[mrinterweb]

"Conspiracy to Impede or Injure Officers" seems like a pretty broad category, and should be separate things. Conspiracy to impede is one thing. That might be applied to planning to be at a protest where you may be in the way of an officer. Injuring is a very different thing. Conflating the two into a single charge seems disproportionate. This conflation seems intentional to give an excuse to just round up anyone who plans to be at a protest, and charge them with a crime that has a punishment equal to assaulting an officer.

[like_any_other]

> a crime that has a punishment equal to assaulting an officer

I'd be very surprised if the punishments for impeding or injuring are equal, despite the two crimes being described in the same statute. Afaik sentencing guidelines take into account more than just the charge itself.

[malcolmgreaves]

Conspiracy to impede is unconstitutional, as people in the US have the right to peacefully assemble. If cops decide to illegally break up a protest, then they can say "oh you're impending me!" and no one actually has a 1st amendment right.

[maxlybbert]

The fact that Americans have a right to peaceful assembly doesn’t mean that every non-violent assembly is legal ( https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-3-1/A... , last sentence):

“the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’”

People complain about this all the time (“free speech zones”) but it’s been the law for decades.

See also https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights .

[AstralStorm]

What does a reasonable restriction make is up to the court to decide, not cops, and definitely not some federal agency.

There's a lot of precedent too, I'm sure.

So yeah, there's no real way to know ahead of time if any protest is or is not legal or legally impeded. That's not the case with continental law where it's defined ahead of time.

[maxlybbert]

I think the ACLU’s advice (which I linked to) is pretty clear about how to organize a legal protest. Sometimes the goal is to get arrested, but if you want to avoid that, then it’s not hard to do.

[throwawayffffas]

Taking this to its logical conclusion you should be able to walk up the hill, push aside the cops, enter the rotunda, occupy the chambers of Congress all within your first amendment rights.

There is nuance and balance to be had in law, your rights end where others begin.

[clipsy]

> Taking this to its logical conclusion you should be able to walk up the hill, push aside the cops, enter the rotunda, occupy the chambers of Congress all within your first amendment rights.

Isn't this exactly what the MAGA crowd has professed to believe since 1/6/2021?

[krapp]

And not just regarding the first amendment.

They were fine storming government buildings with guns in hand during covid. They considered the Bundy brothers and Kyle Rittenhouse to be heroes and patriots.

These rights are absolute and inalienable, granted by God as long as you're "white and right." Otherwise it's time to crack skulls.

[mrinterweb]

I'm certainly not advocating that "conspiracy to impede" should be illegal. I just feel that putting "impede" and "injure" together into a single charge seems like a way to deal excessive punishments in a way that could be very broadly interpreted.