Protesters blocking roads could cost states federal highway funds under new bill

[seafoam1 3,025]

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/protesters-blocking-roads-could-cost-states-federal-highway-funds-under-new-bill

 

 

A Republican lawmaker introduced a new bill that would penalize states that fail to take action against protesters blocking roadways by withholding federal highway funds.

The bill was shared exclusively with FOX Business and was introduced by Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., in response to the increasing frequency with which protesters are blocking highways and roads in an effort to advance their cause.

The legislation – known as the Clear the Reckless Obstructions and Dangers on Streets Act, or the Clear the ROADS Act – would withhold 10% of a state's federal highway funding if it hasn't made reasonable efforts to prohibit the reckless obstruction of lawful vehicle traffic on highways eligible for federal aid.

"The Clear the ROADS Act is designed to ensure states responsibly stop unlawful conduct taking place on federally funded roads in a timely manner," Huizenga said in a statement. "If states are neglecting their responsibility to keep roads clear, then withholding federal funds from those states is the appropriate response."

Under the bill, the secretary of transportation would be required to make an annual certification as to whether a state has met the requirement to take reasonable actions to prevent protesters from blocking roadways before the Department of Transportation apportions federal highway funding.

States are currently required to meet certain criteria as a condition of receiving federal highway funding, and such standards are typically used to promote basic road safety and traffic laws, the lawmaker's announcement noted.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

Run em over.

[seafoam1 3,025]

Just now, Patented Phil said:

Run em over.

That should be the bill. 

[RLLD 4,230]

Maybe.....not sure....I am hesitant to allow government too much restraint on our speech.

Consider this....how is denying these people a way to have a voice any different than when the government silences people through social media?

[Patented Phil 1,469]

1 minute ago, seafoam1 said:

That should be the bill. 

It also solves the problem of paving contractors who are too scared to finish the job.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

3 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Run em over.

Or equip all new model cars and trucks with cow catchers, like the old timey locomotives.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

Just now, RLLD said:

Maybe.....not sure....I am hesitant to allow government too much restraint on our speech.

Consider this....how is denying these people a way to have a voice any different than when the government silences people through social media?

Are you focking kidding me?  You think this should be protected speech?  Are you retarded?  On no planet is it acceptable to block roads.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Maybe.....not sure....I am hesitant to allow government too much restraint on our speech.

Consider this....how is denying these people a way to have a voice any different than when the government silences people through social media?

Because while town squares may be public forums roadways are not.  If we allow this to continue they may become so through our tolerance and inaction.  Nobody is trying to stop them from gathering along roads, just not in them.

[seafoam1 3,025]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Maybe.....not sure....I am hesitant to allow government too much restraint on our speech.

Consider this....how is denying these people a way to have a voice any different than when the government silences people through social media?

Standing in the way of people living their lives is NOT free speech. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

Just now, Engorgeous George said:

Because while town squares may be public forums roadways are not.  If we allow this to continue they may become so through our tolerance and inaction.  Nobody is trying to stop them from gathering along roads, just not in them.

It boggles my mind that grown adults need to have this explained to them.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

6 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

It boggles my mind that grown adults need to have this explained to them.

I don't think RLLD needs it explained to him.  I think he was merely working the matter through from a perspective of protecting speech.  I'm O.K. with anybody taking their time to come to a conclusion. I suspect he will come to the same conclusion as have I given some time to cogitate on the matter.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

5 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I don't think RLLD needs itg explained to him.  I think he was merely working the matter through from a persopective of protecting speech.  I'm O.K. wiht anybody taking their time to come to a conclusion. I suspect he will come to the same conclusion as have I given some time to cogitate on the matter.

That’s my point.  This shouldn’t require one second of cogitating.  It’s called common sense.  You don’t have a “right” to block traffic.  WTF is wrong with people?  It’s like the whole country went stupid the last 10 years.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

1 minute ago, Patented Phil said:

That’s my point.  This shouldn’t require one seconds of cogitating.  It’s called common sense.  You don’t have a “right” to block traffic.  wtf is wrong with people?  It’s like the whole country went stupid the last 10 years.

To the extent that historical town squares contemplated by our fore fathers as gathering places for the free exchange of ideas were often expansions in roadways or junctions of two or more roadways an argument could be made.  The argument fails when blocking traffic with a purpose as participating in the public forums of old did not mean h9lding travelers hostage.

