New Anti-Protest Laws Sweeping The US: Fines, Felonies & Freedom of Speech…
Articles,  Blog

New Anti-Protest Laws Sweeping The US: Fines, Felonies & Freedom of Speech…

(upbeat dance music) – Hello, hello. Welcome back to Rogue Rocket. My name is Philip DeFranco and
today we’re gonna be talking about protests and,
specifically, the right to protest in the United States. Under the First Amendment
of the US Constitution I am guaranteed the
ability to free speech. But, also, that same amendment includes the right to peaceably assemble, which includes protesting. But, over the past three
years more than 100 bills have been introduced across
36 states to restrict protests or increase penalties for
protesters and organizers alike. And many of these tie back to the Dakota Access Pipeline
protests that you might remember making headlines back in 2016. But, if you do not remember, don’t worry. To refresh your memory
and explain why and how states are doing this,
who is being impacted and what this all means
when it comes to the First Amendment, I’m gonna hand it over to Colleen Haggerty from
the Rogue Rocket team. – [Colleen] Unites States is clearly no stranger to protests. It’s something people
have been doing here since before the Constitution was even an idea and it’s remained a
constant as society changes. Sometimes it’s part of the
reason why society changes. But, in the many decades
since the First Amendment put it in writing, the
right to protest has gotten some qualifiers. Today, when you can protest,
where you can protest, how you can protest, all of these need to follow certain guidelines
to be legally allowed. Still, the ability to
peacefully organize and speak out for your beliefs
has been repeatedly defended by the Supreme
Court as the law of the land. And if you’ve turned on the news recently, you’ve probably seen it in action. The Women’s Marches,
the March for Our Lives, these are estimated to be some of the largest protests in US history. And they’ve all taken place
within the last three years. And social media has
helped even local protests become national or
international movements. Like, the protests against
the Dakota Access Pipeline in Standing Rock, North
Dakota that went viral with the hashtag: #NODAPL. We’re gonna revisit this
movement for a minute because it’s been cited
by multiple politicians as the catalyst for writing
some of those protest laws we’re going to be talking about today. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe started protesting in 2016
against having a pipeline built near their reservation. Thousands of people from
other tribes in other states traveled to North Dakota to join them. Hundreds were arrested
and pipeline construction was temporarily halted,
but it all came to an end in February 2017 when President Trump gave final approval for the
pipeline to move forward. Days after the final camps
at Standing Rock came down legislators over in the Oklahoma
House of Representatives voted on a set of bills
which we’re going to break down for you in the
least legalese possible. So, the first, HB 1123,
was to create penalties for actions against or
trespassing on what it calls, “critical infrastructure facilities”. And that phrase, “critical
infrastructure”, is pretty much the most important takeaway here. It’s an umbrella term covering more than a dozen types of structures. Many related to utilities including water treatment
facilities, power lines, dams, and oil pipelines. So, under this bill,
if you’re arrested for protesting near or physically being on critical infrastructure,
you can face a felony charge with a fine of up to $100,000 dollars and prison time up to ten years depending on whether
you’re found guilty of having intent to cause
damage or if you actually do cause damage. Now, the bill’s author,
former Representative Scott Biggs, fought
back on the House floor against the idea that the
bill was about protests. – Not one part of this bill prohibits any type of protesting. I know Tulsa World and
some other articles are trying to make this into a protest bill. Not one aspect of this says “protest”. – [Colleen] But he also
acknowledged the motivation behind the bill stems
from preventing protests. – Across the country we’ve seen time and time again
that these protests that have turned violent,
these protests that have disrupted the infrastructure
in those other states. This is a preventative
measure here in Oklahoma to make sure that doesn’t happen here. – [Colleen] Later, Mark
McBride, the Representative behind the second bill
got a bit more specific about his reasoning. – I think it’s just something that we want to uh, be ahead of and not let that happen
like it did in North Dakota. – [Colleen] North Dakota
being, again, the location of the Standing Rock protests. McBride’s bill, HB 2128, allows
for groups or individuals that pay protesters to be
charged with vicarious liability. Meaning they too will be
on the hook for whatever the person they paid is
found guilty of doing. Despite protests from groups including Oklahoma’s American Civil Liberties Union, both of these bills were signed into law. Of course, like we mentioned earlier, Oklahoma is not the first state to ever pass legislation around protesting. And during this timeframe
they weren’t even the only state doing just that,
but what makes Oklahoma’s law so important is what happened next. In December 2017, the American
Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, introduced a Model Policy inspired by Oklahoma’s new laws. If this is your first
time hearing about ALEC, that makes sense. The group’s not really
made for the public. It’s more for legislators
and business leaders. Or, as they put it, “stakeholders from across
the policy spectrum.” High profile alumni include
