SB 22-04: ANTIFA Act

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am glad that the house made some improvements to this. Otherwise I would share some of the concerns raised therein about blocking of emergency vehicles and so forth.

No one has absolute rights to anything. Every single freedom in the constitution has the natural limiting factor of "unless or until it harms or deprives someone else of their rights". The same applies to free speech when it comes to the old doctrine of "shouting fire in a crowded theater". That means that the right to peacefully assemble is not protected in all times and all places and as such communities can regulate assembly for the sake of public safety.

I would also point out this is doesn't just empower people you like. In fact the people who scare me the most in the wake of something like this, is white supremacists/neo-nazi/KKK types.

I have regionalist concerns about clause 1 and the severe limitations it puts on local and regional legislatures to be able to determine and establish policies to keep their communities safe.

I also have concerns about clause 8, both in terms of our authority to regulate that outside of leveraging federal funding and also the ability of schools to deliver on their missions if they are being essentially shut down by protests, especially if they are on issues that the school itself cannot control say some matter of foreign policy for instance.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Free speech/assembly are not absolute grants, but have limiting factors that have been universally recognized. Furthermore a private university is not obligated to preserve such, outside of leveraging financial aid because they are private property.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Free speech/assembly are not absolute grants, but have limiting factors that have been universally recognized. Furthermore a private university is not obligated to preserve such, outside of leveraging financial aid because they are private property.

Maybe these limiting factors have been recognized in the past, but reducing their scope through legislation isn't out of the question, is it?

Of course not, but the point is you have a discussion at that point as to where the limits are, which is my objective. I certainly think that public space should be made available for people to have their voices heard. On the other hand, I think communities can and should be able to discern what public places. An open public park has its benefits, compared to a six lane thoroughfare.

Keep in mind also that there is also the safety of the demonstrators. We have had a number of attacks involving plowing vehicles into crowds out of people and simple fact that they have occurred increases their frequency of occurrence similar to the mass shootings. The more exposed the protest is and closer to or even on roads, means that the danger of this attack increases. While demonstrators might think their cause worth the risk, communities to have to weigh concerns about resource allocation and practice "risk avoidance" and as such have the ability to move or require demonstrations occur in areas where pilons or other structures would inhibit this from happening.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.
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.

House of Representatives:
Passed the House of Representatives 5-0-3-1
X YE
People's Regional Senate

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Amendment is adopted.

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

You know, I think it's fine as-is, but maybe if you'd like to amend changing the wording in the clause could be enough. I think "not block" in particular could be changed to something more specific: they can't block it, but can they regulate it so it doesn't affect normal business, or is that totally against the students' right to free speech?

Well Tack?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MB?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

PEANUT!!!!! WE need an amendment vote here!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we at something with that amendment, Tack?

Reiterating Peanut's question.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is also going to need a new sponsor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What about LT's previous amendment? If that is still sanding, we need feedback on that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Peanut?