Mediaboss Marketing

Heavily armed citizens showed up recently at protests in Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Montana, Coloradoand Idaho to allegedly protected peaceful protesters from antifa.

In Coeur dAlene, Idaho, groups of 25 to 50 armed men in combat gear spent successive nights patrolling the downtown area, following internet rumors that antifa agitators would be arriving from Seattle.

The FBI stated there is no evidence that any protests have been linked to antifa. Still, President Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpMelania Trump is 'behind-the-scenes' but 'unbelievably influential': book Police unions face lobbying fights at all levels of government Ernst challenger leads by three points in tight Iowa Senate race MORE tweeted: Domestic Terrorists have taken over Seattle, run by Radical Left Democrats, of course. LAW & ORDER!

In his June 1 Rose Garden address amid vowing to shield American citizens from professional anarchists, violent mobs, or arsonists, looters, criminals, rider rioters, Antifa the president promised to protect Second Amendment rights.

InJanuary,he tweeted, Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia,days before a gun rights rally in Richmond. The gun-rights rally itself drew 22,000 peoplemany of them heavily armed and in combat gearto protest Democratic state legislators pledge to enact new gun control legislation.

In mid-April, after blue-state governors enacted quarantine measure, he alsoclaimed multiple timesthat these governors were trying to take peoples guns away. In an odd non-sequitur, the president seemed to conclude that lockdown restrictions were also tied to Second Amendment rights.

Less than two weeks later, armed anti-lockdown protesters descended on Michigans statehouse. In response, some state legislators worebulletproof vests, and the states legislative session ended early.

In each instance, armed protesters used the Second Amendment to undermine democracy and individual rights. Democratically elected bodies in Virginia and Michigan were effectively threatened if they choose to act on measures gun control and an extension of lockdown orders that had wide public support. When citizens descend on a state capital brandishing guns, they effectively end any commitment to democratic debate.

While gun control advocates point out that36,000Americans are killed by guns each year, it is also essential to consider how guns threaten First Amendment rights and the will of democratic majorities.

The idea that a right to bear arms is necessary to protect oneself from a tyrannical government implies that violence would, at some point, be justified.

The contrast between the anti-lockdown protests and the Black Lives Matter protests demonstrates the limits of the Second Amendment to check government tyranny.Mostly white, heavily armed, protesters were able to challengelargely popularpublic health measures by intimidating state officials.

However, it is difficult to imagine Black Lives Matter and other anti-police brutality protesters using the Second Amendment effectively. It stretches the bounds of credulity to think that heavily armed Black Lives Matter protests would be met with anything other than large-scale state-sanctioned violence.

The historical context of the Second Amendment also cannot be overlooked.

During debates regarding the ratification of the Constitution, some anti-federalists took particular notice ofArticle 1 Section 8of the Constitution. The offending passages give Congress the authority to call forth and train militias.

At the time, Southern slaveholdersworried that since the federal government was given power over the militias, Congress could eventually block southern states from using their militias to put down slave rebellions.

The full text of the Second Amendment states: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It is not an accident that James Madison, a slaveholder himself, mentions the need for states to have militias in the Second Amendment.

The great irony here is that the Second Amendment can be read a different way as protecting Americans from an overly militarized police force.

The use of the term militias in both Article 1 Section 8 and the Second Amendment is a reflection of the fact that the founders feared permanent professional standing armies would be a threat to liberty. The Second Amendment mentions militias because the framers intended military units made up of part-time citizen-soldiers to be the first line of defense.

The photos and video footage from around the country of a heavily militarized police force firing rubber bullets and tear gas into crowds of peaceful protesters certainly seems to justify the founders warnings to the dangers of standing armies.

The First Amendment protections of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press, have proven to be the most effective tool for civil rights leaders past and present to demand justice and challenge instances of government oppression.

In contrast, the Second Amendment has historically been atool of the oppressors rather than the oppressed. It is time to let go of the myth that the Second Amendment is an effective tool for protecting individual liberties.