Vice President, Mike Pence. – I was for ALEC before it was cool. (crowd cheers) – [Colleen] And former Speaker
of the House, Newt Gingrich, who described the group’s work like this: – It is the most effective organization. Taking the ideas of federalism
and of conservatism, reaching out to legislators
across the country and developing new, sound
grassroots proposals. – [Colleen] Which means, that
they take these Model Policies and get them in front
of local politicians. An analysis from USA Today
and the Arizona Republic found nearly 2,900 bills were introduced between 2010 and 2018 based on ALEC’s Model Policies. As for this policy, the Critical Infrastructure
Protection Act, it pretty much combines
the fundamentals of the two Oklahoma laws. So, setting out penalties for those who trespass on critical infrastructure and any organizations that
conspire with those trespassers. As a model, it doesn’t
specify what the penalties are leaving that open for legislators
to fill in the blanks. According to the Huffington
Post, ALEC’s bill was sent to state legislators
along with a letter signed by fossil fuel corporations and chemical manufacturers
encouraging them to support it. The letter says there is
a recent and growing trend of individuals and
organizations attempting to disrupt critical infrastructure. Noting in particular that
energy infrastructure is, “often targeted by
environmental activists” which they say leads to
high risk environments and high cost damages. One of the examples they
include is an act of vandalism against the Dakota Access Pipeline. We don’t know how many legislators
actually saw this letter or the Model Policy itself,
but in the time since it was distributed, six other states have passed laws with similar language, calling for escalated
punishments for actions around critical infrastructure. That includes North Dakota which passed a critical infrastructure law in 2019. It’s the fourth protest
related bill the state’s adopted since Standing Rock. Three of those came before the ALEC model while the pipeline
protest was still active. Two of them increase penalties around trespassing and rioting while a third prohibited wearing anything
that conceals your face while participating in
a criminal activity. So, if you are arrested while protesting and had a hood on, you could
face up to a year in jail and a $3,000 dollar fine. That’s just one example of
some of the other protest related laws that have
been passed in this same two year timeframe that
are nor necessarily following the ALEC model. Like, Missouri, which, yes, does have a critical
infrastructure law but also passed a bill barring certain public employees from picketing. Or, West Virginia, which
passed a law during its 2018 statewide teacher’s
strike that expanded the power of authorities to
break up a protest by removing liability from officials who injure or kill someone in that process. So, in total there are
nine states that have enacted legislation,
expanding the ability to punish, or enhancing
penalties for protesting since the start of 2017. But, two of them are currently being challenged in the courts. Here’s how that went down. – These laws went into place August 1st. Uh, I was arrested on August
9th by pipeline security that had been, that was
probation and parole officers that had been contracted
to do pipeline security. – [Colleen] Activist Cindy
Spoon was one of the first people arrested under Louisiana’s critical infrastructure law
while protesting against the Bayou Bridge Pipeline. – So, we were near pipeline construction but we weren’t actually
on any of the easement or the private property
or any place that, uhm, the pipeline company feels that it owns during construction process. We were in a public
waterway and we were kind of blocked in to a smaller channel by probation and parole
officers working security and the pulled off of our boats. – [Colleen] She was charged
with felony trespassing and has since filed a
wrongful arrest suit. Others arrested with her
have joined a Federal suit that argues the legislation
is, “unconstitutional” and that it aims to, “chill,
and harshly punish speech “and expression against
pipeline projects”. The lawsuit also mentions
the involvement of the President of the Louisiana Mid-Continent
Oil and Gas Association, Tyler Gray, in the
legislative drafting process. In a statement he defended the law saying, “The intent of the critical
infrastructure bill “signed into law last year
is to protect the safety of “Louisiana’s people,
environment and infrastructure. “It is straightforward in
its scope and application “and does not infringe on an individual’s “constitutional rights.” That lawsuit is still
pending as is Cindy’s case. But, she says she continues
to participate in protests. – I continue to be involved and will continue to be involved. I’ve just been involved in
campaigns and in efforts where I’ve done it all right
and done it all by the law, by the book and just
watched how these companies, or these politicians are willing
to just change the rules. – [Colleen] The second
legal challenge happened in South Dakota and has led
to the state’s new pipeline related laws being
blocked from enforcement. In March 2019, Governor Kristi
Noem introduced two bills which created a punishable
offense called riot boosting and started a riot boosting fund. So, riot boosting is defined
as any action by a person or organization that,
“directs, advises, encourages, “or solicits any other person
participating in the riot “to acts of force or violence.” Meaning if you direct
people to join a protest happening in another city on social media and that turns into a riot,
you can get in trouble even though you weren’t physically there. The riot boosting fund
