老澳门开奖结果

Editor's Note: A federal court on September 18, 2019, blocked South Dakota's laws suppressing protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. The temporary order came in a lawsuit filed by the 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Dakota.

The government of South Dakota has made it very clear that it does not like people who protest the Keystone XL pipeline. The state鈥檚 governor as 鈥渙ut-of-staters who come in to disrupt.鈥� And other officials have similarly leveraged long-debunked and harmful tropes, mischaracterizing those speaking out as 鈥減aid protesters.鈥�

In this atmosphere, South Dakota enacted a new law last week, the . The law seeks to suppress protests before they even start and prohibits people from engaging in full-throated advocacy. It does so by creating a new, ambiguous term: 鈥渞iot boosting.鈥�

If you鈥檙e wondering what that means, so is everyone else, including those who want to speak out. And that鈥檚 a big problem.

The new law gives the state the authority to sue individuals and organizations for 鈥渞iot boosting,鈥� but it does not clearly describe what speech or conduct it considers to be 鈥渞iot boosting.鈥� The law is written so broadly that even a tweet encouraging activists to 鈥淛oin a protest to stop the pipeline and give it all you鈥檝e got!鈥� could be interpreted as 鈥渞iot-boosting鈥� should a fight break out at the protest. The law joins two existing state criminal laws that also target such speech, meaning that advocacy could now result in up to 25 years of prison time, fines, or civil penalties 鈥� or a combination of all three.

Let鈥檚 be very clear: States are within their rights to prohibit incitement of violence 鈥� a narrow category of unprotected speech that refers to words intended and likely to cause imminent violence. But these laws go far beyond that by criminalizing impassioned advocacy that lies at the core of our political discourse. They instill a fear among peaceful organizers that their actions or words could be misconstrued by the government as 鈥渞iot boosting.鈥� As a result, activists are now forced to think twice before even encouraging others to join a protest, let alone train, educate, or advise those who plan to protest. And, because of these laws, they may forgo such speech and association altogether.

That is a clear First Amendment violation 鈥� and why on behalf of the Sierra Club, NDN Collective, Dakota Rural Action, and the Indigenous Environmental Network.

According to the state鈥檚 , the Riot Boosting Act is a result of Governor Kristi Noem鈥檚 discussions with TransCanada 鈥� the company that is set to build and operate the Keystone XL pipeline 鈥� and other stakeholders. Notably, the state did not meet with Native American tribes or environmental groups.

This comes across loud and clear in the final law, which not only gives the state the authority to sue anti-pipeline groups and activists but also gives third-parties 鈥� including TransCanada 鈥� the ability to join in. Further, the money seized from protesters through these lawsuits can be used to fund the very thing they are protesting, thereby giving the company an added financial incentive to go after pipeline protesters.

If this attack on protest sounds eerily familiar, that鈥檚 because it is.

In just the last two years, we鈥檝e seen a rise in government efforts to stifle protests, particularly those led by Indigenous and environmental activists, often in . There have been attempts to equate protesters with domestic and . Law enforcement authorities have partnered with private security companies to surveil activists and control protests. Known FBI informants have infiltrated activist spaces and camps. The federal government has implemented 鈥渘o-fly zones鈥� to black out media coverage during heightened police crackdowns.

And if Governor Noem鈥檚 rhetoric on 鈥渟hut[ting] down鈥� 鈥渙ut-of-state people鈥� who come into South Dakota to 鈥渟low and stop construction鈥� of the pipeline sounds familiar, it should. It echoes government attempts throughout our history to justify anti-protest actions by delegitimizing protesters as 鈥渙utside agitators.鈥�

In 1964, infamous segregationist George Wallace said racial tensions did not exist in the South 鈥渆xcept in a very few isolated instances鈥� caused exclusively by 鈥�.鈥� He was not alone in attempting to frame the civil rights movement in the South as the work of 鈥渙utside agitators.鈥� Southern authorities frequently attempted to discount legitimate grievances and protests by Black people as nothing more than an attempt by radical outsiders to sow dissent. They . an 鈥渙utside agitator.鈥�

More recently, in 2014, after the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, the 鈥渙utside agitators鈥� for the majority of the unlawful activities. Not only were these claims later in a scathing report by the Department of Justice, they also allowed the police to minimize the harmful impact of their own improper practices that caused the citizens of the city to protest in the first place.

What鈥檚 happening in South Dakota is no different. The government has dismissed Native Americans, state farmers and ranchers, and residents of nearby states who opposed the pipeline as outside agitators. But the pipeline, if constructed, would have a substantial impact on all of their lives 鈥� including our clients, many of whom are South Dakotans. Moreover, the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline is a national issue, and it deserves a national debate.

Opposition to the construction of the pipeline may agitate Gov. Noem, but the First Amendment guarantees the right to voice that opposition. Those affected by the pipeline鈥檚 construction deserve to be heard even if Gov. Noem and TransCanada want them all to shut up.