Trump Administration Wants to Tax Protests

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
To pay for "event management costs," allegedly.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/12/trump-administration-plans-crackdown-on-protests-outside-white-house?fbclid=IwAR0mh07gZolNAXwZyi5kjSX_-XnxWZTXvBXVwaMpoMPek9QpJFF9OyB1UCo

This isn't the first time the Federal government has tried doing something like this. The ACLU sued and the courts struck it down before.

This proposal is open to public comment until October 15, which is today. You can register comments here.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...apital-region-special-events-and#open-comment
 

Brightdreamer

Just Another Lazy Perfectionist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
12,937
Reaction score
4,453
Location
USA
Website
brightdreamersbookreviews.blogspot.com
This isn't the first time the Federal government has tried doing something like this. The ACLU sued and the courts struck it down before.

With the ongoing stacking of the courts and the partisan disaster that recently skipped into SCOTUS, we can't count on the courts to stop this if it goes through...
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
With the ongoing stacking of the courts and the partisan disaster that recently skipped into SCOTUS, we can't count on the courts to stop this if it goes through...

No we can't, and that's pretty darned scary.

For decades, the courts protected people from conservative legislators who wanted to disenfranchise anyone who wasn't a rich, white and straight male, a fetus, or a corporation. So those Conservative legislators have been not-so-quietly working to stack the courts. This is, imo, is why so many GOP legislators are standing by and allowing Trump to run rampant, even if he is an embarassment. They know he may hurt their party in the short run in terms of public perception. But even if they lose both houses or the presidency in upcoming years, that won't matter if they have justices in place who side with "conservative principles" like anti-environmentalism, corporate personhood, deregulation of businesses and corporations, discrimination against LGBT people, PoC, and women, voter suppression etc.

One thing I have to say about conservatives--they are good at looking at what has worked for liberals and using it to their own end, whether it be the language of civil rights (now white males and Christians are marginalized minorities) or filling courts with justices who have a very conservative view of what is constitutional.

Hopefully, there is still enough sanity on our courts to prevail for now. But it would be nice if the courts weren't the only thing standing between us and the dissolution of our basic rights.
 

Larry M

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
331
Location
Texas
Website
www.amazon.com
Violating the 1st Amendment seems to be the rallying cry of this "administration." I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but it sure seems to me that taxing protests amounts to abridging the right to peaceably assemble (not that those people care about such things.)
 
Last edited:

Tazlima

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
1,492
Wow, I read over the proposal, and it's horrible. Whoever wrote it is sneaky, too. They start each section with things that seem harmless, or even beneficial, and slip the nasty stuff in further down, where people are more likely to skim if they're just giving the thing a cursory glance (or, like me, trying to read it in a rush on the DL at work).

I left the following comment:

There are innumerable issues with this proposal, and I don't have time to go into all of them, so I'll focus on just a few, beginning with this change in definitions:


1) "The NPS proposes to streamline these regulations by defining the term “events,” which would mean both demonstrations and special events, as those terms are defined in sections 2.50 and 2.51"


Demonstrations and special events, as they're currently defined ARE and SHOULD REMAIN separate entities. Demonstrations involve protected speech and are a vital part of the political process, while special events are, essentially, entertainment. The suggestion in the wording of this document, that because demonstrations can potentially be entertaining they should be treated identically, is patentently ridiculous. They were originally listed separately for good reasons, and those reasons haven't changed.


2) There should be NO fees for demonstrations - the current regulations have this right and should not be altered.


Money is the currency of power, while demonstrations are the last civil recourse of the powerless. Those with the least money have the most pressing need to voice their grievances, and "indigency waivers" are NOT an acceptable solution. The rich would be unaffected - paying such fees without difficulty, while the poor would be forced to grovel and beg, reveal their income and tax history, and (should their indigency waiver be denied after the fact), risk financial hardship in order to exercise their right to demonstrate. At that point, it's no longer a right, but a privilege.


3) If you want to increase the maximum number of non-permitted demonstrators in various places as detailed in this proposal, have at it. I'm all for increasing the right of the public to demonstrate.


However, the proposed decreases and restrictions? Absolutely not.


If the Whitehouse finds it inconvenient to see protestors outside the window, the solution is not to remove the protestors, but to correct those things being protested.


