mastouille.fr est l'un des nombreux serveurs Mastodon indépendants que vous pouvez utiliser pour participer au fédiverse.
Mastouille est une instance Mastodon durable, ouverte, et hébergée en France.

Administré par :

Statistiques du serveur :

585
comptes actifs

#facecovering

0 message0 participant0 message aujourd’hui

#VictoriaAustralia’s draconian new #AntiProtest laws will have a chilling effect on #FreeSpeech — and won’t keep anyone safe

Far-reaching anti-protest measures and giving police more repressive powers only serve to increase the risk of escalating violence.

by Sarah Schwartz, Jul 9, 2025

"In response to the weekend’s attack on the East Melbourne Hebrew Congregation, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has announced she will forge ahead with new anti-protest measures and more #police powers.

"In doing so, she is following what has become the new normal for state governments across the country: using acts of racism and violence as a pretext to #ClampDown on unrelated democratic rights.

"Taking to the streets in peaceful protest is one of the main ways for people to come together and express our political views when our representatives aren’t listening to us. But this right is not without limits. Every person has a right to worship in safety. The attack on East Melbourne Synagogue was not a protest; it was an act of antisemitism. The suspect has been apprehended and charged with a multitude of criminal offences.

"Two other incidents over the weekend, the targeting of a business with ties to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation — a US-backed #Israeli organisation linked to the massacres of unarmed #Palestinians seeking aid — and a weapons company with links to the Israeli military, are also being referred to as justifying new laws. It is important not to conflate these actions against Israel with an attack against a Jewish place of worship. International human rights law, as well as our current laws, already place limits on protests that involve intimidation and violence.

"So what is actually being proposed in response? The Allan government is suggesting the creation of a new criminal offence for wearing a #FaceCovering at peaceful protests, banning 'dangerous attachment devices' (e.g. a #chain, a #BikeLock) — which have long been used in non-violent civil disobedience — and #criminalising peaceful protests around places of religious worship.

"The ban on face coverings would be a first in #Australia. It would mirror measures used in #authoritarian states that force people to submit themselves to various forms of #StateSurveillance.

"#VictoriaPolice has been using facial recognition software for years without any regulatory or legislative framework to prevent breaches of privacy. This technology, combined with a ban on face coverings at protests, would essentially amount to an obligation on behalf of individuals to submit to surveillance by the state, corporations and other groups that surveil protesters.

"Unless you’re a #MiningCompany spending hundreds of millions buying politicians’ favour or can wine and dine decision-makers, peaceful protest is one of the main ways for people to hold governments and corporations to account. Protests for the eight-hour workday, #WomensRights, #FirstNationsRights and the #AntiWar movement have led to significant improvements in all of our lives.
Know something?

"Many people attending protests wear face coverings to protect their privacy and anonymity. For temporary migrants, the consequences of identification can include visa cancellation and detention. #FarRight groups, abusers of gender-based violence and other political groups have all been documented as engaging in doxing, surveillance and retaliatory violence against people identified at peaceful protests.

"Even with exemptions, a ban would mean that people who wear facemasks for reasons of health, disability status, or religious or cultural reasons would be at risk of police targeting and made to justify their use of a face mask.

"Adding new repressive police powers against peaceful protesters only serves to increase the risk of escalating violence at already heightened public demonstrations. People will not stop taking to the streets on issues they care about, even if the state tries to stifle their voices. Donald #Trump’s deployment of the #NationalGuard in response to protests in LA shows us how deploying more state force at protests increases rather than decreases the risk of violence.

"A ban on protests outside or within a certain proximity to places of worship would mean police could arrest those engaging in peaceful protests for a genuine, non-discriminatory purpose — for example, protests by survivors of #ClergySexualAbuse or by congregants against the political activities of their own religious institutions.

"It would also have the unintended consequence of rendering large areas of the state no-go zones for peaceful protest, due to the high number of places of worship. Similar laws in #NSW are already being challenged for their #unconstitutionality.

"Taken together, this suite of laws, which would provide police with extraordinary powers against people peacefully raising their voices against #injustice, would have a chilling effect, deterring #MarginalisedGroups from attending protests and exercising their rights to freedom of expression, which the Victorian government has sought to protect.

"Ultimately, banning face coverings at peaceful protests and banning protests outside places of worship would not have done anything to prevent what occurred over the weekend. Premier Allan knows this. Yet she is stuck in the same reactive law-and-order merry-go-round that saw NSW Premier Chris Minns enact fear-based, repressive anti-protest measures in response to what we now know was an opportunistic criminal conspiracy.