is then made up of fines collected from charging riot boosters along with a fee paid
by the pipeline owner when negotiating a new pipeline. And that fund then goes towards helping cover the cost associated
with the project and protests. Like the legislator in
Oklahoma, Governor Noem pointed to Standing Rock as her example for why the bills were needed. Particularly as South
Dakota moves forward with its own pipeline project. – It was very disruptive. There was, uh, at many
times violence occurred and was very costly for the state, the taxpayers of North Dakota and we’re working very hard in planning and have been planning for many months to ensure that that does not
happen in South Dakota as the Keystone XL Pipeline
gets built across our state. – [Colleen] These laws
received significant backlash from a number of environmental organizing groups in the state. (crowd chants) – Our voices won’t be silenced! – [Colleen] And from
South Dakota’s largest Native American tribe, the Oglala Sioux. In an open letter, the tribe banned Noem from their reservation until she, “rescind your support
for SB 189 and SB 190 “and affirm to your state and this country “that First Amendment rights
to free, political speech “are among the truths you
hold to be self-evident.” The letter also claims that Noem consulted with TransCanada,
the company behind the Keystone XL Pipeline, while
working on the legislation, but, not the tribes whose
lands would be impacted by it. Governor Noem has been open about her communication with the pipeline company. – That’s why we have been
talking to TransCanada and consulting with them. – [Colleen] But, her
office has said she spent, “considerable time” speaking
with the tribes as well. Multiple Native American activist groups are among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Governor Noem, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, which lead to the temporary
block of those laws from being enforced. So far, the legal trouble
hasn’t seemed to slow down other states from
introducing protest inspired or protest focused legislation. If you remember all the way
back to the beginning of this video, we mentioned
that more than 100 of these bills have been considered in 36 states over the past three years. That’s according to the International Center for Nonprofit
Laws Protest Law Tracker. So, as for all of those other bills, well, a number of them have failed to make it through the legislature
but there are more than a dozen under consideration today. Some, like West Virginia, seemingly respond to the widespread
teacher’s strikes of the past few years by either limiting the ability of
teachers to take leave or by charging fees to
cover the state’s cost of responding to demonstrations. Like the Oklahoma Bill,
which requires groups over 100 individuals looking to protest at the State Capitol building to pay a $50,000 dollar fee. There’s also multiple states attempting to impose penalties or
restrictions on protests that take place on college campuses. Legislation in California,
Wisconsin, Illinois and South Carolina calls
for suspension or expulsion for students who interfere with the, “expressive activity” or
“expressive rights” of others. President Trump also signed
an executive order this Spring on this topic basically,
ensuring schools receiving Federal grants comply with
free speech laws and policies. – Universities that want
tax payer dollars should promote free speech not
silence free speech. – [Colleen] A few months later, Trump’s Transportation
Department released a pipeline safety legislative proposal to, “specify that vandalism,
tampering with, or impeding, “disrupting, or inhibiting
the operation of a “pipeline facility are punishable by “criminal fines and imprisonment.” And by “pipeline facility”
it’s also including pipeline projects that
are under construction. The punishment includes fines
and up to 20 years in prison. Now, as you might’ve noticed,
despite promising to keep the legalese to a
minimum, which, honestly, we really did try to do,
we’ve given you a lot of direct quotes from these bills. And that’s because we
wanted to make sure to show just how specific their language is because as the one Oklahoma
Representative pointed out, his and many of the others that followed don’t explicitly mention protests at all. But given their timing,
whether it’s in the midst of pipeline construction
like South Dakota, or a teacher’s strike like West Virginia, or considering the
multiple arrests that have already been made under the
laws in Louisiana and Texas of pipeline protesters like Cindy and the multiple legislators
referring back to the events at Standing Rock, it’s clear that protest
had a lasting impact on some policy makers. Including ones in Washington, DC. And in a time of some
of the largest protests in this country’s history,
it’s worth paying attention to how the ability to exercise
that First Amendment right is being defined. – It’s with all of that
said, everything that’s been showcased, it’s time for us to
pass the question off to you. Have you previously heard
of any of these laws or do you live in states
where they’ve passed? Do you see the need for
this kind of regulation or are you more concerned
about the impact these laws can have on the right to protest? Any and all thoughts I’d love to see in those comments down below. Also, hey, while you’re at
it if you like this video be sure to hit that like button. Also, if you’re new here
and you want more of these deep dives, be sure to
subscribe and definitely tap that bell to turn on notifications. Also, if you want more news and updates, you can head over to or just follow us on any of the socials. But, with that said, thanks for watching and I’ll see you soon on the
next Rogue Rocket deep dive.