 

RLLD will probably arrive at these conclusions on his own.

[seafoam1 3,025]

3 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

That’s my point.  This shouldn’t require one second of cogitating.  It’s called common sense.  You don’t have a “right” to block traffic.  WTF is wrong with people?  It’s like the whole country went stupid the last 10 years.

10 years? More like 16. obama...Then the TDS kicked in because Trump stood up and asked "WTF is going on here?"

[RLLD 4,230]

Geez guys.....you are acting like the liberal choads.....

[Voltaire 5,316]

1 hour ago, Patented Phil said:

Run em over.

Yeah, dumping asphalt on top would quickly and easily solve the problem.

[weepaws 3,193]

This is a small thing, but this is simply the start of the removal of freedom of speech, it will become more common, and more acceptable. 

Shame.  Bad news.  Thanks. 

[squistion 2,201]

Meh. If this passes the House, it won't pass the Senate. Plus, will the bill define what specifically constitutes "reasonable efforts" of a state to prohibit the reckless obstruction of lawful vehicle traffic? If the bill is vague on that, there would probably be court challenges to withholding funds (which appears to be at the whim of The Secretary of Transportation).

[jerryskids 6,798]

33 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Geez guys.....you are acting like the liberal choads.....

What if your wife is dying, stuck in an ambulance in such a blockade?  Such actions create an unacceptable increase in danger.

This is different than having to walk around a bunch of ignorant, frothing at the mouth liberal arts students on a college campus.  

[jerryskids 6,798]

Also FWIW, I've heard that studies have shown that actions like blocking highways, defacing art, etc. have the opposite effect as intended -- they overwhelmingly turn people against the cause in question.  So in a way, this is doing them a favor.   

[Fnord 2,272]

1A freedoms are not absolute. When they infringe upon health or public safety of others, they are, and should be, curtailed. I support this.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,859]

36 minutes ago, weepaws said:

This is a small thing, but this is simply the start of the removal of freedom of speech, it will become more common, and more acceptable. 

Shame.  Bad news.  Thanks. 

Amen.  

[TheNewGirl 1,491]

I support this. 

Can't remember which protest it was, but I watched on live TV as some people decided to march from downtown Sacramento/the Capitol to Interstate 5 during rush hour and literally jump into the freeway. People going upwards of 70 miles an hour, coming to a sudden stop, truckers, commuters, everyone. 

It was a nightmare, and someone could have been killed. There was a mob of people blocking the freeway. 

I am of the mind that if there is an ambulance trying to get through and some group is blocking the way and someone needs immediate medical attention I think that those in that crowd should be charged with manslaughter or second degree murder if that individual dies; OR they should be subject to a portion of their medical bills. 

Blocking roadways and freeways doesn't prove anything, IMO. Stand on the side of the road, let people get to where they need to go. You can protest just fine without causing people trouble. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

Here's how you fix the problem... the law should be written as such:

Any person or persons who block roadways during an action of protest, any and all outcomes of interactions with drivers are to be deemed the fault of the protester.  To wit, if a protester is killed by a vehicle, the protester (and every other protester present), is responsible for the repairs on the vehicle... as such, any life insurance policy will be required to be first and foremost, used to pay off the automobile insurance company for repairs, before any other uses of those funds are to be made available.  If a protester obstructs emergency vehicles and it results in a death, that protester (and every other protester present), will be charged with a count of first degree murder for every person who died, and face maximum penalties.

[purdygood 352]

40 minutes ago, weepaws said:

This is a small thing, but this is simply the start of the removal of freedom of speech, it will become more common, and more acceptable. 

Shame.  Bad news.  Thanks. 

is anyone stopping them from standing on a sidewalk and holding up a sign/yelling?   That is speech.  Blocking roads is not.

[squistion 2,201]

20 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Here's how you fix the problem... the law should be written as such:

Any person or persons who block roadways during an action of protest, any and all outcomes of interactions with drivers are to be deemed the fault of the protester.  To wit, if a protester is killed by a vehicle, the protester (and every other protester present), is responsible for the repairs on the vehicle... as such, any life insurance policy will be required to be first and foremost, used to pay off the automobile insurance company for repairs, before any other uses of those funds are to be made available.  If a protester obstructs emergency vehicles and it results in a death, that protester (and every other protester present), will be charged with a count of first degree murder for every person who died, and face maximum penalties.