"Encouraging people to express their political views peacefully is the antidote to non-peaceful forms of protest and is something that all governments should be encouraging and facilitating. At times like this, we should be able to trust our politicians not to fuel division and panic through misguided and knee-jerk responses, but to take measures to address the root causes of racism and hatred."

crikey.com.au/2025/07/09/victo

Crikey · Victoria’s draconian new anti-protest laws will have a chilling effect on free speech — and won’t keep anyone safePar Sarah Schwartz
Suite du fil

2/2 US Protest Law Tracker - Updates to #Federal #Protest Laws introduced in 2025.

Latest updates: Jun. 10, 2025 (US Federal)

#S982: Potential penalties for #universities based on protest #policies

Would make federal accreditation of colleges and universities—and thus their access to federal funds—contingent on the institution’s policies on responding to protests. Under the “No Tax Dollars for College #Encampments Act of 2024,” universities would have to regularly disclose how they respond to campus “incidents of civil disturbance,” defined to include “a demonstration, riot, or strike,” and their accreditation would be linked to such policies and practices. The bill sponsor cited #ProPalestine campus protests as motivation for the bill; he introduced the same bill in 2024.
(Full text of bill: congress.gov/bill/119th-congre)
Status: pending
Introduced 12 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot

#HR2065: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a federal crime, subject to a lengthy prison sentence, to wear a #mask or other disguise while protesting in an "intimidating" or “oppressive” way. Under the “Unmasking Hamas Act,” anyone "in disguise, including while wearing a mask" who "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person" exercising their constitutional rights could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as fined. The bill does not define “oppress,” nor does the bill specify what is meant by “disguise,” other than that it includes a “mask.” The bill’s substantive provisions are identical to the “Unmasking Antifa Act,” which lawmakers have introduced in several previous sessions. Sponsors of the bill made clear that it is a response to pro-Palestine protesters, some of whom have worn masks to avoid retaliation.
(Full text of bill: congress.gov/bill/119th-congre)
Status: pending
Introduced 11 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): #FaceCovering

S 937: Barring student protesters from federal loans and loan forgiveness

Would exclude student protesters from federal financial aid and loan forgiveness if they commit any crime at a campus protest. The bill would cover someone convicted of “any offense” under “any Federal or State law” that is “related to the individual’s conduct at and during the course of a protest” at a college or university. As such, a student convicted of even a nonviolent, state law misdemeanor at a campus protest, such as failing to disperse, would be deemed ineligible for federal student loans; they would also be ineligible for having existing federal loans forgiven, cancelled, waived or modified. The sponsor of the bill said it was a response to pro-Palestine protests at colleges and universities.
(Read full text of bill: congress.gov/bill/119th-congre)
Status: pending
Introduced 11 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits

#HR1057: Penalties for protesters on interstate #highways

Would create steep new penalties for protesters deemed to be “deliberately delaying traffic,” “standing or approaching a motor vehicle,” or “endangering the safe movement of a motor vehicle” on an interstate highway “with the intent to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of the interstate highway.” The new federal offense would be punishable by up to $10,000 and 15 years in prison—a far harsher penalty than is the case under many states' laws, which generally already criminalize walking or standing on the highway. The bill provides an exception for “any lawful activity” authorized by federal, state, or local law. However, it could still seemingly cover far more than “blocking” the interstate, including a peaceful protest on the shoulder of an interstate or a convoy-style, driving protest that slowed traffic. The sponsor of the bill made clear that it was in response to protesters. The same bill was introduced as HR 7349 in 2024.
(Full text of bill: congress.gov/bill/119th-congre)
Status: pending
Introduced 6 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): #TrafficInterference

Suite du fil

State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #NewYork

S 6746: New penalties for protesters who wear a #mask

Would create a new criminal offense, “concealment of identity during a protest,” that would cover peaceful protesters who wear a mask while demonstrating. Under the bill, a person who wears a mask or facial covering that disguises their face “so as to conceal the identity of the wearer” while “involved in a lawful assembly, unlawful assembly, protest, or riot” commits the offense. The bill provides an exception for masks and other face coverings worn as protection from weather, for religious reasons, for medical purposes, or as a costume for a holiday or exhibition. While only a violation, the new offense would restrict individuals’ ability to protest lawfully while remaining anonymous, for instance to avoid retaliation.