Katie Scofield has a Ph.D. in political science from Indiana University, with a focus on comparative constitutional law. She was awarded a Fulbright grant to study the Ecuadorian Constitution and its treatment of human rights and teaches government at Blinn College in Texas.

See the rest here:
Myth: Second Amendment protects individual liberties | TheHill - The Hill

The widespread attacks by law enforcement against peaceful First Amendment demonstrators in the wake of George Floyds murder are deeply concerning as a matter of core constitutional law principles. But the fact that many officers spread across Washington, D.C., and other places lacked legibleinsigniaindicating who they were and whom they work for borders on the bizarre.

Attorney General William BarrBill BarrDemocracy under threat this is how it happens Anonymous police threaten people's freedom to assemble Milley discussed resigning from post after Trump photo-op: report MOREexplained,In the federal system, we dont wear badges with our name I mean the agents dont wear badges and their names and stuff like that, which many civilian police ... agencies do. Like all of Trumps closest cadre, recent history has shown that Barrs words cannot always be trusted as accurate. So, arefederal officers legally required to wear badges and, if not, should they be?

Somewhat astonishingly, there is no federal law requiring federal law enforcement to identify themselves to the public when they are conspicuously acting in their official law enforcement capacities. Weve all heard ofplain-clothes or undercover copswho routinely pose as private citizens for crime prevention and detection. The practice is legal, so long as the officer does not induce a person to commit a crime that the person wouldnt have otherwise committed. That would be entrapment, which is illegal.

But thedisplayof brute force in riot gear and no badges for purposes of intimidating First Amendment demonstrations is a different matter. The very presence of police officers dressed as police officers in the public square hinders the full exercise of certain constitutional rights such as the right to free speech, free assembly and freedom of movement. People might alter legal behavior to conform to the police presence.

To take a simple example, a family visiting Washington, D.C., will likely stop in its tracks if it sees armed men blocking the steps to the Lincoln Memorial. If the family walks to the White House and finds droves of black-clothed officers with large, military-grade weapons slung over their shoulders, the same family might leave the city altogether foregoing their rights to speech, assembly and freedom of movement in downtown Washington, D.C. The familys reaction would be particularly swift if as was the case with the George Floyd protests they know that the government recentlyemployedtear gas, batons, low-flying helicopters and rubber bullets on innocent civilians and members of the press who happened to be in an area that President TrumpDonald John TrumpMelania Trump is 'behind-the-scenes' but 'unbelievably influential': book Police unions face lobbying fights at all levels of government Ernst challenger leads by three points in tight Iowa Senate race MORE wanted cleared to enable hisphoto-opin front of a nearby church.

The D.C. coderequiresthat local police display enhanced identification when policing First Amendment assemblies, but federal officers arent bound by it. Federalregulationsdo allow Barr to deputize people to perform the functions of a Deputy U.S. Marshal, including [s]elected officers or employees of the Department of Justice and [o]ther persons he designates. The officialwebsiteof the U.S. Marshal Service explains the importance of badge credentials as representing official notice of agency powers and true authorization to perform assigned duties.

Although Barr is not legally bound to publicly identify each member of his riot forces, he is ethically and normatively bound. Thestandardsfor the police published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights include wear[ing] clearly visible identity badges to facilitate accurate reporting of human rights violations by the government. It doesnt take a policing expert to understand why.

America is a representative democracy in which people exercise self-governance. We do this by holding elected officials accountable at the polls and in the courts. Unlike private individuals, law enforcement officials have tremendous power over life, liberty and property. Regular people cant put their adversaries in jail that would be kidnapping.

Because itshuman natureto abuse power, we have courts that hear cases of police brutality and elections that properly place responsibility in the hands of elected officials ultimately charged with policing the police. But if we do not know the identity or employer of someone who is exercising police power, it becomes exceedingly difficult to hold that person and their elected bosses accountable.