  • Rogue Rocket

    Had you heard about this before? Do you think it's a violation of your First Amendment rights? Have you or anyone you know been arrested for protesting in the US? Let us know in the comments down below…

  • Blake Stevens

    I appreciate the attention RR brought to corporate influence upon legislation for protests, but failure to mention anti-fa and the riots they have been a part of across the county, is disengenuous or an oversight. You even mentioned bills against wearing masks, and people importing rioters into other areas.

    Please keep informing, and a well put together video overall.

  • Phat Spheal

    Well some people have claimed to be protesting a fascist state, so it's a self fulfilling prophecy at this rate.
    But considering how often laws aren't being enforced on protestors and how often those protestors are themselves trampling on other people's rights (e.g what was mentioned about blocking expressive speech via protest), it's no wonder that over reaching laws are being put into place.

    Really considering how often other laws aren't being enforced around protests, we can always hope that this one will not be.
    However, I think that this is entirely expected, enforcement of laws on individuals within the protests for their own actions has been low in recent history, either due to passive police or protestors obfuscating their identities. So it's no wonder that broad laws are being put into place that are applicable to the protest as a whole.
    Really I think it comes down to an attempt to stop protestors from getting away with (on an individual level) breaking laws simply as a matter of committing the crimes during a protest.

    Though I really think they should stick to anti-masking laws.

  • Lisa J

    On the one hand, with antifa becoming more and more violent I can understand people wanting some sense of government intervention but all I see coming from this is violence. If you take away people's right to peacefully protest what alternative is left other than violence?

  • Mishawaka Post

    Hola bastardo hermoso ❤❤❤❤❤, fist bumps 👊👊👊👊👊, high fives/pats on the back ✋✋✋✋✋, extra thumbs up 👍👍👍👍👍 Colleen ❤❤❤❤❤🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

  • El Míle

    video is informative but we didn't get any perspective on why do they want to do this – what are their quoted reasons and i think this is super important – especially when we don't need to be told why blocking protests is problematic – this paints a very one sided pic, which I know is not your goal – so pls – include opinions on both sides next time or issue a continuation, thanks

  • Em

    Good episode. I wish you covered more about the cost incurred by the state of ND from the protest and the massive clean up that took place after.

