WEBVTT - GOP Leaders Propose Legislation Against Protests (Audio)

0:00:08.119 --> 0:00:10.000
<v Speaker 1>More than three and a half million people took to

0:00:10.080 --> 0:00:12.959
<v Speaker 1>the streets in Washington, d C. In all fifty states

0:00:13.000 --> 0:00:17.000
<v Speaker 1>on Saturday to protest peacefully in the Women's Marches, marching

0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:20.079
<v Speaker 1>and demonstrating our rights that have been exercised in this country,

0:00:20.120 --> 0:00:24.840
<v Speaker 1>to protest civil rights violations, the Vietnam War, LGBT rights.

0:00:25.079 --> 0:00:28.720
<v Speaker 1>The list goes on, but now Republican lawmakers in five

0:00:28.800 --> 0:00:33.440
<v Speaker 1>states have introduced bills to criminalize peaceful protests. They ranged

0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:36.239
<v Speaker 1>from a villa in Minnesota to increase fines for freeway

0:00:36.280 --> 0:00:39.440
<v Speaker 1>protests up to three thousand dollars in a year in jail,

0:00:39.840 --> 0:00:42.560
<v Speaker 1>to a villain North Dakota that would not penalize a

0:00:42.640 --> 0:00:47.640
<v Speaker 1>driver who negligently runs over and kills protesters on highways.

0:00:47.640 --> 0:00:50.480
<v Speaker 1>Our guest is Timothy Zike, professor at William and Mary

0:00:50.560 --> 0:00:54.280
<v Speaker 1>Law School and author of Speech out of Doors Preserving

0:00:54.360 --> 0:01:00.320
<v Speaker 1>First Amendment Liberties in Public Places. Timothy, these target non

0:01:00.480 --> 0:01:04.680
<v Speaker 1>violent protests and sound like violations of the First Amendment.

0:01:04.840 --> 0:01:09.280
<v Speaker 1>Are they well? Some of them could be um, some

0:01:09.360 --> 0:01:14.720
<v Speaker 1>of the laws might be deemed disproportionate to the government's interests,

0:01:14.760 --> 0:01:17.760
<v Speaker 1>and things like UM, the free flow of traffic on

0:01:17.840 --> 0:01:21.440
<v Speaker 1>highways UH and public safety and order. In those sorts

0:01:21.480 --> 0:01:24.759
<v Speaker 1>of things, there's a requirement that when you regulate speed,

0:01:25.040 --> 0:01:28.760
<v Speaker 1>especially in traditional public forum which are things like public

0:01:28.800 --> 0:01:32.160
<v Speaker 1>streets and public parks and sidewalks, that you do so

0:01:32.319 --> 0:01:35.959
<v Speaker 1>with some measure of care. So some of these measures

0:01:36.280 --> 0:01:39.960
<v Speaker 1>could violate the First Amendment through that sort of analysis.

0:01:40.120 --> 0:01:44.200
<v Speaker 1>Others seems to single out particular types of protests, for example,

0:01:44.319 --> 0:01:49.000
<v Speaker 1>union protests, and the Supreme Court has been very clear, uh, indeed,

0:01:49.000 --> 0:01:52.000
<v Speaker 1>with respect to laws that do exactly that, that the

0:01:52.080 --> 0:01:54.880
<v Speaker 1>government doesn't have the power it cannot under the First

0:01:54.920 --> 0:01:59.760
<v Speaker 1>Amendment single out particular speakers or messages under the First

0:01:59.800 --> 0:02:02.720
<v Speaker 1>and Endment. So it's possible that at least some of

0:02:02.720 --> 0:02:06.400
<v Speaker 1>these measures would violate current First Amendment free speech and

0:02:06.440 --> 0:02:13.400
<v Speaker 1>assembly standards. Timmy, even if they do, uh potentially violate

0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:18.040
<v Speaker 1>the First Amendment, and even if they would get struck down, Uh,

0:02:18.160 --> 0:02:21.639
<v Speaker 1>are there concerns that you have about them that they

0:02:21.680 --> 0:02:28.000
<v Speaker 1>would chill speech if they did go uh into effect. Yeah,

0:02:28.040 --> 0:02:31.320
<v Speaker 1>I think even if they they didn't violate First Amendment doctrine,

0:02:31.360 --> 0:02:34.520
<v Speaker 1>they seem to be inconsistent with what you might say

0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:37.200
<v Speaker 1>is the spirit of the First Amendment freedom of speech

0:02:37.240 --> 0:02:40.240
<v Speaker 1>and free assembly in the places that I mentioned, uh,

0:02:40.280 --> 0:02:42.919
<v Speaker 1>in the sense that they seem to be designed to

0:02:43.160 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 1>chill or suppress UM protests. Now, on the flip side

0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:50.760
<v Speaker 1>of that, we have to acknowledge there is no First

0:02:50.800 --> 0:02:55.839
<v Speaker 1>Amendment right to block traffic. There's no First Amendment right,

0:02:56.520 --> 0:03:01.200
<v Speaker 1>uh to engage in this sort of disruptive behavior that

0:03:01.360 --> 0:03:04.120
<v Speaker 1>some of the protesters have engaged in. So you have

0:03:04.200 --> 0:03:06.120
<v Speaker 1>to give the state its due in the sense that

0:03:06.160 --> 0:03:10.440
<v Speaker 1>it's allowed to um, you know, pass laws to maintain

0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:13.800
<v Speaker 1>public order and safety. But the concern is that many

0:03:13.840 --> 0:03:16.200
<v Speaker 1>of these laws, most of the facts, seem to go

0:03:16.280 --> 0:03:20.720
<v Speaker 1>beyond that their existing laws that, for example, punished that

0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:25.400
<v Speaker 1>that sort of civil disobedience, but these laws seek to increase.

