Paying protestors should be made illegal. It contaminates the reason for peaceful protests and encourages violence and a culture of people protesting a cause they aren’t even personally invested in. Professional protesting for money should not be allowed and is detrimental to our national security.
29 Likes
Wow - I thought maybe some people were being slipped some money to rile things up but I had no idea it was a legit thing. That should definitely be illegal. Also, people need to be educated about intent and frequency - peaceful protests to let the Powers that Be know how the people feel about an issue is one thing - but when that fighting frequency enters the stage, ask them to cease and if they don’t cooperate, go home.
I was watching a clip of an Antifa thing and I saw a little boy off to the side with his bicycle, a mother and her child, etc. That’s some intense energy to expose a child to. I was at the march in DC in 1967 - everything was great - I was surrounded by priests, nuns, vets, lots of ages and races - then all of a sudden people started screaming and running - I was near a cliff - then came the tear gas. So I know how it feels when a crowd panics. You don’t want to be there and the original intent is lost.
Our congress people do listen when enough citizens communicate to them. The will of the people is strong and if they want to keep their job, well……..
5 Likes
That’s a broad brush but I like the idea in principle. Would paying the transportation and housing costs for people who can’t afford them be included in that ban? I could make a case for allowing those payments, but I cannot abide paying people to show up who would not be there except for being paid. I DEFINITELY think that anyone providing bricks or any other objects should be stood against a wall and shot. I’d volunteer for the squad.
We need to find a way to stop Soros-money (and money like it from other sources) from funding civil unrest. I’d volunteer for the squad if they’d stand him and his progeny against a wall, too.
2 Likes
I think it should also be illegal to order pallets of bricks to be delivered on sidewalks right new to glass-entrance buildings late at night on streets where protest are going to take place the next day. Scripting reality from the top down is unethical and it seems to be happening in many instances.
4 Likes
No one should be in fear of being shot for voicing their beliefs, everyone should have the right to safely voice their opinions, but I do feel it’s dishonest to pay protestors, if you feel strongly about peacefully protesting, then it should be something you really believe in and the voice should be yours not someone else’s. Paying protestors is basically creating a narrative that isn’t truth.
4 Likes
It is illegal; it’s called aiding and abetting. The problem is that punishment is nowhere near severe enough to deter the behavior.
We may be nearing a point of societal reversion to extreme punishments if we are to preserve a civil society characterized by domestic tranquility. Disfigurement, castration, and other punishments for those caught and convicted will send a message and - I believe - cause sentient beings who would commit those crimes to resist the urge. The question is whether or not we are dealing with sentient beings or some form of Manchurian candidates created by institutional brainwashing.
1 Like
I would disagree with your statement. I think speaking freely must entail risk. To speak one’s mind is to affect the life and behavior of others even if that is not the intent. Speakers should be mindful of that and fearful of the consequences but should not be constrained by force or by law from speaking. Speech must retain the element of fear of consequences while being allowed.
Agree. And i think full head masks should not be allowed at violent protests, or anywhere, at any time. There is only one reason to hide one’s full head with only the eyes showing… to hide the identity of violent protesters and criminals of all types. I think only mouth masks should be allowed for anyone concerned about health safety.
2 Likes
Aiding & abetting implies an underlying misdemeanor or felony. We’re asking if paying protesters to be there should be illegal. If they commit crimes while there, yes, it could be argued, aiding for their employer.
Speech can affect, but sometimes opposite of the intent of those speaking. You seem to believe violence towards someone is appropriate if you don’t agree with what they are saying. You label it as “risk”, risk of what, violence? I don’t believe words ever justify violence.
Then we shall have to agree to disagree. In my view words indicate intent. If someone says to me that they are going to beat me, I can logically conclude that is their intent; therefore logic impels me to one of 2 things, respond violently and pre-emptively against impending attack or run away, which might or might not protect me. In such circumstances words can, do, and should justify violence.
Draft bill:
Bill Title: An Act to Prohibit the Payment of Individuals to Participate in Protests
Purpose: The purpose of this bill is to preserve the integrity of public demonstrations and ensure that participation in protests reflects genuine beliefs and civic engagement, rather than financial incentives.
Section 1: Definitions
1 - Protest: Any public demonstration, march, or gathering organized for the purpose of expressing opinions, beliefs, or grievances.
2 - Payment: Any form of compensation, including but not limited to monetary payments, gifts, services, or any other valuable consideration provided to an individual to participate in a protest.
3 - Transportation: Any form of bus or travel arranged or paid for 8 or more individuals to attend a protest.
4 - Protest Organizer: Any individual or entity responsible for planning, coordinating, or facilitating a protest.