And restricting protests around the various national monuments, under the claim that such places should be used for quiet contemplation...I find it particularly ironic that the Martin Luther King Jr. momument would be selected for this treatment. Who, more than MLK, would recognize the tremendous importance of having the unadulterated freedom to raise one's voice in protest?


4) Overall, this proposal is an abomination - an attempt to silence free speech under the guise of fianancial and security concerns. However, security hasn't been an issue in all the time such demonstrations have been going on. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and as far as finances are concerned, the NPS is paid for with tax dollars. If they're in need of additional financial resources, the solution isn't to make people pay for the privilege of exercising their rights, but to recieve adequate funding from the government that's been tasked with doing so. It's a government of the people and by the people, but most of all, it's supposed to be FOR the people. Otherwise, what use is it?
 
Last edited:

Brightdreamer

Just Another Lazy Perfectionist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
12,937
Reaction score
4,453
Location
USA
Website
brightdreamersbookreviews.blogspot.com
Violating the 1st Amendment seems to be the rallying cry of this "administration." I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but it sure seems to me that taxing protests amounts to abridging the right to peaceably assemble (not that those people care about such things.)

If this goes through, it is (further) proof that the Constitution itself is directly in the crosshairs of this regime, and they've got all three branches locked and loaded and ready to fire.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
23,914
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
If this goes through, it is (further) proof that the Constitution itself is directly in the crosshairs of this regime, and they've got all three branches locked and loaded and ready to fire.

Are we not already convinced of this?

I dearly hope they listen to the comments on this proposal. I say this because cynicism too often breeds inaction, and that's a sure way to failure.

But damn, I'm cynical.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
23,914
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
Just submitted my own comment, and noticed this banner at the top of the form:

"The Regulations.gov API is experiencing intermittent issues at this time. If you experience any errors when submitting your comment here you can try again in a few moments or directly at https://www.regulations.gov."

I'm now waiting for the inevitable "Oh, we got spammed by Russian bots; everybody loves this rule!" declaration.
 

Tazlima

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
1,492
I saw that message, too. It seems to have accepted my comment without problems, but it hasn't yet been posted on the public side. How long does it normally take?
 

Larry M

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
331
Location
Texas
Website
www.amazon.com
Are we not already convinced of this?

I dearly hope they listen to the comments on this proposal. I say this because cynicism too often breeds inaction, and that's a sure way to failure.

But damn, I'm cynical.

Yes, I’m convinced. And yes, I’m also cynical.
 

Larry M

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
331
Location
Texas
Website
www.amazon.com
If this goes through, it is (further) proof that the Constitution itself is directly in the crosshairs of this regime, and they've got all three branches locked and loaded and ready to fire.

The formerly effective ‘checks and balances’ effectively eliminated.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,748
Reaction score
6,435
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Violating the 1st Amendment seems to be the rallying cry of this "administration." I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but it sure seems to me that taxing protests amounts to abridging the right to peaceably assemble (not that those people care about such things.)
It's not just fees, it's also limiting locations protests can be held.

Cadet Snowflake doesn't want to see anyone protesting his fine self. ACLU: Trump Administration Seeks to Stifle Protests Near White House and on National Mall
Now, the Trump administration proposes to dramatically limit the right to demonstrate near the White House and on the National Mall, including in ways that would violate court orders that have stood for decades. The proposal would close 80 percent of the White House sidewalk, put new limits on spontaneous demonstrations, and open the door to charging fees for protesting.

Fee requirements could make mass protests like Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic 1963 March on Washington and its “I have a dream” speech too expensive to happen.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,748
Reaction score
6,435
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
ACLU call for callers.
We need you help to call as many voters as possible through election day in these key states so that civil rights and civil liberties win on November 6th!

We will provide you with everything you need - a script, training resources, and the means to call voters in these key states, you just need a phone and a computer or tablet. Let’s do this.

Charge up your devices and check for locations near you.

Near me, Mercer Island has one on Wed evening and one on Sat at 10am. I think I can make one of those.
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
8,315
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
DC today, your town tomorrow.

