Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

  |  

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Occupy / Politics / Teh Internets Oregon Republican Wants to Outlaw Online Organizing

Posted by on Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:30 PM

If you're wondering how much right-wingers truly hate America, you need look no further than Republican-sponsored Oregon Senate Bill 1534, which would create the felony crime of "aggravated solicitation" for, you know, tweeting...

(2) A person commits the crime of aggravated solicitation if, with the intent of causing two or more other persons to engage in specific conduct constituting a crime, the person uses an electronic communication to command or solicit other persons to engage in that conduct at a specific time and at a specific location.
(3) In a prosecution under this section, the state need not prove that the electronic communication was received by specific persons or that the defendant intended for specific persons to engage in the criminal activity.

That's right, if you use Twitter, or Facebook, or a blog, or email to help organize, or even just let people know about some event, where some crime is ultimately committed, you could be found guilty of a felony, punishable by as much as 20 years in prison. And prosecutors don't even need to prove that anybody actually read your tweet, or that you ever intended for a crime to be committed.

For example, let's say you tweeted (or retweeted) "Come join me at today's Occupy Portland protest at Chapman Square", where some folks were ultimately arrested for misdemeanor trespassing. Under SB-1534, you could be charged with a Class C felony!

Sure, the bill is DOA in Oregon's Democratically controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, and likely unconstitutional to boot (it is one thing to criminalize yelling "fire" in a crowded move theater, it's another thing to criminalize tweeting "Hey, let's go to the movies"), but the very fact that a full third of the Oregon State Senate would attach their names to such an offensively anti-free speech piece of legislation, illustrates just how quickly our nation could slide into fascism.

This is the type of legislation that dictators would use to crack down on and repress an Arab Spring. No American legislator who advocates for such a stunningly anti-American piece of legislation should ever be taken seriously again. And yet, they are.

 

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Kinison 1
Sure he didnt mention you by name Toby?
Posted by Kinison http://www.holgatehawks.com on February 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Helix 2
Wow that's fucking brazen o_O helloooo police state!
Posted by Helix on February 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM
3
could slide into fascism? HAHAHAHAHA!!! open your eyes. we're already there. the question is the degree, not whether or not it exists in america.
Posted by philosophy school dropout on February 7, 2012 at 12:36 PM
4
Let's just pass this thing so we can find out what's in it.
Posted by cliche on February 7, 2012 at 12:39 PM
5
Yes, but you know, Punishment! Sometimes I don't think you really get American culture, Goldy.
Posted by Mr. J on February 7, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Catalina Vel-DuRay 6
Republicans are horrible people. Most of them have sex problems. That's what makes them so bitter.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on February 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM
7
Wouldn't you have to tweet, "come join me and set fire to cars at Occupy Portland protest..." for this to apply?

Even with your example, wouldn't you have to exhort people to "trespass illegally" for it to apply?
Posted by Westside forever on February 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM
8
Next thing you know they'll be blocking tweets, like in Brazil:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-5737229…
Posted by elaineinballard on February 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM
Phoebe in Wallingford 9
This kind of thing turns off libertarians AND most republicans. It's not going very far.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on February 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM
10
@7: If you read the text above, you'll see that "the state need not prove that the electronic communication was received by specific persons or that the defendant intended for specific persons to engage in the criminal activity."

In other words, the intent of your text doesn't have to encourage anything criminal to fall under this law.
Posted by MLM on February 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM
11
what the actual fuck....
Posted by KatTheCanuckistan http://soundmusing.blogspot.com/ on February 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM
Karlheinz Arschbomber 12
Wake up and smell the FREEDOM!
Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arschbombe on February 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM
Fnarf 13
I agree that this proposed law is stupid and anti-democratic, but..."Arab Spring"? Please tell me you're not buying the analogy between Occupy and the Arab Spring. That would be too, too Will in Seattle of you.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on February 7, 2012 at 2:23 PM
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 14
It's really kind of a failure of democracy that only 1/3 of the OR Senate sponsored this bill. Like Washington, at least 45% of the electorate in Oregon are inbred, syphilitic, slackjawed redneck rubes living in leaky trailer homes with manure between their toes. Probably 48%.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on February 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM
venomlash 15
I was fine with it until that second part about the government not having to prove receipt or intent.
Posted by venomlash on February 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM
16
Flash mobs: are they worse than murder? You decide!
Posted by Pope Buck I on February 7, 2012 at 3:39 PM
17
@10 "the state need not prove that the electronic communication was received by specific persons or that the defendant intended for specific persons to engage in the criminal activity."

Meaning that the communication mentioned criminal activity in the first place. At least that's how I read it. The defendant would not have to intend for specific persons to e.g. torch cars, but they would still have to call for car-torching and not just "protesting".
Posted by patternmatch on February 7, 2012 at 4:45 PM
18
Remember the conspiracy laws of the 60's and 70's? Two or more people agree to commit a crime in the future. As far as I know they're still on the books. This seems to extend it into the info-age.
Posted by Richard Wells on February 16, 2012 at 2:09 PM
19
PS: As I recall, in a Though the Looking Glass sort of twist, conspirators could be guilty even if they didn't know who their fellows were.
Posted by Richard Wells on February 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy