Climate Activists Pour Red Powder On Constitution Case At National Archives

In recent years, climate activists have taken to pouring stuff (like paint or soup) on famous works of art to draw attention to their message. Of course, these artworks are behind thick glass, so these acts do not actually destroy the item. But symbolically, they get attention. As we learn in First Amendment doctrine, one way to garner attention is to destroy things that other people find valuable--such as burning draft cards and American flags. (As much as I respect Justice Scalia's vote in Texas v. Johnson, I'm still not sure he was right.)

Now, climate activists have turned to something that I--and I suspect you--find of the highest value: the United States Constitution. Two men poured some sort of red powder on the case housing the original Constitution at the National Archives.

Just now: the Rotunda of the National Archives in Washington DC was evacuated after two climate activists dumped red powder on themselves and the case holding the United States Constitution.

Both were arrested in minutes. pic.twitter.com/opeTJcs7GH

— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) February 14, 2024

For generations, activists have tried to sully the Constitution, figuratively. Now, they are doing so literally.

These men should receive the maximum penalty allowed under law.

Comments

[Noscitur a sociis]

(As much as I respect Justice Scalia's vote in Texas v. Johnson, I'm still not sure he was right.)

The party of freedom, folks!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

+1

Blackman beclowns himself yet again.

[M L]

No that's the one that takes your job away if you don't take vaccine that carries risk of death. Er, wait. Do we have a party of freedom?

[Josh R]

I wouldn't characterize infecting others (*) as an exercise of freedom.

(*) Although it is no longer the case. the vaccine prevented transmission of the earliest variants.

[Scribe]

If you're going to comment, please avoid embarrassing yourself by showing your ignorance. Know what the case you're commenting on, was about in the first place.
Texas v. Johnson is a 1989 case holding flag-burning is protected by the First Amendment. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-texas-v-johnson Justice Scalia disagreed.

[JasonT20]

Uh, he was replying to someone that went off with a non sequitur about vaccines. So your comment shoul be directed at M L.

[M L]

Nothing non sequitur about it. I meant to reply to Noscitur though.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Speaking of ignorance and embarrassing oneself:

"BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 420. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 421. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 436."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397

Idiot.

[darkknight9]

Thank you. I was mightily confused reading his post.

[Joe_dallas]

Josh R 9 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I wouldn’t characterize infecting others (*) as an exercise of freedom.

(*) Although it is no longer the case. the vaccine prevented transmission of the earliest variants.

Josh As scribe notes below - please avoid embarrassing yourself by showing both your ignorance on the subject and posting a discredited talking point.

It is well established that the vaccine did virtually nothing to reduce transmission. It was also known as early as October 2020 that the mechanism in the vaccine was not going to reduce infection rates.

[Nige]

This is not, in fact well known, since just by preventing infection it is by definition reducing transmission, and what IS well known is that it reduces the chances of infection with AND the effects of covid, thereby saving countless lives and freeing up hospitals.

[Joe_dallas]

Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.

Lancet jan 2022
Transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 among fully vaccinated individuals
Carlos Franco-Paredes
Published:January, 2022DOI:

[Nige]

If the vaccine prevents you from getting covid, it prevents you from transmitting it. How hard is this?

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - The covid does not prevent a person from catching covid ( well only by a statistically insignificant amount). So your response is simply inane

[Josh R]

Again, you are wrong for the alpha and delta variants (while you are correct for omicron and later variants).

[Nige]

Of course it did.

[Bwaaah]

Do you understand there’s a difference between the vaccine stopping you from getting COVID (or transmitting it), and stopping you from experiencing serious illness as a result of getting COVID?

The reduction in serious illness was clearly evident. The reduction in transmission of COVID was not clear.

[Trollificus]

Since the "countless lives saved" and the "severity reduced" are speculative at best and wholly imaginary at worst neither can be considered "well known".

And also, to credit the effort you obviously invested to be entirely wrong, hospital care was nowhere made unavailable by the "overwhelming" pandemic. (unless you want to count the imaginary rural hospitals overwhelmed by the numbers of horse paste abusers, a claim that went completely unexamined by the media prior to broadcasting to eager midwits*)

If you jump too vigorously to a wrong conclusion, you cannot make yourself retroactively correct via sustained error.

*-like you.

[Nige]

No, they're fairly well established.

Lots of hospital care was made unavailabe because hospitals were full of highly contagious people. The relevant departments in hospitals were overwhelmed. Morgues ran out of room for the dead.

[David Nieporent]

Joe_dallas is back to playing epidemiologist, based on having taken (though probably not passed) biology in high school.

[Josh R]

.

It is well established that the vaccine did virtually nothing to reduce transmission

That statement is wrong prior to the Omicron variant (although transmission rates for those who were infected did not depend on vaccination status, you can't transmit if you don't get infected):

VE against infection after 2 doses was 90.7% (95% CI: 88.2; 92.7) for the Alpha variant, 82.3% (95% CI: 75.5; 87.2) for the Delta variant, and 39.9% (95% CI: 26.3; 50.9) for the Omicron variant 14 to 30 days since vaccination. The VE waned over time and was 73.2% (Alpha, 95% CI: 57.1; 83.3), 50.0% (Delta, 95% CI: 46.7; 53.0), and 4.4% (Omicron, 95% CI: -0.1; 8.7) >120 days since vaccination.

[Noscitur a sociis]

These men should receive the most maximum penalty allowed under law.

Which is what? Or did you think this take was too hot to look it up first?

[Doug Heffernan]

Blackman pointed out recently on this blog that as an academic scholar, he has some sort of deontological burden to pursue the truth. So, of course he has fully researched this matter before fulfilling his duty and bringing the full truth to all of us. His take can't be hot, because that wouldn't be congruent with his duty-bound obligation to humanity and as an academic scholar.