The ONLY thing that's going to stop this madness is putting a congressional check on this dictator and it's not looking good for the Senate.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Dominoes are falling. Mohammed bin-Salman, the young, sexy, autocratic de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, has now shown Bone Spurs the next step forward, by assassinating journalist Khashoggi, in a Saudi consulate no less, and trying to bluster his way out of it. So . . . maybe Jake Tapper turns up deceased in a hotel bathroom, or Anderson Cooper in a mysterious auto accident. I really don't think these kinds of events are beyond possibility any more.

caw
 

Brightdreamer

Just Another Lazy Perfectionist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
12,937
Reaction score
4,453
Location
USA
Website
brightdreamersbookreviews.blogspot.com
DC today, your town tomorrow.

The ONLY thing that's going to stop this madness is putting a congressional check on this dictator and it's not looking good for the Senate.

Yeah, November's pretty much our last shot at... anything. We're already full steam ahead into fascist territory.

Dominoes are falling. Mohammed bin-Salman, the young, sexy, autocratic de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, has now shown Bone Spurs the next step forward, by assassinating journalist Khashoggi, in a Saudi consulate no less, and trying to bluster his way out of it. So . . . maybe Jake Tapper turns up deceased in a hotel bathroom, or Anderson Cooper in a mysterious auto accident. I really don't think these kinds of events are beyond possibility any more.

caw

I don't expect they'll bother to be that circumspect. None of the dictatorships the regime aspires to are.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,553
Reaction score
6,362
Location
west coast, canada
Just submitted my own comment, and noticed this banner at the top of the form:

"The Regulations.gov API is experiencing intermittent issues at this time. If you experience any errors when submitting your comment here you can try again in a few moments or directly at https://www.regulations.gov."

I'm now waiting for the inevitable "Oh, we got spammed by Russian bots; everybody loves this rule!" declaration.
Have you tried resubmitting it (copy/paste) to any other government numbers you have, (congressmen, senators, etc) with the header "In case my protest comment 'vanishes', or is 'never received', I want you to know how I feel"?
 
Last edited:

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,553
Reaction score
6,362
Location
west coast, canada
I just read the Paul Allen thread. How he was a generous philanthropist he was. What America needs is a billionaire with a few spare millions to step up and say "Here, have a couple of protests on me!"
Much like the anecdote about the place with the 25 cents a swear jar, guy comes in, throws in a $5 bill, and declares, "It's been a really bad day!"

Has Elon Musk got any money left? He seems to like a big fuss.

If free speech is no longer free in the U.S.A., come up to Canada and shout across the line. At least you'll be covered by the CBC!

Or 'Crowdfund a crowd!'

But, yes, fight hard, fight on, brave friends!
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I've contacted my two senators and my representative about this proposed policy change. I don't know what they can do specifically, but I asked them to do what they can to bring it to public attention and to make sure it is opposed in the Senate and in the House.

Time to give more money to the ACLU.
 

Technophobe

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
147
Reaction score
21
You know what would significantly lower "event management costs"? Stop doing so many things people need to protest. Most people don't protest against governments that are actually doing what they're supposed to.
 

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,577
Reaction score
7,220
Location
Wash., D.C. area
I'm not commenting on any of the comments people posted here (thanks fornsharing yours, Tazlima!), but the following tips for submitting public comments is aimed at scientists, but could be helpful.

One piece of advice I got during a town hall is to highlight (and support with evidence or personal anecdotes) what would be lost if the decision went counter to your position. At that town hall, regarding net neutrality, the former FCC chair said personal stories of how you have benefited and what abilities you will lose go a long way. In this case, many people mentioned how net neutrality provided employment for people in rural areas or homebound people with disabilities. The law under discussion at that time viewed the internet as an entertainment service and not how many people connect to income. Poor example I know, as the bill passed anyway, but all of my public comments try to highlight these types of consequences.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
23,914
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
Isn't the traditional Republican position in favour of small government?

My political memory only goes back to 1980 or so, but I've never known a republican administration that actually walks the small government walk. "Small government" is a dog-whistle to rich folks that means "we'll tax you less, we promise."

Amazingly, the phrase has worked well for them, even when they've broken the implicit promise.

(All of which is a vast oversimplification of the GOP message and why it resonates with the people it resonates with. But it's a big chunk of it, and with us having been an oligarchy for a while now, it's probably the most politically influential chunk.)