Article: http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/22/arizona-senate-crackdown-on-protests/ SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others. But the real heart of the legislation is what Democrats say is the guilt by association — and giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated. And what’s worse, said Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, is that the person who may have broken a window, triggering the claim there was a riot, might actually not be a member of the group but someone from the other side. Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix, acknowledged that sometimes what’s planned as a peaceful demonstration can go south. Quezada said, though, that everything that constitutes rioting already is a crime, ranging from assault to criminal damage, and those responsible can be individually prosecuted. He said the purpose of this bill appears to be designed to chill the First Amendment rights of people to decide to demonstrate in the first place for fear something could wrong. But Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said that chilling effect is aimed at a very specific group of protesters. “You now have a situation where you have full-time, almost professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,’’ he said. Actual Bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/1R/bills/SB1142S.htm ~ So the result is if I attend or plan a demonstration or protest - and a riot occurs, I am now guilty of conspiracy - even if I did not do anything illegal otherwise.
"So the result is if I attend or plan a demonstration or protest - and a riot occurs, I am now guilty of conspiracy - even if I did not do anything illegal otherwise" and that folks is how propaganda spreads! your statement is completely wrong, thats why i find it helpful to read the actual law. "A person commits conspiracy if, with the intent to promote or aid the commission of an offense, such person agrees with one or more persons that at least one of them or another person will engage in conduct constituting the offense and one of the parties commits an overt act in furtherance of the offense, except that an overt act shall not be required if the object of the conspiracy was to commit any felony upon ON the person of another, or to commit an offense under section 13‑1508,or 13‑1704 OR 13‑2903." (read sections that include "riot" in blue in law) if you went to protest and a riot broke out you wouldnt be charged with " conspiring to riot" now if you planned to go riot before hand you could get "conspiracy" you can plan to demostrate just dont plan to riot!
oooook, and how are you going to monitor this thought crime so you won't acuse an innocent protestor for conspiracy @ssez ?
if you are conspiring you have passed the point of thinking about it. of course innocent will be accused, thats happening with all types of crimes?
ok so i orgnized a protest and a riot started, oh Firk now I am accused of orchestrating a riot. even though I did not riot and it was not my plan. You are right, this law will never be used to stiffle freedom of protest and speech how silly of me.
being accused is one thing, if they can prove that you have been conspiring all along, if protesters are carrying "weapons"/masks from the start could you be responsible if you keep organizing? Dont think that bill will pass, there are so many odd bills both in usa/sweden that are more propaganda from all sides and never meant to pass. its a good way for parties/sides to get alot of PR/attention. and from what i read/understood this sounded like a propagandabill not a serious suggestion
You have a judge refuse to issue a warrant/toss the case out due to a lack of evidence/reason for suspicion. How are you going to monitor hate crime laws to make sure people won't be falsely accused? You're the one that needs to think about it more. If they are conspiring with other people it isn't a "thought" there would be communication trails, especially in this day and age where one's TV is recording/broadcasting every sound it's mic can pick up.
It is, however, the problem. First, let's consider that this statue was originally written to combat organized crime and to PREVENT the crime from occurring as much as it is to charge people after the fact. The statue is quite broad, and doesn't define what "conspiring" really means to any real detail. These kinds of statues have been used to round up entire gangs/cells by association. Second, we note that the statue does not require that the "overt action" took place. If police decide that you have "conspired," you can be detained under this statue. Maybe they were wrong, and you are let go - but you can see how it could theoretically be used to suppress what might otherwise be lawful demonstrations. Third, we live in the age of social media. Many of these events are going to be posted onto Facebook and other such things. You can argue, perhaps, that these people should "extreme vetting" people who are going to attend, but the fact is most of these won't be that way. So if I post that I am "attending" a demonstration, and someone has posted in the Facebook group they are going to bring some rocks - is that potentially evidence of "conspiring?" Maybe it won't hold in court, but it could certainly be legal trouble, particularly if a police department is overzealous (and let's not pretend they aren't sometimes). Fourth, unlike terrorism, fraud and other things on the list, riots are more likely to be spontaneous. However, it's likely that protesters will have expressed... anger and other such thoughts at the thing they are protesting - which could theoretically be used as evidence of intent (again, noting that the section that defines motive/intent is not particularly robust and is quite broad). And when a riot does break out, it's usually the case that the whole group is rounded up because it's not so simple to figure out who actually started/did it. So the thing is that it is quite possible that this is used in a way that perhaps was not intended by the letter of the law, simply because of how broadly things are defined. And that's the concern we should ALWAYS have when looking at new or modified laws - what those in power COULD potentially use it for, instead of making excuses for them we should demand these laws be specific and well scoped to combat the actual problem (and for people to demonstrate that there IS a problem to be solved). In this case, riots are already illegal - but, as the police guy said in the article, he wants to be able to stop these before they occur - which, as I suggest, might not work the way you might hope.
I agree it has potential for abuse, I think most laws do, new and old, it's just that Geressen seemed to be making a leap about the way courts in general work. The video I posted in the Alex Jones AMA thread, the interview on Joe Rogan's podcast, actually had a discussion about one of the old WTO protests, talking about video they had of people that were allegedly working with the police and/or WTO in order to try and start Riots to provide an excuse for the police to then crack down on the many, many more peaceful demonstrators who hadn't done anything illegal. I don't know if that specific instance is accurately described (certainly circumstantial evidence supports those allegations but there's no solid proof) but it is the kind of thing that can and does happen. People could be set up and using this law charged for conspiracy... in spite of it being the opposite (them being victims of a conspiracy)... but it isn't going to happen without at least fabricated evidence. That's likely more of an issue with corruption and poor legal wording. But I do agree it could have a potential chilling effect outside of that as well.
