Home | About | Donate

'Vague, Overly Broad, and Sweeping in Scope': Lawsuits Take Aim at Efforts to Criminalize Anti-Pipeline Protests

'Vague, Overly Broad, and Sweeping in Scope': Lawsuits Take Aim at Efforts to Criminalize Anti-Pipeline Protests

Eoin Higgins, staff writer

A Louisiana lawsuit filed Wednesday aimed at laws targeting pipeline protesters is the latest front in a battle over freedom of speech and environmentally damaging infrastructure projects.

"As more of these laws begin to appear (and pass!), more environmentalists are taking a stand. They must."
—Yessenia Funes

1 Like

Hey Protest Organizers: your targets are the people who are writing these bills. Take action against Them in self defense Before it becomes law. Do it now!

3 Likes

Of course …
It’s the PIPELINE BUILDERS
who display CRIMINAL behavior !!
… in case you still wondered WHO is really represented
in our “government.”

1 Like

Since I know the administration is ok with this from the Guaido plan, I’m declaring myself a sitting Supreme Court Justice as of right now. I will replace Gorsuch, who was seated illegally. I expect him to vacate the court by 5:00 pm., eastern time today. My first order of business is to strike down every law that violates the US Constitution and condemn my fellow justices for allowing these laws to stand in the first place (by the way, did I mention I will also be the Chief justice, so lets get the impeachment process going also).

3 Likes

These used to be called SLAPP—Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation—but they used to be filed by the Corporate Victim © itself. The Corporate Victim would always have deeper pockets than the protestors, and, win or lose, would therefore achieve the desired results of weakening the protestors financially, and intimidating like-minded others.

But now the Corporate Victim has the even deeper pockets of the state behind it, plus the state’s monopoly on the lawful use of force. The Bill of Rights is clear on the subject, but those legislators who passed these bills can’t see it because they have all that oil money blurring their vision. Where is the clear-eyed judge who will uphold the rule of law?

Which brings me to my other question: if the pipelines are privately owned and operated for the purpose of turning a profit, by what Orwellian doublethink can they be held to be “public” infrastructure??

4 Likes

All the laws passed by the euro invaders of Turtle Island and their current crop of descendants have trespassed on the critical infrastructure of the First Nations. My argument would be that the indigenous people have the right and duty to resist this atrocity as a means to make adjustments necessary to not only their lives but Life in the broadest sense.

1 Like

This is why the white, propertied white males, also known as the Founding Fathers, put the Commerce Clause into the Constitution in the first place. We can’t legally stop trains loaded with highly combustible tar sands oil from traveling through our communities, or pipelines, etc. Highways, railroad tracks, pipelines, electric transmission lines, etc are all public infrastructure. It has nothing to do with who owns them or profits from them.

Our entire system of law and governance is not working for the people or planet. It is rigged to serve the elite and profits for the already wealthy. Period.

As citizens and communities, we are faced with two choices at this point - peaceful revolution (making the “Machine” STOP entirely), and/or a Constitutional Convention of all of the States and territories.

3 Likes

This is worse than “can’t legally stop.” Now it’s “can’t legally protest.” I get the argument that society at large benefits from some of these projects, so I want to know why society at large doesn’t own them, maintain them safely, and operate them on a non-profit basis, if in fact they can’t be eliminated entirely.

Be afraid of what you wish for. The Kochroaches have been pushing their balanced-budget amendment for years, hoping to bring about just such a convention, which, as I understand it, couldn’t be limited to an up-or-down vote on just the one amendment, but could conceivably turn us, presto change-o, from the USofA into the Republic of Gilead—their overarching goal.

1 Like

Guild, theoretically the “public” owns the railroad tracks, the federal highway system, our national forests, etc. Because of the commerce clause and interstate law, it really doesn’t matter. As to the oil and gas pipelines, this is totally a commercial project that is not paid for by tax dollars. Once this stuff gets it’s permits through the federal regulatory process, the for profit project is done. And they can use eminent domain to force these projects on to private land and indigenous territories whether they want it or not.

Again, our Constitution is basically a document that protects property. And EVERYTHING is legally considered property. The exception being inalienable rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The latter having evolved into just a “piece of paper” with no teeth except for the corporate “people” that have usurped most of those human rights in the US.

Again, we the People are not going to get anywhere under our current Federal Constitution. I know that calling a Constitutional Convention is paved withed danger, but our alternative is slavery, poverty, and extinction of most species on Earth.

Got any better ideas?

The protest to prison pipeline, or the pipeline protest to prison

Moves to restrict the rights of all Americans to protest, and punish them horribly for doing so will eventually lead to a rise in home grown attacks on the same corporations and groups intent on using their money and power to stifle the voices of those who see the criminality in their quest to profit at any cost.

If we aren’t careful we will see the rise of liars, hypocrites, boot licking lap dogs, greedy politicians willing to screw the public, and Miami Beach-- beach balls starting to float on their own. OH. we already have all of that? That sucks.

Unless I’m very much mistaken, the railroad tracks are owned by the likes of Amtrak and Conrail; you’re correct about the federal highway system and national parks however.

As you say, “…peaceful revolution (making the “Machine” STOP entirely);” or as another of our resident geniuses puts it, “total, roliing Gandhian non-cooperation.”