Section 2: Prohibition of Payment and Transportation Provision
1 - It shall be unlawful for any individual or entity to pay or offer to pay individuals for their participation in a protest.
2 - It shall also be unlawful to provide transportation for the purpose of attending a protest unless the intent to do so is documented and filed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
3 - Any payment or transportation provided in violation of this section will be considered a violation of this Act.
Section 3: Exceptions
1 - To be determined
Section 4: Enforcement
1 - Federal and State Law enforcement agencies shall have the authority to investigate claims of violations under this Act.
2 - Individuals who report violations in good faith shall be protected from retaliation.
Section 5: Penalties
1 - Violations of this Act shall incur the following penalties:
2 - First Offense: Considered a misdemeanor with a fine of $1,000.
3 - Second Offense: Classified as a Class A misdemeanor with a fine of $25,000 and up to one year in jail.
4 - Third Offense: Classified as a felony with a fine of $100,000, a minimum of five years in jail, and potential seizure of assets and treason charges.
Section 6: Effective Date
This Act shall take effect immediately after its passage.
Section 7: Severability
If any provision of this Act is found to be unconstitutional or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect.
Sponsor: [Name of Sponsor]
Date: [Date of Proposal]
3 Likes
I agree 100%, a verbal threat is a crime and may justify defending yourself. Saying something and threatening someone are very different. Saying something, to me, implies content, ideas, opinions, information. Threatening someone is always a criminal act.
Making it illegal to provide transportation is wrong, IMO. That would criminalize the act of a parent or spouse giving a ride to a child or spouse to a demonstration. The intent, as far as I understand it, is good but I think you went off the rails with transportation.
As far as your penalties go, again, IMO, you missed an opportunity. Penalty for first offense is set far too low, especially if one considers the effects of inflation on the USD. Your proposal also fails to address the probably indirect provision of funds. As I read what you wrote, only the person giving the emolument is subject penalties. The real target of the law should be those who provide the funds. This gets very sticky if the funds are provided/paid by an organization and not an individual.
Again, your effort deserves a “C” grade. You can do better. Think it through more. Play out all the combinations and permutations then try again. Consider that even a $100,000 fine to a Soros is a nit. The penalty should confiscate wealth making it impossible to re-offend, perhaps.
A threat is speech. Speaking a threat should not be, prima facie, a crime. For example, I speak to you and tell you that if you attack my daughter I will do you gross bodily harm. That is a threat to you and a warning to me. If you persist and I follow through on my warning, have I committed a crime? Perhaps in the eyes of the law but not if considered in terms of justice: to wit, your behavior was considered (insert adjective of choice) as perceived by me. I, justly, gave you notice about the consequences should you commit the potential perceived acts. You acted and received the consequences. That sequence under any ethical treatment is just.
Bring a better argument. Think more deeply. Forget your perception of personal danger and think about the broader implications of your dicta.
Your thinking is too shallow.
I made an edit to the transportation section to clean it up a little. Other than that, asset forfeiture is included, as are entities. It could be further clarified by outlining or adding text that can target beneficial owners of a company or organization, such as an NGO. But then, this is just a draft bill. If you like the idea, grab it and modify it. I claim no ownership.
1 Like
Absolutely agreed.
Reads well on paper. Not that simple in the real world. Have you ever been on a political mailing list? Have you ever purposefully put yourself on political mailing list of both sides? Everyone is getting paid to produce their content. / What should be illegal is corporations and private businesses paying lobbyists. That’s where the real money is at and the real problem is. Paid protestors on corners are not even receiving a fraction of a single percent, compared to the volumes of money which constantly flows from private special interests, which flows to politicians, which purchases behavior and changes votes. Dialing for dollars.
2 Likes
A nation is composed of its people, the territory they occupy and defend, and the work products they create. A government is necessary to assure those things can exist and to assist them to thrive. Only by inferring ‘personhood’ on entities that are not human (ie, not born of woman) can participation by corporations and special interest groups gives them power to fiscally influence politics.
IMO, only those who breathe should be given personhood at law. This would eliminate artificial (as in robots with AI and legal constructs such as corporations and PACs) entities from participating in how govt is formed and run.
Here’s another idea. Restrict any entity from outside the precincts electing members of government from providing funds. IOW, allow no funding to US representatives from outside their districts (including, especially, funding from national political parties and corporations and PACs, et al); no funding for US senators arising from outside their states while allowing only candidates for POTUS/VPOTUS to be funded across those boundaries. Require all funding to come from named, on-the-record individuals and limit the amounts of their contributions. Put poltical campaigns on fiscal budgets and force them to spend their money convincing constituencies to support them.
1 Like