Holy shit, Max. Is there ever going to be a time you do not lie about this shit? Ever?
The law mentions once that the property must be enclosed, but then it says in the same sentence “or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that are posted on the property that are reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders and indicate that entry is forbidden without site authorization” - which is the sentence you use in your proof the bill is reasonable because it must be a fenced in property! Not only that, by the critical infrastructure definitions include telecommunications infrastructure I have in my suburban backyard!
I’d like to see it go to court for a demonstrations against a pipeline going to the gulf for export. That infrastructure is only “critical” to shareholders.
I do not understand the tactic of accusing people of lying if they point out facts that you wish were not true. And I never made the claim that the bill is reasonable, just that it does not prohibit political protest, unless that protest involves trespassing, at a minimum.
It is only three pages of text, written in plain English. the subject of the law is about penalties for trespassers on “critical infrastructure”. It defines “critical infrastructure” as places on the list, but only if they are completely enclosed with a physical barrier or clearly marked with proper “no trespassing” signage. if there is no barrier or signage, it is not critical infrastructure IAW the law. If the infrastructure in your yard is not surrounded by a barrier or the signage, or is not located in Oklahoma, this law does not apply. Others laws might.
"A. Any person who shall willfully trespass or enter property containing a critical infrastructure facility without permission…If it is determined the intent of the trespasser is to willfully damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, tamper with
equipment, or impede or inhibit operations of the facility…
"D. As used in this section, “critical infrastructure facility” means:
One of the following, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that are posted on the property that are reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders and indicate that entry is forbidden without site authorization:"…
Any above ground portion of an oil, gas, hazardous liquid or chemical pipeline, tank, railroad facility or other storage facility that is enclosed by a fence, other physical barrier or is clearly marked with signs prohibiting trespassing, that are obviously designed to exclude intruders.
I would think that a person hanging a sign would be trespassing, if they had to trespass to hang the sign. If they did not trespass, it would just be a legal protest.
Has anyone else noticed that in every single conservative state human rights, civil liberties, and democratic rights are not only under attack, but are rapidly degrading?
Blocking the driveway of a facility would legally be trespassing and thus a violation of the law and potentially a decade in jail, even if it’s not within a fenced areas, as that’s still on their property - not to mention that any area that isn’t fenced needs only a sign (which are pretty ubiquitous).
And while this whole law is clearly designed to prevent another Dakota Access Pipeline situation, which for the government is already completely indefensible, it has the added benefit of potentially making picketing strikers in violation of the law as well, as long as they work in any of the types of facilities mentioned.
Where I live, the trespassing laws are based on either having a fence or having regularly spaced and obvious signs. Much of my land is not fenced, but remains private and is marked by signs. This allows wildlife to pass through freely, but warns people that they are not allowed to fish or hunt there. I am assuming that the OK law was written with the goal of conforming to similar laws there.
Where the law mentions “or impede or inhibit operations of the facility”, it only does so in reference to trespassers. So the wise thing would seem to be to study the local trespassing laws before engaging in such an action. [quote=“James_Lovette-Black, post:27, topic:100509, full:true”]
Has anyone else noticed that in every single conservative state human rights, civil liberties, and democratic rights are not only under attack, but are rapidly degrading?
[/quote]
I would think that my right to uninterrupted power for my child’s incubator or my dialysis machine, if I needed those things, would fall under rights and liberties. I cannot see how taking measures to prevent people from disrupting or destroying those is infringing on their rights. Pretty much all of the facilities mentioned primarily serve to provide citizens with water, electricity, fuel, or communications. If someone thinks that they have the right to unilaterally deprive me of these things because of their political views, I think they are wrong.
And if you seem to think there’s not a concerted monied interest in and effort toward shutting down protests against activities that degrade the environment and threaten accidents that massively degrade the environment and many people’s lives. If so, you’re dead wrong.
You seem to like nature and animals and stuff – why is that concerted monied effort to degrade the environment for the enrichening sake of a few already wealthy people of so little interest to you?
Actually, no. Trespassing technically requires neither a sign nor a fence; one simply has to inform someone on the property that they’re not allowed there. So protestors blocking a driveway, who are asked to leave, are trespassing. (Of course, they’d be asked to leave even if they’re not trespassing, but…) One can easily end up trespassing without being aware of it, and the people you’re protesting aren’t going to be the ones to correctly inform you. But again, this law is obviously targeting Dakota Access Pipeline situations, which is completely indefensible, so all these “you’re killing my baby by blocking electricity” bullshit is a disingenuous distraction. Given the range of “infrastructure” mentioned, you might as well argue, “My baby needs toxic waste, you monsters!”
The law does seem tailor-made for a variety of such situations - shutting down all manner of protests about pollution.
This is true for quite a bit of the “critical infrastructure” listed.
[quote=“Max_Blancke, post:25, topic:100509”]
And I never made the claim that the bill is reasonable
[/quote]Then I’m not sure what you are saying, because repeatedly defending the law sure looks that way - and I know that it has been explained to you many times that defending a position is communicating an endorsement of that position.
And it is a lie of omission. You are refusing to address the point that the law gives a wide birth to what could be considered reasonable with regards to personal signage, and in this post you are dancing around the fact that my home by this law’s definition would be “critical infrastructure” if it was located a few hundred miles north.
This is a sloppy product of legislation aimed to make trespassing penalties worse for a specific group of people and organizations. Period. It is literally aimed at making misdemeanor trespassing into a felony! That’s absurd!