  • Magnus Johansson

    I really can't see the problem with much of this legislation. It in no way takes away your right to free speech, it only acts against situations where the line is crossed between free speech and action, or a crossing of that line is likely to occur. And just because free speech is part of a situation, that doesn't mean (and have never meant) that the situation can be seen as just a free speech issue.

  • Dewberry150

    It cannot be considered a right if it’s only allowed when it doesn’t inconvenience your business, or when the people protesting agree with you! I find it sad that we’ve allowed the rights of the people to be has been lowered so much

  • Tyler Sanders

    I think these protestors are stupid for the most part but I'll fight for their right to do it. These are very unconstitutional laws and should be shot down


    While these laws may not explicitly limit first amendment rights, they do effectively limit them, since they don’t differentiate between a peaceful protest, a riot, and just plain trespassing.

    In my opinion, these laws should be rewritten to explicitly state that they do not apply to peaceful protests, and new laws should be written that clearly define both a riot and a protest so that the loopholes in the current laws can’t be used to unconstitutionally end peaceful protests.

  • John Rodgers

    I'm ok with the not wearing masks during a protest law. If you're really interested in making a difference and standing for what you believe in I dont understand why you would hide behind the mask of anonymity.

  • sandwichninja

    That's right everyone. It's the political right aggressively dismantling your free speech rights, not the neo-Liberal regressives on the far left. Antifa? Who's that? /sarcasm

    Also: vocal fry is ear cancer. Please stop.

  • Will Huizenga

    Some of the laws sound perfectly reasonable. Increasing punishment for those who commit crimes while protesting or punishing those who provoke others to violence seem like perfectly reasonable bills. Maybe I misunderstood, but the tone of this video makes it sound like you disagree.

  • cosby714

    Free speech is dead, has been for a long time. Whether it be by people hating others for expressing their views, or laws limited expression, it doesn't matter. It's gone whatever the case. You have free speech, within guidelines and if you disagree with the internet echochamber you get silenced.

  • Vish Wah

    I see a lot of people mention antifa in the comments. I'm curious, how common is violence in one of their protests? Evidence would be appreciated.

  • ss sss

    Imagine seriously believing that your protest is ineffective if you can't break other people's shit.
    How low of an opinion do you have for your own cause if you can't persuade anyone with reason?

  • Alex Propst

    SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. companies cant pay to help protesters BUT companies can lobby for bills that negatively effect the peoples?

  • Eco Mouse

    This is how you know your government has gotten TOO BIG… they no longer listen to, or care about the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. They serve corporation's interests ONLY.
    Wanna beat this back? Either "get rid of" all the politicians who stand for and behind corporations over people… or get a group of like minded people together and form a corporation that has the legal ability to fight and challenge the oppression in the highest courts. (Getting donations and help is much easier when you are a legal entity, rather than a rag-tag bunch of unemployed student and paid activists)

  • George Cataloni

    If your protest involves trespassing, rioting, vandalism, or violence of any kind, then the first amendment shouldn't shield you. Something else can, though, depending on what you're protesting.

  • King Peppy

    Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion
    or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    or abridging the freedom of speech
    or of the press
    or the right of the people to peaceably assemble
    and petition the government for a redress of grievances

  • Slobodan Cvetkovic

    As an Easter European ( outsider) I gotta say, America is starting to look much like China. Land of the "free" and home of the brave.

    Looks like they are trying to take a peace of your freedom, one chunk at a time. Be brave people and fight ( peacefully ofc) for your rights don't let your government, that has their hands deep in the pockets of corporations, silence you.

  • Anna Banana

    So republicans are fighting for their rights when people talk about stricter gun laws but their politicians are the ones behind this legislation. They’re pro individual freedom until people they don’t like are exercising their rights…

  • leeeee666

    Hey, I've been trying to watch the Rogue Rocket videos for awhile, and its hard. I finally got why today. There is no personality or humanity in what is being said, and I can get that from any other news network. My appeal to the PDS was the energy Phil brought paired with facts. The information on Rogue Rocket is great, but it's hard for me to absorb because of boring narration.

