Sure some of y'all agree with this. I don't, these people should be arrested, but put in prison for 25 years to life? Absurd. Luckily, it doesn't seem to likely to pass. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14942-2003Apr2.html <font size=4><B>Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists</b></font> <I>By Lee Douglas PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say. The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation. Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly. The bill's few public supporters say police need stronger laws to break up protests that have created havoc in cities like Portland, where thousands of people have marched and demonstrated against war in Iraq since last fall. "We need some additional tools to control protests that shut down the city," said Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host who has aggressively stumped for the bill. Larson said protesters should be protected by free speech laws, but not given free reign to hold up ambulances or frighten people out of their daily routines, adding that police and the court system could be trusted to see the difference. "Right now a group of people can get together and go downtown and block a freeway," Larson said. "You need a tool to deal with that." The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism. Critics of the bill say its language is so vague it erodes basic freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism under an extremely broad definition. "Under the original version (terrorism) meant essentially a food fight," said Andrea Meyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposes the bill. Police unions and minority groups also oppose the bill for fear it could have a chilling effect on relations between police and poor people, minorities, children and "vulnerable" populations. Legislators say the bill stands little chance of passage. "I just don't think this bill is ever going to get out of committee," said Democratic Senator Vicki Walker, one of four members on the six-person panel who have said they oppose the legislation.
I don't like the terms, but I would put severe penalties on anyone that blocks streets as a form of protest. We have a right to protest, but not to disrupt public service, or traffic. What if your significant other was in an ambulance and could not get to the hospital because some protesters had chained themselves across all lanes of traffic? I respect your right to protest, but do it within the law, if not, enjoy a massive fine and some time in the slammer. DD
I doubt this gets passed, if it does the Supreme Court would/should strike it down. It seems like Cruel and Unusual punishment to me. 25yrs to life is overboard, I would be in favor of 30 days or less or some stiff fines. Although if their protesting blocked traffic and prevented an ambulance or firetruck from getting to a scene in time....
Shouldn't there already be something in place if that happens? What if I'm in my car and I don't get out of the way of an ambulance or fire truck? It seems like you could prosecute that rare event differently than you would a "normal" disruption.
Theres a difference between normal every day unintentional traffic problems and organized intentional traffic disruption though. Im sure its rare that your Average Joe is out there intentionally trying to prevent traffic from flowing (although living in Houston and dealing with Loop 610 might make you wonder).
Ironically "Peace" protestors who disrupt the normal flow of life by blocking freeways should be jailed for disturbing the peace however 25 years is quite excessive, rivaled only by someone get 10-15 for possession....
As a strating point 25 years is a bit too much. I would be in favor of this if the were only 24 years to death by injection. (or which ever method we decide to use)
I have no sympathy for protestors that disrupt our everyday lives. I say we send them over to Iraq (at there own expense) and use them as human shields for saddam's many palaces.
Some of the things I've heard from people during this whole time has made it hard to distinguish between sarcasm and truth. I aplogize.
I will bet NOBODY agrees with this legislation as written. Don't let your paranoia rule you. If you do, your views will even become more extreme.
I don't think it's that big a stretch to assume that someone on this board would agree with this. Hell, a state senator from Oregon who's a committee chairman wrote the damn thing. We're not talking about some wacky politician like Ron Paul (I assume), this guy's liked and respected enough to get a chair.
25 years is entirely silly. Heck, a night in jail is too much, in my opinion. Now, I do think that people and businesses who were delayed should be able to sue the protestors who made them late and take personal assets away from them. But that's not really practical, either.
A night in jail is not enough. If they are disrupting traffic and normal lives they are disturbing the peace. Put them in jail for 3-5 days, fine them, and then the next time make it 7-10 days and so on and so on... DD
Nice... But seriously, we don't all agree on what the protesters are doing or not doing, but this will never get passed... Nice thought for those idiots that take it too far...They need to have some law to punish those idiots in France
Are protesters really a problem? Some of them stood in the streets and stopped traffic, but I haven't heard much of that lately. Just take them to jail for the night, unless they do worse stuff like vandalism.
Man, it's strange how many attempts there have been to curb people's first amendment rights. Does anybody remember the Lawyer who was arrested for wearing the "Give Peace a Chance" t-shirt? You can read angry emails sent to the police over at thesmokinggun.com.
When exercising one person's rights interferes with someone else exercising his rights, there's bound to be some sort of clash. But, personally, I think the laws we have already should be enough to deal with this sort of thing (traffic laws, trespass, etc.)
