Extremely biased NYT piece blasting GOP for "anti-protest" bills.
Crazy biased article from top to bottom, but to be fair, some of these bills are dumb as fuck.
Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed bills granting immunity to drivers whose vehicles strike and injure protesters in public streets.
This is the most interesting one, IMHO.
Immunity? That's not going to end well. I mean you're essentially giving people the green light to murder folks with their car.
However, the protestors shouldn't be on the streets blocking traffic either. Does "peaceful protesting" have to include preventing innocent people from going to work/home? How about putting them in fear for their lives? How about making them suffer property damage as their car is getting banged on and scratched up?
A Republican proposal in Indiana would bar anyone convicted of unlawful assembly from holding state employment, including elected office. A Minnesota bill would prohibit those convicted of unlawful protesting from receiving student loans, unemployment benefits or housing assistance.
Yikes. A bit harsh, no?
There's got to be a happy medium between Ds' approach of "let them burn the city to the ground" and Rs' approach of excommunicating anyone that walks down the street.
This part of the article made me laugh:
Laws already exist to punish rioting,
You mean like the laws that already exist to punish people of crimes that MUST be committed before the additional hate crime charges can also be filed? Tons of laws overlap on other existing laws. You don't get to be ok with some, but not with others based on your own political biases.
Funny thought: Rs want to curtail public protests and things that bring cities to a screeching halt, while Ds want them to continue. Meanwhile, Ds want to end the filibuster, which is a protest in Congress and brings things to a screeching halt, while Rs want them to continue.
Yay the two party political system!