  • Jock McBile

    I know you guys are excellent at being neutral and/or smacking both sides equally. However, almost all of these examples are from gopper led States, in gopper controlled legislatures, with gopper Governors. The party who always says they want less gov't, always seems to find a way, to insert themselves in the rights of individuals. ALEC is a Right wing organization, who is behind ALL legal pushes in gopper controlled States. Examples, Disenfranchising Voters, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Protests, Climate Change denial etc. These Bills don't specifically mention protesting, because if they did, they wouldn't survive the most basic Court challenge.

  • Telleryn

    "you're free to protest, just do it somewhere that wont bother anyone"
    That's the whole point of a protest! A protest nobody notices isn't a protest!

  • Nick K

    So a "small government conservative" organization has been trying to introduce almost 3,000 NEW LAWS all around the country over the past 8 years? Imagine my shock.

  • Jennifer Bentley

    This is crazy it is your right to free speech……also is this not the foundation for the development of American? Or do I have my history wrong?

  • Cody Lawson

    Like three minutes in and you skip over the most important line like it was nothing, you yourself said it was about the intent to or actually cause damage. Nothing that is considered protected by the first amendment. What even is this? How can you miss that as a central factor?

  • Cody Lawson

    You make so many statements about a rule then completely ignore the qualifiers to that rule. For example, when soliciting others to protest, you said the rule was you can't encourage others to be violent, not encourage them to protest. The next line was if you encourage someone to protest then it turns into a riot you can get in trouble. Those statements don't work together, it happens several times in the video, do you not review your work? Or is there no editor to catch these flaws?

  • Cody Lawson

    Alao, vandalism isn't protest. So why are you even bringing it up? You say several times that they want to squash protest, then bring up examples of violence as though criminals are being oppresed? Where are the examples
    of peaceful protest being squashed?

    Edit.. only example of peaceful protest i saw was the lady in the river. But there was a failure to establish whether or not she was actually trespassing or not. If she was then be punished, if not simply drop the charges

  • Trr1ppy

    I dont see how these bills target protesters? apart from the fact that protesters feel they have the right to illegally tresspass, simply protest without tresspassing? If you dont want your state to build oil pipelines or drill for oil then vote for representatives that will make it illegal, or move back to california where those representatives are in power

  • mini vanban


  • Blake Nestell

    so if we have ample evidence that the Women's March was founded by anti-semitic ideologues pushing a political agenda under the guise of advocating for women, why do we mention it as a constructive example for free expression?

  • EveryDay

    Awesome. I am 1000% against paid protesting. I am also against trespassing with ill intent. So… WIN/WIN! If you don't agree then these laws are for you :]

  • Sleezy42

    I was at standing rock for only a week. There to help take food and water and build a kitchen. I was there from 11/7/16 to 11/11/16. The claims of massive amounts of violence from the protestors is completely wrong. Were there conflicts, yes. However, most of the time it was because of baiting and people that the oil company themselves inserted into the camps with directions to spark violence. We were still able to keep the protest much more peaceful than anybody actually projected for it. If there's any questions on that specific protest I'm able to talk about it.

  • Gran Falloon

    I hope I'm not the only person to be alarmed by the juxtaposition of teachers striking and "West Viirginia which passed a law…removing liability from officials who injure or kill someone…"

  • Jonathan Edwards

    Good info. A lot of talk about the US Constitution here, but no mention of the 1851 Treaty between the US government and the "great sioux nation" or 7 Council Fires. Yet the law is clearly stated in Article 6 (VI.) of the constitution; "Treaties are the supreme law of the land", it says in case you don't know. The US government violated that treaty, and stole those lands – illegally. Which means, according to the laws that apply to all Americans (including us; american citizens and members of a federally recognized tribe called Standing Rock); they do not have permission, nor the legal basis to approve pipelines on those lands. An Executive order by the President of the US to illegally approve a pipeline, violates the sworn Oath of Office to the US Constitution, particularly when POTUS is invested personally in the project he approved. I keep hearing that what we were doing on our reservation was 'protesting', and that is not the truth. All we did was assert those constitutional rights that are afforded to the rest of America, don't get it twisted. Someday maybe we'll apply these laws to everyone, equally. Put that in your book. #StillNoDAPL #HonorTheTreaties

  • Theo dore

    oh my god what the fuck is this background music? the information is valuable and interesting but that music is soo grating, jesus.