Nice fantasy on your part, but I am not aware of any laws, anywhere in this country that are written with penalties like that. 

[weepaws 3,193]

32 minutes ago, purdygood said:

is anyone stopping them from standing on a sidewalk and holding up a sign/yelling?   That is speech.  Blocking roads is not.

Sometimes yes they do stop them, and even threaten with arrest.  Might want to wake up.  This is just the start of the loss of freedom of speech, looks like a minor situation, but once this is done, it will become normal in more places. 

[MDC 7,427]

Under the bill, the secretary of transportation would be required to make an annual certification as to whether a state has met the requirement to take reasonable actions to prevent protesters from blocking roadways before the Department of Transportation apportions federal highway funding.

Why would a state secretary of transportation say anything that would jeopardize federal transportation funds?  

Pure grandstanding. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

Under the bill, the secretary of transportation would be required to make an annual certification as to whether a state has met the requirement to take reasonable actions to prevent protesters from blocking roadways before the Department of Transportation apportions federal highway funding.

Why would a state secretary of transportation say anything that would jeopardize federal transportation funds?  

Pure grandstanding. 

I agree.  We definitely should be able to solve this issue as I feel this all of this crap under the "peaceful protesting" banner is abuse of the system.  TBH, they should make any protesting that interferes with normal every day life should NOT fall under the 1st amendment.  Seems like we don't even need anymore legislation.

This legislation is not that.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

2 hours ago, weepaws said:

This is a small thing, but this is simply the start of the removal of freedom of speech, it will become more common, and more acceptable. 

Shame.  Bad news.  Thanks. 

Once again, free speech doesn’t include threats or infringing upon the movement of others.  This isn’t hard to understand.

[weepaws 3,193]

3 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Once again, free speech doesn’t include threats or infringing upon the movement of others.  This isn’t hard to understand.

This is simply the start to the removal of freedom of speech, obviously it’s hard for a fool like you to understand, dumb

[Patented Phil 1,469]

Just now, weepaws said:

This is simply the start to the removal of freedom of speech, obviously it’s hard for a fool like you to understand, dumb

Once again dumbass, there is no “freedom of speech” involved in blocking a public roadway.  Go back to Bible study and learn something useful.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

You have a right to speak.  You do not have a right to force others to listen by holding otherrs captive nor to interfer with and interrupt the speech of others.  It's pretty simple really.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

There’s a whole lot of stupid in here. A focking five-year-old understands this shitt.

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Nice fantasy on your part, but I am not aware of any laws, anywhere in this country that are written with penalties like that. 

That's why it needs to be written.

That's the problem with laws.  @MDC has is right (probably the first time anyone's said that before), this bill is just like every other bill written by every other politician.  The role of this bill it to make it look like the government is doing something that the public wants.  What's actually happening is that the government is creating a job(s), to give as a courtesy to donors, as a thanks to helping them get elected.  The people that are hired won't actually do any real work.

 

At least my law proposal accomplishes the goal without anyone in the government being hired.  It's purely an enforcement for people already in place.

 

Notice, I said it would fix the problem... and it absolutely would.  Laws these days don't fix problems, they exacerbate them and often times cause new ones that cost more money.

[weepaws 3,193]

21 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Once again dumbass, there is no “freedom of speech” involved in blocking a public roadway.  Go back to Bible study and learn something useful.

Just the start, you dumb Fock.  And you better watch your mouth dumb

[weepaws 3,193]

16 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

There’s a whole lot of stupid in here. A focking five-year-old understands this shitt.

Starts with you dumb

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

I'm starting to think weepaws is a Rusty alias.

[squistion 2,201]

14 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's why it needs to be written.

But it never will be for a variety of reasons, among them the concept of foreseeability and that punishment be proportionate to the crime committed, not to mention some violations of The Constitution (cruel and unusual punishment). 

[Baker Boy 1,699]

Blocking traffic and not letting people pass could be considered kidnapping. I would prosecute that way.

Blocking traffic has nothing to do with free speech.