Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Column: GOP is making protests illegal

Column: GOP is making protests illegal

  • 0

In the wake of the horrifying right-wing assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, Republicans have flooded state legislatures with an unprecedented number of laws aimed at curbing future "riots" across the country. So far at least 13 states have introduced at least 26 anti-protest bills since that attack, according to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law’s protest law tracker.

At first glance, it might seem like Republicans are finally taking responsibility for the wave of armed protests by their supporters across the country. In fact, opportunistic state legislators are merely repackaging laws they have promoted for years to squash racial and environmental justice protests.

Legislation in Florida, Nebraska, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington and Indiana would expand the legal definition of a riot to target peaceful, if disruptive, protests. These bills create new felony penalties for rioting, which is broadly redefined to include “tumultuous conduct,” blocking streets or sidewalks, and obstructing law enforcement or other governmental functions.

Other so-called "critical infrastructure" bills — like the one that Ohio’s governor signed into law in January — are aimed at stopping protests against the fossil fuel industry. The proposals introduced in Minnesota would make trespassing “with the intent to disrupt the operation” of a pipeline a felony, in a clear attempt to thwart the ongoing Indigenous-led movement to stop Enbridge’s Line 3 tar sands pipeline.

But that is just the beginning of the danger that these anti-protest laws pose. They would variously criminalize the removal of Confederate monuments, bar public benefits and government jobs to demonstrators, ban "camping" outside state capitols, or even protect those who hit protesters with their cars.

Sadly, car attacks are not an abstract threat. White supremacists and the far right — both civilians and police — deliberately plowed their vehicles into Black Lives Matter demonstrators more than 100 times in the months following the killing of George Floyd, according to a report in USA Today.

In perhaps the most absurd provision, a bill in Mississippi would punish any group of six or more people with up to three years in jail and a $5,000 fine for disturbing "any person in the enjoyment of a legal right." If enacted, all protests would essentially be rendered illegal.

The historical record paints a clear picture. Anti-protest laws, dating back to the Sedition Act of 1798, have not been a response to the threat of violence, but to legitimate dissent and organizing for social change. And this raft of new laws continues that ignominious tradition.

Every advance for freedom and justice that the United States has made since its founding is the result of dedicated social movements that disrupted the status quo.

Abolitionists were accused of sedition as they hastened the end of slavery. Women won the right to vote after hounding President Wilson for years outside the White House. The Voting Rights Act was passed after thousands of civil rights protesters, including Martin Luther King Jr., blocked traffic during the historic march from Selma to Montgomery.

More recently, undocumented "Dreamers" blocked intersections to secure Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Disabled activists obstructing the halls of Congress with their wheelchairs were instrumental in stopping the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. And the Sunrise Movement put the Green New Deal on the national agenda with a sit-in at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.

As the Biden administration gets to work, tackling climate change, establishing universal health care or rolling back gaping inequality will require far more disruptive protest, not less. And that requires first killing these undemocratic bills.

Eric Stoner is a co-founder and editor of Waging Nonviolence, and an adjunct professor at St. Joseph’s College. This column was produced for the Progressive Media Project, which is run by The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.

©2021 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

My mother in law and I were traveling on a highway when I remarked on the loveliness of the redbud trees. During our three hour route we were able to see redbuds in different stages of bloom. The progression of the maturation of the trees made it seem as if we were driving through the days of spring. At first the hard maroon buds were in stark contrast to the pale gray sky. As we traveled along we began to see redbud trees in full bloom.

Listening to President Biden’s State of the Union speech last Wednesday brought to mind a talk he gave in Rock Island some 40 years ago. He had come on his own initiative — and at his own expense — to urge my re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1980.

When I received my first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine last December, nobody paid me to roll up my sleeve. Yet, as vaccination efforts approach an expected tipping point, at which the amount of available vaccine exceeds the number of willing recipients, with the rate of vaccination far below the threshold required for herd immunity, paying people to take their shots likely offers our society’s best chance at stemming the pandemic.

In an era in which people in positions of high authority lie with abandon, truthfulness tends to get lost in the shuffle. Yet it is something that is of tremendous importance, be it on the individual level or with respect to investment decisions and matters of public policy.

The Biden administration should avoid the Trump-era mistake of reducing the entirety of the U.S.-Mexico relationship to the single issue of immigration. The administration has made Vice President Kamala Harris its point person at the southern border, and she has been engaging with Mexico and Central American nations to embrace a regional approach to migration, which is laudable. But starting with her May 7 meeting with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, announced over the weekend, the vice president should broaden the scope of her Mexico agenda to cover the complex array of economic, environmental, security, energy and rule-of-law issues that define U.S.-Mexico dealings.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


News Alerts

Breaking News