0:03:25.480 --> 0:03:28.400
<v Speaker 1>Find for example, the ten thousand dollars to make the

0:03:28.440 --> 0:03:32.600
<v Speaker 1>offensive felony as opposed to misdemeanor. And think about the

0:03:32.639 --> 0:03:36.640
<v Speaker 1>disportmate impact that those sorts of laws have on students

0:03:36.680 --> 0:03:39.680
<v Speaker 1>on the poor, who may not be able to afford

0:03:40.160 --> 0:03:43.960
<v Speaker 1>that kind of judgment, and then for whom civil disobedience

0:03:44.000 --> 0:03:48.520
<v Speaker 1>becomes um costly uh in the sense of fines and

0:03:48.560 --> 0:03:52.880
<v Speaker 1>potential imprisonment, And the calculus changes quite a bit in

0:03:52.880 --> 0:03:57.440
<v Speaker 1>that sense, Tim very surprising is the bill in North

0:03:57.520 --> 0:04:01.360
<v Speaker 1>Dakota that would not penalize a driver who negligently runs

0:04:01.440 --> 0:04:05.040
<v Speaker 1>over and kills protesters on highways. No, they shouldn't be

0:04:05.040 --> 0:04:07.960
<v Speaker 1>blocking the highway, let's say. But that seems to take

0:04:08.000 --> 0:04:12.880
<v Speaker 1>this out of the hands of the police and the courts. Well,

0:04:13.320 --> 0:04:15.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm surprised by that when I hadn't I hadn't seen

0:04:15.760 --> 0:04:19.480
<v Speaker 1>that before brought to my attention, and I have to say,

0:04:19.720 --> 0:04:24.159
<v Speaker 1>it completely flips around the understanding again under the First Amendment,

0:04:24.760 --> 0:04:30.120
<v Speaker 1>that protesters are entitled to use these traditional public forums

0:04:30.240 --> 0:04:34.840
<v Speaker 1>for protests and civil disobedience and communicating in all sorts

0:04:34.880 --> 0:04:37.800
<v Speaker 1>of manners, and to make it dangerous for them, and

0:04:37.880 --> 0:04:40.000
<v Speaker 1>the sense that you provide an immunity to a driver

0:04:40.640 --> 0:04:45.280
<v Speaker 1>who negligently runs over a protester. Um. I don't want

0:04:45.279 --> 0:04:48.720
<v Speaker 1>to say it encourages reckless behavior, but it might. And

0:04:48.800 --> 0:04:54.120
<v Speaker 1>it certainly is wildly inconsistent with the tradition we've had

0:04:54.120 --> 0:04:59.200
<v Speaker 1>in this country of allowing protesters, even when they're disruptive,

0:04:59.680 --> 0:05:03.440
<v Speaker 1>to have their say, to engage in assembly, to engage

0:05:03.440 --> 0:05:08.640
<v Speaker 1>in mass protests in public streets. Tim there's also some

0:05:08.760 --> 0:05:14.279
<v Speaker 1>legislation in Minnesota involving uh, penalties for obstructing the legal process.

0:05:14.520 --> 0:05:16.120
<v Speaker 1>Are you familiar with that, and if you can, you

0:05:16.120 --> 0:05:20.080
<v Speaker 1>explain what that means. Well, I'm not sure exactly what

0:05:20.120 --> 0:05:22.120
<v Speaker 1>it means. There might be part of the problem could

0:05:22.160 --> 0:05:24.719
<v Speaker 1>be there could be a vagueness problem with laws and

0:05:24.880 --> 0:05:28.320
<v Speaker 1>ordinances of that sort. A person who is subject to

0:05:28.360 --> 0:05:30.560
<v Speaker 1>the law has to know in plain English what the

0:05:30.640 --> 0:05:34.800
<v Speaker 1>law forbid um. If it is the case that that

0:05:34.920 --> 0:05:38.680
<v Speaker 1>is um some sort of public order offense, that a

0:05:38.720 --> 0:05:42.920
<v Speaker 1>protester who doesn't immediately cooperate in some way, who stands

0:05:42.960 --> 0:05:46.120
<v Speaker 1>in this place as opposed to another, and is arrested

0:05:46.120 --> 0:05:49.440
<v Speaker 1>on that basis, then the concern with laws like that

0:05:49.880 --> 0:05:52.440
<v Speaker 1>and all sorts of public order laws is the massive

0:05:52.520 --> 0:05:57.200
<v Speaker 1>discretion that those laws placed in the hands of officers

0:05:57.240 --> 0:06:00.720
<v Speaker 1>who can arrest for what would seem manly be very

0:06:00.839 --> 0:06:06.719
<v Speaker 1>minor offenses and again subject protesters and assemblers to um

0:06:06.960 --> 0:06:09.839
<v Speaker 1>some very strict penalties. Jim, we will have to leave

0:06:09.880 --> 0:06:12.719
<v Speaker 1>it there for now. That's Tim Zike, professor at William

0:06:12.800 --> 0:06:13.799
<v Speaker 1>and Mary Law School,