Full text of bill:
nysenate.gov/legislation/bills
Status: pending

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): #FaceCovering, Riot

S 5911: Heightened penalties for #riot and incitement to riot

Would enhance the penalties for first and second degree "riot" as well as "incitement to riot." Under New York law, "incitement to riot" is broadly defined, and could cover a person or organization found to have "urged" a group of people to protest in a "tumultuous and violent" way that is “likely to create public alarm”—regardless of whether such protest ever takes place or creates “public alarm.” The bill would make the offense a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, instead of a Class A misdemeanor.

Full text of bill:
nysenate.gov/legislation/bills

Status: pending

Introduced 3 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

S 723: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Would create two new crimes that could apply to masked protesters and people who support them. Under the bill, a person who is masked or “disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration,” who engages in a protest or other public assembly with other masked or disguised people, commits the offense of “deceptive wearing of a mask,” a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. The offense would likewise apply to anyone who “knowingly permits or aids” masked demonstrators who congregate in public. The offense does not require that an individual act unlawfully or have any intent to engage in unlawful behavior. A second offense, “aggravated deceptive wearing of a mask,” would apply to masked or disguised individuals engaged in a public assembly where property damage or injuries occur; the offense would be a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. (As drafted, the bill does not make clear whether an individual need personally cause the damage or injury, or merely be part of a group where such damage or injury occurs, to commit the offense.) The bill provides exemptions for masks or disguises worn for religious purposes, or in connection with a government-authorized “masquerade party or like entertainment.” If enacted, the bill would give law enforcement broad discretion to arrest individuals who wear masks or other disguise at a public protest, as well as anyone who seemed to be “aiding” them. The same bill was introduced as S 9194 in the 2023-2024 session.

Full text of bill:
nysenate.gov/legislation/bills

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Face Covering

S 534: New penalties for protesters who block #traffic

Would create a new criminal offense that could cover #UnpermittedProtests and #demonstrations on #streets, #sidewalks, or near public buildings. According to the bill, a person participating in a protest without a permit who “obstructs” cars or pedestrians, or prevents people from entering or exiting buildings, commits a new offense of “aggravated disorderly conduct” if they intend “to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” or are “recklessly creating a risk thereof.” The offense would be a class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and $1,000. As written, an individual in a spontaneous protest that blocks a sidewalk, “recklessly creating a risk” of inconveniencing people, would be guilty of the offense. The bill would also add the offense to the underlying offenses that can be charged as a hate crime under New York law, and allow individuals arrested for the offense to be held for bail. The same bill was introduced as S 8646 in 2024.

Full text of bill:
nysenate.gov/legislation/bills

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): #TrafficInterference

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #MaskedProtesters #AntiMaskLaws

NYSenate.govNY State Senate Bill 2025-S6746Relates to unlawful concealment of identity during a lawful assembly, unlawful assembly, protest, or riot.
Suite du fil

State by State Pending and Recently Passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Iowa

SF 342: Heightened penalties for protesters convicted of "riot," "unlawful assembly," or blocking traffic, and immunity for #drivers who injure them

Introduces felony penalties for the offense of "riot," previously an aggravated misdemeanor, such that the offense is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $7,500. Preexisting law defines "riot" as a group of three or more people assembled "in a violent manner," at least one of whom uses any unlawful force or violence against another person or causes property damage. The law also converts "unlawful assembly" from a simple to an aggravated misdemeanor. Preexisting law defines "unlawful assembly" as a group of three or more people, any of whom are acting "in a violent manner," and who intend that any of them will commit an offense. Under the law, it is a serious (rather than simple) misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $1,875 fine, to "obstruct" a sidewalk, street, or "other public way" with the intent to hinder its use by others. If an individual obstructs a sidewalk or street while "present during an unlawful assembly," it is an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by 2 years in jail and a $6,250 fine. If an individual obstructs a sidewalk or street while "present during a riot," it is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $7,500 fine. Under the law, a driver who injures someone who is participating in a "protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly," engaging in "disorderly conduct," and blocking traffic, is immune from civil liability as long as the driver was exercising "due care" and the protester did not have a permit to be in the street. The law would also allow law enforcement who experience a physical or other injury while on duty to pursue civil damages from a person, group, or organization. Finally, the law creates a new felony offense for "defacing" public property, "including a monument or statue." The offense, a Class D felony, is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a $7,500, and mandatory restitution for any property damage. This law was introduced and passed by the Senate as SF 534, but passed by the House as an amendment to SF 342.

