An act that is dangerous to property or infrastructure and appears intended to influence the policy of a government is an act of terrorism.
So all protesters could be classified as terrorists under this definition? Am I misreading this?
An act that is dangerous to property or infrastructure and appears intended to influence the policy of a government is an act of terrorism.
So all protesters could be classified as terrorists under this definition? Am I misreading this?
welcome to the sad reality of our "democracy".
If picketers outside of a Planned Parenthood were to, say, violently assault women trying to enter the building to instill fear and keep women away. Is that not terrorism?
Remember terrorism is much broader than foreign nationals crashing planes and planting roadside bombs.
An act that is dangerous to property or infrastructure and appears intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. The "by intimidation or coercion" seems to rule out most protests; although protests may result in the damage of property or infrastructure, said damage is most likely not intended to be coercive or intimidating.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulte_Homes,_Inc._v._Laborers%...
You're heavily stramanning the definition. Nowhere near all protesters endanger human life, property, or infrastructure, and showing where voting desires are is clearly not what is meant by 'intimidation'. The vast majority of protesters do not do any of these things, hence the vast majority do not satisfy the quoted definition.
In other words, I'm full of shit unless someone backs it up.
It takes a lot of willpower to keep to the moral high road when you can see the folks walking on it ahead of you getting their asses kicked.
The rights to free speech and petition for redress in the U.S. are not universally respected by those targeted by the criticism.
In that context, placing a protester on a watchlist has all the appearance of malicious retaliation for exercise of a protected right.
Discontent will generate some form of expression, whether you like it or not.
So if you will arrest angry people for blocking vehicular traffic and disturbing the peace, there is less incentive for them to march in the streets, and a greater incentive to do things less subject to identification and retaliation. For instance, someone might instead violate health codes when the state's agents are ordering food from their restaurant.
The more you close off and punish the relatively less harmful means of venting discontent, the more likely you are to see more harmful means, such as riots. And likewise, if those less harmful means are seen as relatively ineffective, people will do other things.
So putting protesters on a terrorist watchlist is, in a way, a form of self-fulfilling prophecy.