Mediaboss Marketing

Thanks to spax for compiling and sharing this great list of resources including this weekends planned marches and protests.

From MPD:

On Saturday, June 13, 2020 and Sunday, June 14, 2020, multiple First Amendment demonstrations are scheduled to occur in the District of Columbia. In conjunction with these events, there will be street closures and restrictions that motorists should take into consideration:

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking for the demonstrations beginning on Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 6:00 am and extending through Sunday, June 14, 2020 to 11:59 pm:

Constitution Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to 17th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWIndependence Avenue from 3rd Street, NW to 14th Street, SWConnecticut Avenue from I Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from I Street, NW to L Street, NWI Street from 14th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWH Street from 14th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWK Street from 14th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 14th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW17th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(both side of Farragut Square)

16th Street From H Street, NW to O Street, NW15th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(both sides of McPherson Square)

14th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to K Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW9th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW7th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW6th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW4th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW3rd Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

On Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 6:00 am to 11:59 pm the following streets may see restrictions to vehicular traffic at intermittent times. On Sunday, June 14, 2020 beginning at 4:00 am to 11:59 pm, the following streets will be closed to vehicular traffic. If street closures are made in the following locations, vehicles will be allowed to enter the restricted area if they are on essential business or traveling to-and-from their residence.

Constitution Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to 18th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWIndiana Avenue from 6th Street, NW to 7th Street, NWJefferson Drive, SW from 3rd Street to 14th Street, SWMadison Drive, NW from 3rd Street to 14th Street, NWC Street from 17th Street, NW to 19th Street, NWC Street from 3rd Street, NW to 6th Street, NWD Street from 3rd Street, NW to 8th Street, NWD Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWE Street from 12th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWF Street from 12th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWG Street from 12th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWH Street from 12th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWI Street from New York Avenue, NW to 18th Street, NWK Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWConnecticut Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWNew York Avenue from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NW17th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW16th Street From H Street, NW to O Street, NW15th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW14th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to E Street, NW11th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW7th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to E Street, NW6th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW4th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

See the original post here:
Street Closures for this weekend's "multiple First Amendment demonstrations" + a Great List of the Upcoming Protests & Events - PoPville

Blasting AG William Barr for deploying what they called a "secret paramilitary force," House Dems say their bill prevents the further erosion of trust in police.

WASHINGTON On Thursday, Virginia Rep. Don Beyer (D) joined other Democrats in the house in introducing the Law Enforcement Identification Act, which would require uniformed federal officers to wear plainly visible identification while policing First Amendment Assemblies.

The bill comes as a response to the use of unidentified Bureau of Prisons crisis management teams as part of federal security efforts in Washington, D.C., during the Justice for George Floyd protests last week. It would bring requirements for federal law enforcement in line with D.C. police, who are already required by District statute to wear enhanced identification while policing First Amendment demonstrations.

The legislation was introduced by a number of representatives from the DMV. Joining Beyer were D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Virginia Congressman Gerry Connolly and Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton, and Maryland Congressmen Jamie Raskin and Anthony Brown, all Democrats. The bill is the House companion to an identical bill in the Senate introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

It is unacceptable for federal officers policing constitutionally-protected peaceful protests in our nations capital to refuse to identify themselves, Beyer said Thursday. We do not have secret police in the United States of America. The lack of identification left city authorities, protesters, and residents in the dark about who these armed officers in their community last week were, who gives them orders, and what their use of force guidelines are.

Read the full text of the bill below:

WUSA9 reported extensively on the use of unmarked federal law enforcement during protests last week. The officers who wore no identification and had either blocked or removed insignia repeatedly refused to identify themselves to media and citizens, and would only say they were with the Department of Justice when asked. The Bureau of Prisons eventually acknowledged that the officers were members of their special operations resource and crisis management teams.

The BOP told CBS News in a statement that the officers werent wearing marked clothing because they were serving a broader mission.

The use of unmarked officers in the nations capital prompted more than 120 members of the House to send a letter to Attorney General William Barr who was overseeing the federal response to protests in D.C. demanding that he restore the identifying information to their uniforms.