Even worse, anonymous gun-wielding police invite vigilante copycats. Prior to the George Floyd murder, the nation was transfixed on the mounting deaths due to COVID-19 and the satellite protests over state stay-at-home orders, some byarmed private militiamembers. Barr and President Trump irresponsibly pointed the finger at amoebicanti-fascist groupsfor the unrest, but the Department of Justice, thus far, has brought no cases against linked defendants. But more to the point, by threatening protesters with badgeless, federal-looking bullies, Barr is stoking the militant flame not quelling it.

Keep in mind that the First Amendment binds all holders of government power from the president down to a local town official. Under theSupreme Courts constructionof the Constitution, the state cannot punish speech in connection with public demonstrations unless the speech has gotten so out of control that it is about to cause injury. Strong emotions, political protest and the risk of violence are not enough.

History will not look kindly at the response by Trump and Barr to the First Amendment demonstrations in Lafayette Square; the efforts turned violent at their direction and with no documented escalation by the people both men swore to serve. The fact that Congress has never passed legislation requiring that the injured know who is at the other end of a federal gun barrel merely suggests that Trump once again has gone beyond where any White House occupant has gone before.

Congress needs to enactpending legislationthats aimed at remedying this true blind spot in federal law enforcement standards. It should do it immediately so that the next time Trump jousts with the First Amendment through police violence, the people are better protected.

Kimberly Wehle is a visiting professor of Law at American Universitys Washington College of Law, and author of the book "How to Read the Constitutionand Why." Follow her on Twitter @kim_wehle.

Read the original post:
Anonymous police threaten people's freedom to assemble | TheHill - The Hill

And those arrested could be hanged.

When the new American government was formed, the Second Congress enacted the Militia Act, a more limited law governing unlawful assembly. Federal authorities could use force to break up assemblies only if they amounted to insurrectionsand the act had to be invoked by the president himself, not by his appointees.

The right of assembly had a rough go for the first century and a half of the Constitution. By the end of the 19th century, no less an authority than Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (the son of a founder of this magazine, and then a state judge) briskly dismissed the idea of expressive rights on public property. Public property belonged to the government, Holmes said, not to the people at all. For the legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private home to forbid it in his house. The U.S. Supreme Court tersely affirmed Holmess opinion. Peaceful assembly be damned. The people were not to come out of doors without the permission of their rulers.

Nora Benavidez: First Amendment rightsif you agree with the President

Only half a century later, in a case about the rights of labor organizers, did Justice Owen Roberts, writing for a plurality, cleanse the law of Holmess view of government as the owner and citizens as guests. Roberts wrote:

Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all . . . but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.

The people own the streetsnot the police, not the military, and not Donald Trump. And regulation of their use of the streets must be conducted with the greatest care, recognizing that occasional inconvenience caused by demonstrations is the price America pays for free government. The fact that some demonstrations are violent cannot be used to strip all Americans of their right to assemble.

That right has been under assault since the day Trump took office. As outlined in a new report by PEN America, red-state legislatures have been indefatigable in debating and passing laws designed to penalize protesters for disfavored causes. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last year approved a grotesque opinion holding that anyone who organizes a protest can be suedand thus possibly bankruptedif someone else present commits an illegal act.

Read the original here:
Trumps Grotesque Violation of the First Amendment - The Atlantic

We checked and there is no permission given to the government to shoot members of the press with rubber bullets under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Yet, thats been happening.

Two Los Angeles Times journalists covering the protests in Minneapolis recently Molly Hennessy-Fiske and photographer Carolyn Cole were targeted along with colleagues from other outlets. The two Times journalists were fired upon with rubber bullets and tear gas, then pursued when they sought shelter.

In an editorial, the LA Times reported, The medias job is complicated by a president who routinely refers to the media as the enemy of the people, a freighted designation that historically has come with official crackdowns and persecutions.

Here are some of the incidents listed in the Times:

The Nieman Lab, which covers trends in journalism, reported Monday that journalists had been attacked by police officers more than 110 times since May 28.

