March 26, 2003
Is Oregon About to Export SB 742?
This is some seriously uncool news.
According to this site, SB 742 was discussed on The O'Reilly Factor this evening, complete with commentary from Oregon's own blowhard Lars Larson (I'm sure they made quite the pair):
Basically, they argeed the bill was too broad BUT also that there needs to be a bill in existence that DEFINED terrorism during protests.
Here's what's most critically fearsome about this: SB 742 is now receiving national attention. Which means that everyone else in the country had better start keeping a very close eye on their state legislatures, because someone out there is going to get the bright idea that they should try this elsewhere.
This idea, and this approach, is going to spread. So this is an official Portland Communique heads up: Protest as terrorism is going to be coming to a lawmaking body near you.
Comments (2)
The One True b!X on 26 Mar 2003
I should elaborate on something here. I'm a little confused as to why, exactly, we need a bill which defines "terrorism during protests."
You want to define a new state crime of terrorism? Okay, that may very well be fair. But it will be terrorism no matter the context, and whatever the definition it needs to avoid sweeping into it legal protest activities and legitimate civil disobedience tactics alike. And it can't call everyone a terrorist simply because one person in a crowd does something that the law defines as terrorism.
It's actually fairly impressive just how many ways this bill has manages to be wrong all at the same time.
And now it's getting national attention.
pb on 27 Mar 2003
Thanks for the heads-up. We are witnessing the new McCarthyism and need to be vigilant. What about after the superbowl when the winning team's fans decide to "protest" their vicarious victory by burning cars and rioting in the streets? Is that terrorism? Or outdoor festivals that get a little too rowdy? These are scary times.