Attorney General Barr deployed what can fairly be described as a secret paramilitary force against citizens protesting in Washington, D.C., Rep. Raskin said in a statement Thursday. This is a scandal. How can our constituents know whether individuals purporting to enforce the law are actually authorized to do so and by whom if theyre not wearing any identification?

Virginias Rep. Wexton called it an irresponsible an dangerous action that escalated an already tense situation, and said the use of anonymous enforcers to quell civil unrest is a tactic of autocratic leaders.

The unmarked officers also prompted a Twitter feud between Mayor Muriel Bowser and President Donald Trump after the mayor sent the White House a letter demanding it move the officers and other military personnel out of the city.

Bowser said the federal response to the protests was inflaming demonstrators and adding to the grievances of those who, by and large, are peacefully protesting for change.

On Sunday, the president ordered the roughly 5,000 National Guard troops brought to D.C. from around the country to officially withdraw, saying everything was under perfect control.

Read more:
Democrat bill would end use of unmarked federal officers to police First Amendment demonstrations - WUSA9.com

Heavily armed citizens showed up recently at protests in Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Montana, Coloradoand Idaho to allegedly protected peaceful protesters from antifa.

In Coeur dAlene, Idaho, groups of 25 to 50 armed men in combat gear spent successive nights patrolling the downtown area, following internet rumors that antifa agitators would be arriving from Seattle.

The FBI stated there is no evidence that any protests have been linked to antifa. Still, President Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpMelania Trump is 'behind-the-scenes' but 'unbelievably influential': book Police unions face lobbying fights at all levels of government Ernst challenger leads by three points in tight Iowa Senate race MORE tweeted: Domestic Terrorists have taken over Seattle, run by Radical Left Democrats, of course. LAW & ORDER!

In his June 1 Rose Garden address amid vowing to shield American citizens from professional anarchists, violent mobs, or arsonists, looters, criminals, rider rioters, Antifa the president promised to protect Second Amendment rights.

InJanuary,he tweeted, Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia,days before a gun rights rally in Richmond. The gun-rights rally itself drew 22,000 peoplemany of them heavily armed and in combat gearto protest Democratic state legislators pledge to enact new gun control legislation.

In mid-April, after blue-state governors enacted quarantine measure, he alsoclaimed multiple timesthat these governors were trying to take peoples guns away. In an odd non-sequitur, the president seemed to conclude that lockdown restrictions were also tied to Second Amendment rights.

Less than two weeks later, armed anti-lockdown protesters descended on Michigans statehouse. In response, some state legislators worebulletproof vests, and the states legislative session ended early.

In each instance, armed protesters used the Second Amendment to undermine democracy and individual rights. Democratically elected bodies in Virginia and Michigan were effectively threatened if they choose to act on measures gun control and an extension of lockdown orders that had wide public support. When citizens descend on a state capital brandishing guns, they effectively end any commitment to democratic debate.

While gun control advocates point out that36,000Americans are killed by guns each year, it is also essential to consider how guns threaten First Amendment rights and the will of democratic majorities.

The idea that a right to bear arms is necessary to protect oneself from a tyrannical government implies that violence would, at some point, be justified.

The contrast between the anti-lockdown protests and the Black Lives Matter protests demonstrates the limits of the Second Amendment to check government tyranny.Mostly white, heavily armed, protesters were able to challengelargely popularpublic health measures by intimidating state officials.

However, it is difficult to imagine Black Lives Matter and other anti-police brutality protesters using the Second Amendment effectively. It stretches the bounds of credulity to think that heavily armed Black Lives Matter protests would be met with anything other than large-scale state-sanctioned violence.

The historical context of the Second Amendment also cannot be overlooked.

During debates regarding the ratification of the Constitution, some anti-federalists took particular notice ofArticle 1 Section 8of the Constitution. The offending passages give Congress the authority to call forth and train militias.

At the time, Southern slaveholdersworried that since the federal government was given power over the militias, Congress could eventually block southern states from using their militias to put down slave rebellions.

