#protestrights

In communities across the United States, public demonstrations and peaceful protests have long been a powerful way for people to demand accountability, express their beliefs, and stand up for justice. Whether advocating for civil rights, government reform, workplace protections, or social change, the right to assemble and speak freely is deeply rooted in the U.S. Constitution. However, many people are still unsure about what they can legally do during a protest and what law enforcement can and cannot do in response.

Tweeting, Protesting, and Policing Free Speech 

How did the Patriot Act institutionalize previously illegal surveillance practices, and what are the implications for civil liberties? 

The Patriot Act formalized many surveillance practices previously conducted unlawfully, such as unauthorized wiretapping and email monitoring. By reducing the legal standards for obtaining FISA warrants, the Act essentially granted federal agencies near-automatic surveillance powers under vague justifications like “foreign intelligence.” This expansion eroded civil liberties, weakening the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. As Parenti notes, “the cumulative overall effect of such measures is corrosive of popular democratic rights and traditions” (2003, p. 200), signifying a dangerous normalization of state overreach in the name of national security. 

In what ways did government surveillance initiatives like TIA and SEVIS redefine the relationship between the state and ordinary citizens, particularly immigrants? 

Programs like Total Information Awareness (TIA) and SEVIS dramatically reshaped the state-citizen relationship by transforming everyday behavior into data points for suspicion and control. SEVIS, for instance, turned universities into surveillance tools, requiring them to report foreign student activities. TIA sought to integrate all aspects of civilian life - from health records to library use - into a massive database. These efforts institutionalize distrust and racial profiling, particularly targeting immigrants and non-citizens. As Parenti argues, such surveillance “subordinate[s] the population” (2003, p. 203), creating a society where being watched becomes the norm, not the exception. 

What does the failure of the TIPS program reveal about public attitudes toward mass surveillance, and how did it reflect broader concerns about state power? 

The public backlash against the Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), which aimed to recruit citizens as informants, revealed deep unease about mass surveillance and state overreach. The program’s failure, despite high-level support, underscored Americans’ resistance to becoming instruments of state control, especially in their private lives. As Parenti notes, the program’s premise - a society “where citizens mistrust each other” and rely on unchecked state power - was fundamentally flawed (2003, p. 204). TIPS’ collapse showed that even post-9/11, the public maintained critical limits on how far they would tolerate surveillance, especially when it blurred into authoritarianism. 

To what extent does the criminalization of Twitter-based protest coordination reflect broader concerns about the erosion of free speech in digital spaces? 

The criminalization of Elliot Madison and Michael Wallschlaeger’s Twitter activity highlights a troubling trend where digital free speech intersects with law enforcement overreach. As Power notes, Madison’s lawyer called the charges “absolutely protected speech” (2010, p. 2).  The incident reflects fears that tools used for public assembly are being reframed as criminal threats. The irony is stark when Power recalls that “the State Department asked Twitter to delay scheduled maintenance” during Iranian protests, supporting the same conduct abroad that was punished as home (2010, p. 2). This contradiction suggests a selective application of free speech, especially when dissent challenges domestic authority. 

How does the vague language of federal anti-riot statutes allow for subjective and potentially abusive legal interpretations? 

Federal anti-riot statutes, such as 18 USC §2101, are criticized for their vagueness and potential to criminalize lawful dissent. Power writes that the law enables prosecution for merely attempting to “organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot” (2010, p. 3), a language so broad it risks encompassing peaceful protest coordination. Lawyer Martin Stolar warns this “starts to criminalize dissent, to conflate terrorism with demonstrations” (Power, 2010, p. 3). The undefined scope allows law enforcement to use these laws preemptively or punitively, especially against marginalized or politically unpopular groups, undermining constitutional protections for protest and free expression. 

Word Count: 481 

Parenti, C. (2003). Fear as Institution: 9/11 and Surveillance Triumphant. In The Soft Cage. Basic Books.

Article by: Isaac Smoler Schatz

On Tuesday, May 21st, we went to the Right2Know Campaign office in Braamfontein, Johannesburg. The organization's core tenets focus on protest rights, communication rights, and participation in civil society. The scope of activities and projects in progress span from organizing protest marches in the Gauteng Province (which contains Johannesburg and Pretoria), driving litigation proceedings against telecom corporations and government agencies, and providing legal consulting and support for under-served groups.

We had the opportunity to meet with Thami Nkosi, Gauteng Province Campaigns Organizer, who explained the organization’s mission, some of the actions they’ve taken so far, and insights into the dense political history of South Africa’s young democracy. Although he condemned many practices by both politicians and civilians, he did so in such an eloquent and well-articulated manner that his passion, frustration, and hope for what the future holds for political discourse in this country showed. He stated that despite the effects of corruption permeating the executive and legislative branches of government, the bastion of democratic hope is alive thanks to the judiciary. Right2Know seeks amendments to the Protection of State Information Bill and opposes other legislation and policies that broaden state secrecy. In the private sector, R2K advocates for closer government oversight and regulation of telecom giants like MTN-SA, Vodacom, and Cell C who are culpable for some of the lack of accessibility to information due to price fixing and unreliable service for rural customers. Thami praised the judicial system that has delivered critical decisions ensuring the integrity of the other branches of government for its accountability to the people of South Africa.