The Dangerous Drift to Redefine Protest as Terrorism

[Nevilledog]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-dangerous-drift-to-redefine-protest-as-terrorism

When college students sat down at segregated lunch counters in 1960, they were breaking the law. They trespassed on private property, refused police orders to disperse, and sometimes violated court injunctions specifically designed to stop their demonstrations. In an effort to maintain public order, local authorities arrested them by the hundreds and charged them with disturbing the peace.

But these students were also exercising their constitutional rights.

This paradox—that civil disobedience can be simultaneously illegal and constitutionally protected—has been a constant source of tension in the U.S. But how the law talks about it has changed. Increasingly, the language of national security is creeping into spaces once governed by public-order statutes and First Amendment doctrine. We are no longer debating whether protesters who break the law should face charges. The new question is whether they should be investigated as terrorists.

What happened in Minneapolis—and what threatens to happen more broadly—reveals how quickly that transformation can occur, and why it should alarm anyone who cares about democratic dissent.

The Pattern America Keeps Repeating

We have been here before, repeatedly. In his comprehensive study “Perilous Times,” legal historian Geoffrey Stone traces a recurring American pattern: Perceived crisis triggers expanded executive power—which gets directed not just at genuine threats but at unpopular dissent—until the crisis passes and retrospective analysis reveals how badly we overreacted.

*snip*

[dweller]

1. NSPM - 7

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7-seeks-to-use-domestic-terrorism-to-target-nonprofits-and-activists

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/trumps-orders-targeting-antifascism-aim-criminalize-opposition


https://www.interfaithalliance.org/post/nspm-7-co-opting-national-security-to-suppress-dissent



✌🏻

[WarGamer]

2. Civil disobediance is NOT constitutionally protected

Don't know why some people think it is...

That was tested consistently in Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967) and United States v. Schoon (1991)

Summary: You have a right to stand on the sidewalk with a sign (Right to Assemble). You do not have a legal right to chain yourself to the door of a building (Civil Disobedience). The former is a shield provided by the law; the latter is a sword used against it.