The full text of the Second Amendment states: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It is not an accident that James Madison, a slaveholder himself, mentions the need for states to have militias in the Second Amendment.

The great irony here is that the Second Amendment can be read a different way as protecting Americans from an overly militarized police force.

The use of the term militias in both Article 1 Section 8 and the Second Amendment is a reflection of the fact that the founders feared permanent professional standing armies would be a threat to liberty. The Second Amendment mentions militias because the framers intended military units made up of part-time citizen-soldiers to be the first line of defense.

The photos and video footage from around the country of a heavily militarized police force firing rubber bullets and tear gas into crowds of peaceful protesters certainly seems to justify the founders warnings to the dangers of standing armies.

The First Amendment protections of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press, have proven to be the most effective tool for civil rights leaders past and present to demand justice and challenge instances of government oppression.

In contrast, the Second Amendment has historically been atool of the oppressors rather than the oppressed. It is time to let go of the myth that the Second Amendment is an effective tool for protecting individual liberties.

Katie Scofield has a Ph.D. in political science from Indiana University, with a focus on comparative constitutional law. She was awarded a Fulbright grant to study the Ecuadorian Constitution and its treatment of human rights and teaches government at Blinn College in Texas.

See the rest here:
Myth: Second Amendment protects individual liberties | TheHill - The Hill

The widespread attacks by law enforcement against peaceful First Amendment demonstrators in the wake of George Floyds murder are deeply concerning as a matter of core constitutional law principles. But the fact that many officers spread across Washington, D.C., and other places lacked legibleinsigniaindicating who they were and whom they work for borders on the bizarre.

Attorney General William BarrBill BarrDemocracy under threat this is how it happens Anonymous police threaten people's freedom to assemble Milley discussed resigning from post after Trump photo-op: report MOREexplained,In the federal system, we dont wear badges with our name I mean the agents dont wear badges and their names and stuff like that, which many civilian police ... agencies do. Like all of Trumps closest cadre, recent history has shown that Barrs words cannot always be trusted as accurate. So, arefederal officers legally required to wear badges and, if not, should they be?

Somewhat astonishingly, there is no federal law requiring federal law enforcement to identify themselves to the public when they are conspicuously acting in their official law enforcement capacities. Weve all heard ofplain-clothes or undercover copswho routinely pose as private citizens for crime prevention and detection. The practice is legal, so long as the officer does not induce a person to commit a crime that the person wouldnt have otherwise committed. That would be entrapment, which is illegal.

But thedisplayof brute force in riot gear and no badges for purposes of intimidating First Amendment demonstrations is a different matter. The very presence of police officers dressed as police officers in the public square hinders the full exercise of certain constitutional rights such as the right to free speech, free assembly and freedom of movement. People might alter legal behavior to conform to the police presence.

To take a simple example, a family visiting Washington, D.C., will likely stop in its tracks if it sees armed men blocking the steps to the Lincoln Memorial. If the family walks to the White House and finds droves of black-clothed officers with large, military-grade weapons slung over their shoulders, the same family might leave the city altogether foregoing their rights to speech, assembly and freedom of movement in downtown Washington, D.C. The familys reaction would be particularly swift if as was the case with the George Floyd protests they know that the government recentlyemployedtear gas, batons, low-flying helicopters and rubber bullets on innocent civilians and members of the press who happened to be in an area that President TrumpDonald John TrumpMelania Trump is 'behind-the-scenes' but 'unbelievably influential': book Police unions face lobbying fights at all levels of government Ernst challenger leads by three points in tight Iowa Senate race MORE wanted cleared to enable hisphoto-opin front of a nearby church.

The D.C. coderequiresthat local police display enhanced identification when policing First Amendment assemblies, but federal officers arent bound by it. Federalregulationsdo allow Barr to deputize people to perform the functions of a Deputy U.S. Marshal, including [s]elected officers or employees of the Department of Justice and [o]ther persons he designates. The officialwebsiteof the U.S. Marshal Service explains the importance of badge credentials as representing official notice of agency powers and true authorization to perform assigned duties.

