Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

One year after George Floyd's murder, right to protest is under fire

George Floyd protest

A group of protestors gathers in New York City for a demonstration on the one-year anniversary of George Floyd's death.

Tayfun Coskun/Getty Images

After the police killing of George Floyd last year, the nation erupted in protest with renewed demands for justice and reform. But now that right to assembly is under attack.

In the year since Floyd's death, GOP lawmakers have been pushing measures to deter protesting and toughen penalties for offenders. Nearly 100 such anti-protesting bills have been proposed across 35 states — four times the numbers introduced in the year prior.

This wave of bills parallels another effort by Republicans to roll back voting rights and access following the 2020 election. Opponents claim both legislative trends disproportionately impact communities of color who have been actively involved in protests over the last year and are more likely to face barriers to the ballot box.

The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law has been tracking federal and state initiatives aimed at restricting the right to peaceably assemble since 2016. In the last year, nine new measures have been signed into law across seven states. While this is a slight uptick from the year before, the sheer volume of anti-protesting bills being considered in state legislatures is much higher than the usual amount.

"These bills are part of a broader trend over the past four years of state legislatures moving to repress peaceful demonstrations," the ICNL said in a January report. The trend began around 2017 when fossil fuel companies encouraged legislation that deterred environmental protests against oil pipelines. Now, anti-protesting bills have a new target: racial justice advocates.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Of the recently enacted laws, Florida's is among the most broad and severe. It expands the definition of riot to include "imminent danger" of property or persons so individuals could be charged with a felony without having committed any actual damage or injury. Peaceful protesters in the vicinity of those considered to be inciting a riot could be lumped together and all charged with a felony offense. If the group is 25 or more people, it's automatically considered an "aggravated riot" and participants could face up to 15 years in prison.

Florida's new law also makes it easier for anyone who injures a protester, such as by driving through a crowd, to avoid civil liability. Another provision of the law toughens penalties for people who deface, take down or otherwise damage a monument or memorial, including Confederate ones.

Oklahoma also recently enacted a law that grants immunity to drivers who "unintentionally" strike and injure protestors on public streets, while also imposing stricter penalties for people who obstruct traffic while participating in a "riot."

The measure was prompted in part by an incident last June when a man drove his pickup truck through a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters, injuring several and leaving one person paralyzed from the waist down. Ultimately, the driver was not charged because he said he feared for the safety of his family, who was in the truck with him.

Many of the proposed and enacted measures use broad definitions that appear to conflate largely peaceful protests with instances of violent rioting and looting. However, an analysis by The Washington Post last October found that 96 percent of the Black Lives Matter protests over the summer were peaceful, and when violence did occur, it was often police officers who instigated it.

There's also concern the laws could infringe on First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. Clément Voule, United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, released a statement last month expressing concern that these new rules may violate the U.S. Constitution as well as international law.

"Vague definitions of 'riot,' 'mob intimidation' and 'obstruction' as set out in these laws provide excessive discretion to law enforcement authorities to intimidate and criminalize legitimate protest activities," Voule said. "Any restrictions on this fundamental freedom must be narrowly and clearly defined."

Over the last decade, American democracy has been in a steady decline, according to studies by the nonpartisan research organization Freedom House. In March, the group pinpointed three main issues that have driven this long-term decline: unequal treatment of people of color, special-interest influence in politics and partisan polarization.

Despite these concerning trends, there is still evidence of the resiliency of democracy, said Shannon Hiller, co-director of the nonpartisan Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton University.

"The widespread demonstrations in support of racial justice last year are also a really incredible story about the willingness of so many Americans to go out and use their First Amendment rights to stand up together on issues that they care about," said Hiller, whose organization works to track and mitigate instances of political violence in the United States.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less