Nick Waters, who reports for the online investigative news site Bellingcat, has been keeping a running compilation of reports on Twitter of journalists attacked as they cover protests around the nation.

A photographer in Indianapolis was threatened by a police officer brandishing a rifle that fires less than lethal ammunition. A TV crew was targeted with rubber bullets while broadcasting live in Louisville.

Adding an international dimension, the Australian government has launched an investigation into the police tear gas assault on an Australian TV crew airing live from outside the White House.

CNN reporter Omar Jimenez and his crew were arrested, also live on the air, in Minneapolis, as was a local TV crew two among a series of abuses there.

African American journalists have reported being singled out, including a reporter for the Detroit Free Press approached by a police officer as he stood amid a small group of white journalists.

Protesters, themselves, have targeted the media. A throng vandalized CNN headquarters in Atlanta. Protesters battled a Fox TV crew outside the White House.

A mob assaulted a photographer in Fayetteville, N.C. as he took video of them looting a store.

As dispiriting as it is for journalists to be attacked by members of the public, it is even more problematic and dangerous for democracy when the attackers are sanctioned by the government.

Its not paranoid to think that attacks in those and scores of them nationwide are acts of government intimidation intended to dissuade those who would bear witness.

America is a far better place when media employees can do their jobs protected by the First Amendment without facing the personal dangers from government officials, law enforcement workers and overreacting individuals.

The democratic foundation established for the people who live in the United States should be powerful enough to protect all its citizens.

Go here to see the original:
First Amendment to the US Constitution | Editorial | avpress.com - Antelope Valley Press

Like the president, state legislators who advance these bills arent doing so out of any genuine concern for protecting speech or public safety, as they sometimes claim. In fact, our analysis finds that legislators often explicitly introduce proposals to limit the rights of people whose positions they dislike. Thats not adherence to the First Amendment, which protects the rights of those we disagree withits adherence to self-interest. Specifically, we find a direct correlation between recent years astonishing rise in collective action, particularly by Black Lives Matter and Standing Rock activists, and a rise in attempts to delegitimize and criminalize those very demonstrations.

Lawrence Glickman: How white backlash controls American progress

From session to session and state to state, these bills look remarkably similar. Thats no coincidence. In January 2018, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, published a model Critical Infrastructure Protection Act, which drew heavily from two Oklahoma anti-trespass bills, H.B. 1123 and H.B. 2128. This bill defined critical infrastructure to include oil pipelines and dramatically raised the penalties for trespass upon such property. Since then, more than 20 bills modeled on it have also passed. Activists are challenging one law in Louisiana that targets protests near gas and oil pipelines. House Bill 727 passed in 2018 and allows for felony charges of up to five years imprisonment for protesters. This, and bills like it, clearly aim to criminalize mass-protest actions such as those against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The similarities are also not coincidental because quite literally the same legislators keep trying the same tactics, even after courts swat away their misguided bills. These zombie bills refuse to die at the end of the legislative session, and keep returning to haunt our constitutional rights. Legislatorss doggedness is appalling: In South Dakota, a bill was rushed through the legislature and signed quickly into law last year, establishing a civil action to sue riot boosters, defined as anyone who directs, advises, encourages, or solicits others toward acts of force or violence. This left the door open for police to arrest people for encouraging violence through First Amendmentprotected expression, such as chanting common protest slogans like No justice, no peace or even leading trainings of prospective protesters about their rights. A federal court struck the law down as unconstitutional, but state legislators were quick to introduce a redrafted bill just months later, tweaked to extend the crime of trespass to critical-infrastructure facilities. That bill has already passed and been signed into law by the governor.

All told, 116 bills to limit protest rights have been introduced since 2015, and 15 states have passed some form of anti-protest proposal, some passing several. And already this legislative session, were tracking 16 similar bills that are working their way through state capitolsdespite the obviously more pressing public-health and public-policy concerns.

See the article here:
First Amendment RightsIf You Agree With the President - The Atlantic