    Standing Rock did not start from the #NODPL hashtag. It went viral with the #WaterisLife hashtag. That spread like wildfire.

  • Lucifer's Heaven

    I do love that these laws are largely being implemented by conservatives; the people who often most loudly claim to be champions of free speech and less red tape…

  • Matto Osteen

    Shame! Misrepresentation 3:20 watch the whole statement. He clearly states it isn't to prevent protests, it's to prevent property damage and physical harm during a protest. Protesting does not give ANYONE the right to harm someone else's person or property. Period.

  • Steve The Philosophist

    If the people cannot openly protest peacefully, then it's just a matter of time before they resort to secretly protesting violently.

  • Simply Ashley

    Effing biased reporting on the background of protesting. Gonna mention Women’s March and March for Our Lives, but totally leave out the ProLife March, which is the longest running protest in HISTORY, been held every year in DC since 1974!

  • StabMyFaceOff

    Rogue Rocket is when a man is having vaginal sex with a woman and it accidently goes in the butt. The penis in this scenario is called the Rogue Rocket

  • Jonathan Pray

    I am in one of the states with laws already in place, and work in "critical infrastructure". I feel that everyone has the right to protest, and would defend that right even if don't agree with it. However with the recent escalating violence from groups on both political sides, I am for restricting the location of the protests. For example if a riot broke out at my place of work, any damage to the infrastructure, would not only endanger the thousands of employees on site every day, the protesters, the tens of thousands of residents in the surrounding city, but could cause a lot of environmental damage.

    Instances as I described are the only type of restrictions on protests and free speech.

  • Mad Dog Seabee

    What the majority fail to understand about their right to protest is that you can legally gather and protest but you cannot block roadways, walkways, public transportation or damage private, city, county, state or federal property.

    The moment property damage or the blocking of commerce occurs, it becomes a riot.

  • Aileigh Bullard

    Should be illegal for them to do this to us. Especially that part where they say any harm or death caused is fine.

  • Tyler

    – As for the early part of the video, maybe I am misinterpreting the narrator, but is the premise being argued that protesting inherently requires trespassing on private property? I mean the politician put forth a questionable rationale/motivation, but the counter to it seems equally, or perhaps even more, wonky from my perspective.
    – Regarding the prohibition of public servants from protesting, it seems a bit more clear cut and likely more straight forward to legally challenge.
    – The 'riot boosting' bit is interesting, and I can see some merit in challenging it if the narrator is being accurate in her description.
    – The school bit is only an issue in the vague/subjective wording being put forth by the governments, as there has been a growth in people not only protesting but actually harassing/threatening/injuring individuals, groups, etc. on campuses. Quite simply, there needs to be a clearer line between what is considered protesting, and what is not.

  • xxrockraiderxx

    The whole bit about "critical infrastructure" is going to really cause some problems.
    Not getting enough pay from your job at the local power station and you and the rest of the union decide to strike? Well that'll be illegal to stand outside the gates of where you work and protest there.
    Hell they could even get you on the fact that by striking you are stopping the "critical infrastructure" from running as well as it should and these bills consider that illegal.
    Imagine living in a country where going on a workers strike gets you arrested cos it lowered the efficiency of the place you work at.
    That's just wrong.


    Your first amendment rights – still have to be legal, and you have a responsibility to exercise your rights, responsibly. Running around like a mob, destroying peoples' lives, doxxing, and property, is NO mitigating circumstance.


    You did actually READ these laws before making this video, right? You are WAY off in your legal analysis.

    How very clever of you, always using the word "protest" – when that word isn't even mentioned… at all. Ever. But, keep pounding that psyop media message…

    The "first" law the narrator cites @ 7:05 – is about supplying weapons and training to groups who are RIOTING, not protesting.