You are misrepresenting my views. I think most oil companies are led by people who are lower than pond scum. They should be held to very high standards to protect against pollution, and punished severely when they fail to do so.
But I do not agree with our friends from Earth First! or any of the other groups that believe the solution is to just immediately stop all use of fossil fuels, by any means necessary.
I do think that to do so would lead to massive worldwide ecological disaster. It would be fairly inconvenient for people in my situation, but those people who rely more heavily on the global transport grid for food, medicine, and water would face disaster. I do at least try to give those activists the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they have just not really thought their position out to it’s logical conclusion. But they have the right to believe things that seem absurd to me, as long as that belief does not lead them to try to smash up the “critical infrastructure”.
But the law under discussion requires those places to be fenced or conspicuously posted . I also get that you are not keen on the use of pipelines. I personally feel that pipelines are safer than moving the petroleum by rail or truck.
Trespassing under the law remains a misdemeanor. So it is literally not turning the act of trespassing into a felony. It does seem over harsh on “defacing”.
I understand that many people feel that they should have the right to shut down or destroy power plants, dams, and the other facilities listed as some form of protest. Most people disagree with that position. You may shut off your own power and water, and I doubt anyone will complain.
Am I to understand that you live in one of the types of facilities listed?
Trespassing with intent of a very broad set of qualifications is a felony with minimum fine of $10K under the law.
Yes, my property includes telecommunication access for fiber and copper wires. Because the law doesn’t define facilities alone, it defines tiny hubs that are common easements and shit to be critical infrastructure. I’m pretty sure some of the natural gas lines around here qualify too despite being empty grass stripes of land with a sign posted every half a mile or so saying it’s privately owned natural gas lines.
This is the textbook example of a law designed specifically to target a huge swath of people using the justification of a few isolated events. A felony charge that is based entirely on intent is exactly how racist laws are made, except this one is squarely aimed at one of the fundamental freedoms of the US.
I won’t defend the dangerous behaviors some of these protesters have taken to shut down lines and risk serious injuries and ecological disaster to impede pipelines, but I will defend people causing slowdowns and stoppages through protesting. @Shuck also brings up a great point that this affects worker organized protests too, which I will also defend.
[quote=“Max_Blancke, post:33, topic:100509”]
or conspicuously posted
[/quote]Stop saying this. The laws says the signs must meet the standard that someone would “reasonably” encounter a “clearly marked” no trespassing sign while on the property. It lays out zero standards for what is reasonable, or what is clearly marked at all. If you look at any proper regulation about required tags/signage they make this extremely clear.
Ok, not “conspicuously posted”, but “clearly marked”, and “obviously designed to exclude intruders”
But if you believe that you cannot effectively protest without trespassing and engaging in the other behaviors listed, then I suggest you avoid Oklahoma. Please do me the favor of not doing it in Southern Colorado or Northern New Mexico, either.
But it might bear remembering that people are pretty serious about protecting critical infrastructure for a reason. Homeland security defines it as follows:The term “critical infrastructure” has the meaning provided in section 1016(e) of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)), namely systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.
So we are not talking about shutting down an amusement park or restricting people’s access to a strip club. Those communications access points in your yard enable people’s access to emergency services and basic communications, as well as commerce. That pipeline might fuel a power plant, which likely has very limited reserve supplies. Sure, a bunch of that power (and the telecommunications) is used to allow people to watch cat videos. But it also keeps the refrigeration running on the fresh food supply, and those heart/lung machines at the hospital. So you don’t get to disrupt that stuff.
I don’t think there has ever been a time where it was acceptable to shut down people’s access to such things. The main difference here is that the law allows prosecution of organizations complicit in those acts.
Personally, although I accept that the idea of shutting everything down might be politically appealing, the reality of doing so is probably not going to make you super popular among those people who find themselves suddenly in the dark.
But do what you feel you must.
Max out.
But my point is it would still apply to portions of that property, which are not fenced in, making it apply far more broadly than you suggest.
The issue with the DAP is not that “pipelines = bad”. However you feel about pipelines, that situation is a gross miscarriage of justice and violation of decency, and the indigenous people being affected are quite right to be protesting with every means available to them. To create a law specifically to target such protest is utterly grotesque, morally bankrupt and shameful.
I’m not surprised that you have a lot more to say about what you see as the singleminded idiocy of protect-the-earth protesters than you do about the destructive mendacity of greedy corporate overlords. That our social order is set up to serve the latter, and also to crush the former in further service to the latter, clearly doesn’t bother you, as long is your own comforts and conveniences remain in place.
Where did you get the idea that Earth First! fights to “just immediately stop all use of fossil fuels, by any means necessary”? I see nothing to that effect on their About page, nor any such single-mindedness in their actions. Actually, it sounds like some of them are people you’d agree with about a lot of things:
While there is broad diversity within Earth First! from animal rights vegans to wilderness hunting guides, from shrill voices to careful followers of Gandhi, from whiskey-drinking backwoods riffraff to thoughtful philosophers, from misanthropes to humanists there is agreement on one thing, the need for action!
My sense is that for some reason, you hate “protesters.” You repeatedly reduce them to a cartoonish, singlemindedly destructive monolith, and then dismiss them and their actions. Which strikes me as strange, because so many of them are fighting for the preservation of a lot of what you too seem to find worth fighting for.