Although Barr is not legally bound to publicly identify each member of his riot forces, he is ethically and normatively bound. Thestandardsfor the police published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights include wear[ing] clearly visible identity badges to facilitate accurate reporting of human rights violations by the government. It doesnt take a policing expert to understand why.

America is a representative democracy in which people exercise self-governance. We do this by holding elected officials accountable at the polls and in the courts. Unlike private individuals, law enforcement officials have tremendous power over life, liberty and property. Regular people cant put their adversaries in jail that would be kidnapping.

Because itshuman natureto abuse power, we have courts that hear cases of police brutality and elections that properly place responsibility in the hands of elected officials ultimately charged with policing the police. But if we do not know the identity or employer of someone who is exercising police power, it becomes exceedingly difficult to hold that person and their elected bosses accountable.

Even worse, anonymous gun-wielding police invite vigilante copycats. Prior to the George Floyd murder, the nation was transfixed on the mounting deaths due to COVID-19 and the satellite protests over state stay-at-home orders, some byarmed private militiamembers. Barr and President Trump irresponsibly pointed the finger at amoebicanti-fascist groupsfor the unrest, but the Department of Justice, thus far, has brought no cases against linked defendants. But more to the point, by threatening protesters with badgeless, federal-looking bullies, Barr is stoking the militant flame not quelling it.

Keep in mind that the First Amendment binds all holders of government power from the president down to a local town official. Under theSupreme Courts constructionof the Constitution, the state cannot punish speech in connection with public demonstrations unless the speech has gotten so out of control that it is about to cause injury. Strong emotions, political protest and the risk of violence are not enough.

History will not look kindly at the response by Trump and Barr to the First Amendment demonstrations in Lafayette Square; the efforts turned violent at their direction and with no documented escalation by the people both men swore to serve. The fact that Congress has never passed legislation requiring that the injured know who is at the other end of a federal gun barrel merely suggests that Trump once again has gone beyond where any White House occupant has gone before.

Congress needs to enactpending legislationthats aimed at remedying this true blind spot in federal law enforcement standards. It should do it immediately so that the next time Trump jousts with the First Amendment through police violence, the people are better protected.

Kimberly Wehle is a visiting professor of Law at American Universitys Washington College of Law, and author of the book "How to Read the Constitutionand Why." Follow her on Twitter @kim_wehle.

Read the original post:
Anonymous police threaten people's freedom to assemble | TheHill - The Hill

And those arrested could be hanged.

When the new American government was formed, the Second Congress enacted the Militia Act, a more limited law governing unlawful assembly. Federal authorities could use force to break up assemblies only if they amounted to insurrectionsand the act had to be invoked by the president himself, not by his appointees.

The right of assembly had a rough go for the first century and a half of the Constitution. By the end of the 19th century, no less an authority than Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (the son of a founder of this magazine, and then a state judge) briskly dismissed the idea of expressive rights on public property. Public property belonged to the government, Holmes said, not to the people at all. For the legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private home to forbid it in his house. The U.S. Supreme Court tersely affirmed Holmess opinion. Peaceful assembly be damned. The people were not to come out of doors without the permission of their rulers.

Nora Benavidez: First Amendment rightsif you agree with the President

Only half a century later, in a case about the rights of labor organizers, did Justice Owen Roberts, writing for a plurality, cleanse the law of Holmess view of government as the owner and citizens as guests. Roberts wrote:

Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all . . . but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.

The people own the streetsnot the police, not the military, and not Donald Trump. And regulation of their use of the streets must be conducted with the greatest care, recognizing that occasional inconvenience caused by demonstrations is the price America pays for free government. The fact that some demonstrations are violent cannot be used to strip all Americans of their right to assemble.

That right has been under assault since the day Trump took office. As outlined in a new report by PEN America, red-state legislatures have been indefatigable in debating and passing laws designed to penalize protesters for disfavored causes. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last year approved a grotesque opinion holding that anyone who organizes a protest can be suedand thus possibly bankruptedif someone else present commits an illegal act.

Read the original here:
Trumps Grotesque Violation of the First Amendment - The Atlantic