    The "second" law, also does not contain the word "protest" – it is the state trespassing statute, which was strengthened to include critical infrastructure and secure zones…

    [whispering] I got news for ya folks… the federal government, has already had laws like this on the books, for decades.

    (Remember that whole "Storm Area 51" thing? Yeah – same laws.)

  • BatBeardGames

    This is beyond sad. Also, of course trump would violate native american reservations in support of the pipeline. And screw Oklahoma.

  • Simon Goodman

    None of this is hard to believe anymore. It's Orwellian and absolute crap but not hard to believe. The idea that these politicians are taking bribes outright to arrest protesters is horrific. Not to mention that most if not all of the violence that occurred during the Standing Rock protests was done by the police and private security. They were the ones using fired hoses as weapons spaying people in winter in North Fucking Dakota!

  • GryphonBrokewing

    You're free to speak your mind and assemble. In the carefully designated area, during the designated time, with an approved permit, away from anyone who'd ever see you protesting.
    Also, aren't roadways part of "critical infrastructure"? So, protesters marching on highways could also be charged. Laws limiting protests you oppose are well and good until your ideological opposites use those same laws against you.

  • Lewis Phillipson Productions

    Sounds to me like as long as you don’t destroy things while protesting or pay people to protest you’re fine

  • Draconis The Wyvern

    These aren't new laws. For example the law that says you can't cover your face, that was a law made to tight the KKK back when they were a thing.

    An the law that prohibits blocking side walks off and stopping traffic?

    Police and ambulance need to go to places and so do people. You can't just stop everything.

    You guys are just upset these laws are now being applied to antifa and other leftist.

  • plaid13

    What they fail to mention is its almost always the police that start the violence. When cops attack protesters they should be held for treason. If they are not they should be lynched. Our government is constantly ignoring the bill of rights. They refuse to police themselves as they break the laws of the country and ignore the rights of the people. Every day we get a step closer to tyranny. They chip away at freedoms. It is nonstop. This is a path that leads to civil war or armed rebellion. Its dangerous and can be very deadly.

  • streamdungeon

    I deeply respect the right of everybody peacefully protesting for their rights and beliefs without masks and weapons to do so no matter if I agree with them. Add violence, masks, weapons and screamed slurs (real ones and not inventions by trolls like the ADL or SPLC) and people need to be removed and fined.

  • Adam.M M

    I agree with protesting, but protestors, including the ones at standing rock, often attack or harass the average guy just passing threw or simply disagreeing………..I would be against these laws, but not after what Ive seen.

  • Ian Payton

    The real protest laws that need to be enacted are laws about armed masked protesters like the ones seen in Portland. Yes, they have a right to protest, but physically harming people while wearing a mask to hide your identity is wrong. These cowards would not attack a helpless 80 year old woman if they were told they would be arrested for wearing a mask.

  • Joseph Miller

    I'm sorta on the fence about this stuff. I'd say anything that is disallowing peaceful protest should be outlawed, but at the same time disrupting those kinds of faculties, especially at times when they are probably hiring independent contractors that have their own schedules and lives shouldn't be allowed. I mean chanting and the like isn't what I am mean but preventing the workers for doing their job or damaging equipement should be illegal, and isnt speech at all. I mean you couldn't run into the back of a McDonalds with a lighter to start a grease fire, so why would you be able to damage a oil pipeline (which ironically might cause immediate environmental damage). If you are going to protest, do it where politicians see you (like in front of your state run government buildings) not in front of a bunch of guys who are just trying to do a job to feed their family.

    PS. I wish they would have talk about the actual protesting that inspired this legislation in a full and fair manner. What made this protest so bad? What was damaged? What happened with the violence?

  • Akin JustAkin

    Hmmm, Although I have not researched this but based on your own explanation of these laws, they are not anti protest but anti vandalism. You are still allowed to protest but not allowed to disrupt or vandalize the project you are protesting..

  • Dragon50275

    Oh yeah, let's just remove any liabilities related to MURDER or SERIOUS BODILY HARM; After all, might makes right – right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *