Thread by @JohnFPfaff

I realize that states really are passing new and tougher laws against protests these days, but I'm beginning to fear our coverage is focusing on the wrong aspects. Here are two examples, from OK and KY.

OK: "You can now drive over protestors!"

Well...

huffpost.com/entry/oklahoma…

The CIVIL immunity piece is new, and important, but the criminal part tracks the pre-existing defensive force language pretty much exactly. I don't see how this adds anything new to OK law, just re-iterates it.

This happens a lot! What is "carjacking"? GTA + assault. Etc. etc.

Or in KY, we recently saw outrage over "can't insult cops" in a riot bill.

What that provision did was just codify SCOTUS's fighting-words exception, setting the standard for cops at a "reasonable person"... an issue on which SCOTUS is basically silent and state courts split.

There's some problematic stuff in that KY bill, but the insult-cops part of it was likely actually among the least problematic, since it was just reflecting a reasonable take on current law (which itself could be the problem! But that's a separate issue).

I think there are some really bad proposals coming along, and there is a lot to be concerned about. The protests and Covid-fear are EXACTLY the sort of meso- and macro-level pressures that tough-on-crime types aim to exploit to roll back reforms.

But that also means it is important to target the truly bad stuff for outrage, and that stuff is often far more statutorily complicated.

Like in the KY bill, sloppy (or "sloppy") drafting makes it a crime to bring water to a protest. THAT's the bad part, but it's far less obv.

And I'd add: this is a fair additional concern: that it is the expressive part, not the substance, that matters more. But that also suggests that we need to emphasize THAT aspect of it when covering it.

https://twitter.com/GenXPD/status/1370026161770663944?s=20