Full text of bill:
legis.iowa.gov/legislation/Bil

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Mar 2021; Approved by Senate 10 March 2021, Approved by House 14 April 2021, Signed by Governor 16 June 2021

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference

HF 952: Requiring state permission for protests in the capitol and on capitol grounds

Would require organizers to have a government sponsor in order to hold protests in or near the Iowa capitol. Under the bill, organizers cannot hold “events” in capitol buildings or on capitol grounds unless they have a “recommendation” either from a statewide elected official or by both a member of Iowa’s state senate and its house of representatives. The bill would also prohibit the same person from holding more than six “events” per year in or around the capitol. Neither the bill nor the relevant provisions of Iowa law define “events,” such that they could seemingly include public protests and demonstrations. As such, the bill would effectively give elected officials authority to allow or disallow protests near the capitol.

Full text of bill:
legis.iowa.gov/legislation/Bil
Status: pending

Introduced 12 Mar 2025.

HF 25: Heightened penalties for #MaskedProtesters

Would increase the penalty for any offense if committed by someone wearing a mask or other device that concealed their identity for the purpose of facilitating the offense. The bill provides #exemptions for masks worn in a number of contexts, including holiday costumes, medical masks, and “#hood[s]” or other “disguise[s]” worn by members of “a society, order, or organization while engaged in any parade, ritual” or “ceremony.” As such, for instance, members of the #KluKluxKlan would seemingly be exempt from enhanced penalties for illegally blocking traffic while parading in the street wearing hoods. The bill does not exempt masks worn during public protests, nor does it limit the enhanced penalties to violent crimes. Accordingly, a peaceful protester who committed a nonviolent offense while wearing a mask could face steeper penalties. A masked demonstrator engaged in a vigil who failed to disperse after being ordered to do so by police, for instance, could face up to a year in jail, rather than 30 days.

Full text of bill:
legis.iowa.gov/legislation/Bil

Status: pending

Introduced 14 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): #FaceCovering

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #TrafficInterference #MaskBans #HoodsAreOK #HeatherHeyer #UniteTheRight #DrivingDownProtestors #LimitingProtests #RedTape

www.legis.iowa.govIowa Legislature - BillBookInformation pertaining to the Iowa Legislature as well as the Executive and Judicial branch in as much as they relate to the legislative branch

[Thread] State by State Pending and Recently Passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Arizona

HB 2880: #Banning #protest encampments on campus

Would bar protest encampments on the campuses of state colleges and universities without prior authorization. Under the bill, individuals or groups that establish an unauthorized “encampment” would no longer be lawfully present on campus for the purpose of speech protections under Arizona law; they would be criminally liable to prosecution for trespass and damaging public property; and they would be liable for “direct and indirect costs” of any damage “that resulted from the individual’s intentional or negligent conduct relating” to the encampment. The bill defines “#encampment” as “temporary shelter” installed on campus and used to stay overnight or “for a prolonged period of time.” The bill would require colleges and universities to order individuals to dismantle and vacate unauthorized encampments; if the individuals refuse to comply, the institution would be required to take disciplinary action and report the individuals to local law enforcement for trespassing. The bill's sponsor said that it was motivated by #ProPalestine protests on college campuses.

Full text of bill here: apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/Bill

Status: ENACTED!

Introduced 12 Feb 2025; Approved by House 3 March 2025

Issue(s): Campus Protests, #Trespass, Camping

HB 2007: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

**Note: HB 2007 was signed into law following amendments that removed the most restrictive provisions.** As originally introduced in the House, the bill made it a felony to wear any kind of #disguise at a protest. The introduced bill broadly prohibited disguises, "whether partial or complete," that an individual wore at a protest, political event, or any other public event in order "to evade or escape discovery, recognition or identification." Under the introduced bill, police would have had authority to detain any individual wearing a disguise in order to verify his or her identity and determine if the person had committed a crime; violation of the disguise ban would have been a Class 6 felony, subject to one year in prison. The sponsor of the bill said it was inspired by clashes between police and protesters, some of whom were masked, outside a 2017 rally for President #Trump. Following widespread criticism, the bill was comprehensively revised to a single provision that would allow courts to consider it an aggravating factor, for sentencing purposes, if an individual wore a #mask or other disguise to hide their face while committing a criminal offense.

Full bill text here: apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/Bill

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 21 Nov 2017; Governor Ducey signed it 23 March 2018 but the most problematic provisions were defeated.

Issue(s): #FaceCovering

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #CriminalizingDissent #AntiProtestLaws
#StudentProtests #CampusProtests #FreePalestineProtests #Facemasks

apps.azleg.govBill Status Inquiry