1 and 2 are too broad. A large enough congregation of people can definitely cause a lot of problems. It is fine to have protests with say, 200 people not need authorization to happen, but a protest with 100 000 people or something like that would be a disaster if police was not informed at least.

I am considering an amendment that would require informing authorities, but that authorities can't deny permission unless the protest is a threat to public safety due to its expected attendance numbers, in which case authorities shall offer an alternative place to the organizers or an alternative time (at the same place); with the organizers choosing which option to pick (same place, different date or same date, different place)

[Former President tack50]

I'd rather not have an amendment like that. If a protest is over 100,000 people it's probably not gonna be liked by the authorities in the first place. Look at what happened all across the world last year.

What events in particular do you have in mind?


In any case, I will announce I will not formally present such an amendment anymore after thinking about it again.

I still believe there is a security concern with large protests. Even the most peaceful protest can completely paralyze a city or cause damage if unannounced.

However, after thinking a lot about it I have come around for 2 reasons:

1) It is nearly impossible to cause such a critical mass of people to protest at a moments notice. A massive protest, on the scale of 100 000 people or more still needs preparation and public announcements, which also gives security forces the time to draft contingency plans if needed.

2) A huge majority of massive protests in Atlasia are peaceful, and their dangers might be overstated.

With all that said, and given the slow flow of the Senate; I motion for a final vote

[Former President tack50]

With LT drafting an amendment, withdrawing my call for a final vote.

[Former President tack50]

Motion for a final vote

[Former President tack50]

Aye