HB 23-16: ANTIFA Act (at final vote)

[Peanut]

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 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.
2. No special penalties may be applied for crimes committed while wearing a disguise, including a mask or other facial covering.
3. 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
Passed the Atlasian Senate 4-2-0-1

People's House of Representatives (amended version)

The Senate just sent this back, so now you get to vote on it again!

[Peanut]

This is at final vote too.

[Blair]

Nay; I’m worried as written this bill would greatly limit the ability of the police to take necessary action needed during large scale protests.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Aye, especially on the subject of protecting employees who want to protest.

[Lumine]

Nay. Some noble goals, but the current version goes way too far and will cause serious issues in the future. It would not be responsible to pass it.

[cinyc]

Nay. This goes too far. Public places aren't defined anywhere. This could mean police could do nothing when protesters block traffic. People who block traffic without a permit should be arrested.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Aye

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Nay.

Unclear on what 'violence' means in this context. For instance, is looting considered violent, and if not, are police not allowed to interfere in such circumstances?

Section 2.7 should be expanded.

The meaning of 'punishment' in Section 2.8 should be clarified (if a protestor skips a final for a class, is a zero grade considered 'punishment?')

Disagree with the inclusion of 'roadways and waterways' in Section 3.1.

Generally agree with cinyc's comment about blocking traffic. (There's actually someone I know who was screwed over on a job offer because of a protest on the way to his interview; apparently a bunch of cars with Armenian flags blocked the entire freeway and some guys gathered on the road, shouted a few things, and took selfies, backing up traffic going into L.A.)

[Elcaspar]

Aye.

[thumb21]

The right to protest is absolutely vital for our democracy and so there should be strong protections from a crackdown.

It does seem strange to allow someone to plan a protest in section 3 part 1 but potentially apply criminal penalties for engaging in it. I think that blocking traffic only really makes life more difficult for people trying to pay the bills and most of them aren't really specific to that road in the same way that a protest against pipeline construction or against the construction or demolition of buildings would be.

Despite my issues, I think that this bill is very much worth supporting because protests are important to democracy and I think that people should be protected from an authoritarian crackdown.

Aye

[Blair]

I believe this has tied & will go to a tiebreak.

I don't usually kick up a big fuss but I hope that this is defeated/veteod to allow the bill to be re-introduced without certain elements; I'm also interested in whether this would apply to federal law enforcement or also state/county enforcement?

Some of the major issues.

Police may only interfere with protests or arrest protesters if it can be reasonably determined that the protesters in question committed violent acts.

Surely violent should be changed to criminal- as I understand it this act would stop the police from lawfully arresting individuals who are protesting; the hypothetical might extent to someone facing a warrant for tax offenses- if they went to protest out city hall in a tent could they ever be arrested?

Likewise it also allows for protestors to carry out numerous criminal actions during a protest; whether that's blocking highways with objects, blocking runways or even the whole vast list of criminal but non-violent crimes that would be allowled.

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.

Isn't this too narrow? Even before Covid you'd this extended to say airports, National security infrastructure, nuclear facilites- and now we'd want to protect areas like Morgues & Mass burial sites.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I agree with this voting nay on this bill and the issues raised.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

What's going on with this? VP? Checked the Congressional Noticeboard and it hasn't been added to the list of VP-administered slots.

In any case, once the VP sees this, I echo Blair's comments above, and hope the tiebreak goes against passage so that it can be reintroduced with revisions to some of the more questionable segments.

[thumb21]

The tiebreak went for the nays automatically because 72 hours have passed since the end of the vote.

[cinyc]

Can someone please explain how we got to the point where the Vice President is supposed to administer House Bills, not the Speaker? That seems backwards. The executive shouldn't be meddling in House affairs, absent a tie. Is this in the Constitution or our rules?

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Can someone please explain how we got to the point where the Vice President is supposed to administer House Bills, not the Speaker? That seems backwards. The executive shouldn't be meddling in House affairs, absent a tie. Is this in the Constitution or our rules?

Part of it is in the Constitution, part of it in the rules.

From Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution:

Whenever either house shall vote to pass a bill, order, or resolution that shall have originated in the other, having previously made amendment to the same, the President of the Congress shall immediately call the amended bill to a vote in the house in which it originated.

From Section 3 of the House Rules:

e) The seventeenth through twenty-first slots shall be reserved for legislation that previously passed the Senate. The President of Congress shall be the presiding officer for these open threads.

[Peanut]

The tiebreak went for the nays automatically because 72 hours have passed since the end of the vote.

Alright then. The Senate will vote on the unamended one.

[cinyc]

Can someone please explain how we got to the point where the Vice President is supposed to administer House Bills, not the Speaker? That seems backwards. The executive shouldn't be meddling in House affairs, absent a tie. Is this in the Constitution or our rules?

Part of it is in the Constitution, part of it in the rules.

From Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution:

Whenever either house shall vote to pass a bill, order, or resolution that shall have originated in the other, having previously made amendment to the same, the President of the Congress shall immediately call the amended bill to a vote in the house in which it originated.

From Section 3 of the House Rules:

e) The seventeenth through twenty-first slots shall be reserved for legislation that previously passed the Senate. The President of Congress shall be the presiding officer for these open threads.

Thanks!

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Was a final vote for this ever opened in the Senate? It's been sitting here in limbo for an entire month.

[Elcaspar]

Was a final vote for this ever opened in the Senate? It's been sitting here in limbo for an entire month.

I second this message.