When Does Protest Break the Law or Become Terrorism?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the question: when do constitutionally protected protests turn into crime or terrorism? Simon Hankinson asked, and then answered, this question in his article published at The Daily Signal.

When does protest start to break the law – or even become terrorism?

I’ll define terrorism as using violence to achieve political aims. Most criminals are not terrorists. So, who is? Let’s start with some easy ones.

The Irish Republican Army, Italy’s Red Brigades, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization all murdered and bombed military and civilian targets in pursuit of political goals. At the risk of oversimplifying, these were: ending British rule, establishing a Marxist-Leninist state, and creating a Palestinian state, respectively.

The goals of 1960s radical youth groups such as the Weather Underground in the U.S. and the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany were more vague; the overthrow of what they saw as the capitalist, imperialist, fascist countries they lived in; maybe world revolution. But still, terrorism.

Today, the Left intentionally makes things appear fuzzier. The 2020 demonstrations, looting, and violence in the wake of the death of George Floyd were not terrorism. We saw plenty of violence, and it was clearly political, but there was not a unified, clearly articulated goal. There was no list of things that the government of Portland, or Minneapolis, or even the federal government could have conceded that would have ended the whole thing and sent everyone home. It was inchoate rage against a vague, “oppressive” system with no specific or achievable policy proposals.

Now let’s look at the recent organized demonstrations against immigration enforcement.

In much of the country, ICE is going about its business of enforcing federal law. It is arresting aliens with no right to be here, many of whom have serious criminal charges or convictions. The most crucial assistance ICE needs is for local jurisdictions to honor their “detainers.” This means handing over criminal suspects or convicts, once their criminal process is complete, to ICE for immigration process.

In some major jurisdictions that refuse to do this, we see street violence: Los Angeles, Portland, and most of all Minneapolis….

Much of the conduct we have seen in Minneapolis is not “free speech” protected by the First Amendment. The protesters are not attempting to change anyone’s mind through discourse when they bang on pots at 3 in the morning. They are trying to change policy through physical means….

Activists follow ICE agents in their vehicles, claiming to be “legal observers,” but they also cross into deliberate obstruction, which puts them at risk. It’s also a felony under federal law: anyone who “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with” a federal agent can be charged and sentenced to up to eight years – 20 if they hurt an officer.

What about real or self-appointed journalists?

On Jan. 18, a group of people, including ex-CNN personality Don Lemon, entered a Minneapolis church, uninvited, during a service. At an agreed point, they broke into protest chants. They reportedly impeded church members from worshipping, moving freely, or exiting the building. Protest leaders berated the pastor and some church members. They did not leave after being clearly told they were not welcome….

Churches are private property….

No one’s right to speak freely trumps another person’s right to private property or to worship God. If it did, then any person could enter another’s house, office, or property and stage a protest without limits….

Though he was obnoxious and unwelcome, Lemon was not violent. He is potentially liable for trespass, which is a local offence….

The Minneapolis church invaders are potentially liable for federal crimes under the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act [FACE Act] and even the Ku Klux Klan Act….

A federal court will decide if Lemon and others broke the law by attempting to coerce political action through force. While the punishment need not be severe if this is their first offence, we need to lay down a national marker at the limits of acceptable behavior when we disagree with others politically.

We cannot allow individuals to force others to accept their views….