[Davy C]

Hmm. I don't know what law they'll be using. I found one which says

A person that appropriates, excavates, injures, or destroys any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument or any other object of antiquity that is situated on land owned or controlled by the Federal Government without the permission of the head of the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the land on which the object is situated, shall be imprisoned not more than 90 days, fined under this title, or both.

The Constitution counts as an object of antiquity, right? If this is the law, the max sentence for sure. If they're using one where the max is 20 years, that's another story.

[JasonT20]

Given the protective case, the object in question was not appropriated, excavated, injured or destroyed. So could they even be charged under that statute? Some kind of general vandalism charge seems more likely

[SKofNJ]

I think what they did is despicable. I don't think this statute prohibits their conduct.
Anyone else have a better fit?

[Purple Martin]

But is it the "the most maximum penalty allowed under law?"

(Coming back a day later, I see the "most" in the OP has been deleted.)

[Michael P]

Presumably at least 20 years. This was prima facie a seditious conspiracy against the Constitution of the United States.

[Nige]

No, Donald Trump trying to overturn an election he lost was that, this is basically a prank.

[Trollificus]

Yes, an "insurrection" sans plan or weapons had the US tottering on its spindly legs for sure, fella. Keep testing that "Repeated Lie Theory".

[Nige]

Nobody said it was a particularly well-conceived or executed insurrection. In fact everybody says the opposite. So you're arguing with yourself, there.

[Dan Schiavetta]

As you would have it, in 100 years your great grandchildren will be fleeing to the warm beaches of Yukon, half of humanity extinguished, and they might think of this day.

[Don Nico]

Crisis, You comment is so far outside of the scientific consensus that it is laughable. Even a 2°C rise is not producing that effect.

Having said that, this stunt deserves little more than a slap on the wrist.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yeah, just keep slapping these idiots on the wrist until they permanently damage a historical painting or artifact someday, then wonder why nobody was ever deterred from doing it.

Brilliant.

[Brett Bellmore]

Agreed. They ARE going to keep escalating until they're successfully destroying unique works of art and historical artifacts. We have to immediately stop treating this as protest, and treat it as the extortion it is.

[JasonT20]

Not that I support any kind of vandalism or destruction of art or historical artifacts, but I think I might understand their reasoning. Which is more important, a historical artifact or work of art, or the environment that we all live in and rely upon for everything we need to survive? From their perspective, threatening or damaging something man-made of symbolic or cultural value is a far lesser crime than damaging natural resources that determine our basic quality of life or even our survival. Seems to me that some here aren’t thinking about what they might be trying to say.

[mulched]

I know I'm not thinking about what they have to say. Who gives a shit about the twisted reasoning of thuggish vandals? Lock them up.

[Michael Ejercito]

Was that not those who prosecuted the Capitol rioters were saying?

[damikesc]

"Which is more important, a historical artifact or work of art, or the environment that we all live in and rely upon for everything we need to survive?"

Reality is more important than a theory with zero predictive value. Infinitely more important.

[MaddogEngineer]

This is just Trump/Flight 93 logic. No sale. The ends never justify the means, people are responsible for their actions, no excuses because it's for a "good cause".

[Bob from Ohio]

"Not that I support" ... "but"

"But" statements always mean that only the words after the "but" reflect the speaker's actual views.

[ducksalad]

threatening or damaging something man-made of symbolic or cultural value is a far lesser crime than damaging natural resources that determine our basic quality of life or even our survival.

Great logic. A list of some other things that are "far lesser crimes" than damaging humanity's chance for survival:

- Drunk driving
- Shoplifting
- Cheating on income tax
- Groping the waitress
- Knocking over an MLK statue
- Punching Elena Kagan
- Painting swastikas on synagogues
- Stomping on Irish setter puppies

I guess we ought to do all these things, because somehow they will save the planet.

[Nige]

You'll go to jail for them. Not sure claiming you were doing them for climate change will do you much good, other than identifying you as a right-wing nihilist crank.

[Trollificus]

“right wing”?? Have you got brain weevils or something? The proposition is that we should somehow be tolerant of those committing crimes to “save the environment”, even though their seeming preferred “climate action” is hysteria, several billion human deaths and reverse human prosperity by a couple hundred years…though I’m sure, wrt that latter, that the Devos, WEF, European New Royalty and tech billionaires will still have IPhones and internet and every other tech amenity, probably better than we’ve got today.

It’s not the right wing eager for the redistribution of civilizational benefits upward even more than it already is. You’re pretty clearly on the wrong side.

[Nige]

'The proposition is that we should somehow be tolerant of those committing crimes'

a) the proposition is that nothing was actually damaged so maybe not the death penalty, hokay?
b) talk about hysteria.

[Trollificus]

I stopped crediting you with any sense when I got to "but" in your first sentence.

Maybe consider that the Constitution, sitting in its' case, is not producing the effects you claim. And "what they are trying to say" is complete globalist-promoted bullshit.

"Oh, but the scientific consensus!" you say. If this comes from someone who thinks science is so pure that it is unaffected by huge piles of grant money, tenure and easy publication (as opposed to censure and being cut off from all corporate and academic funding), you're too naive to draw conclusions about our environment. You can have *opinions* about science, but science requires a greater exercise of skepticism and analysis than you seem to have put in.

[Nige]

Republicans are going to make it illegal to protest against climate change!

[David Nieporent]

In the same way that the J6 prosecutions are making it "illegal to protest the outcome of an election," which is to say that the goal is not what's illegal.

[Nige]

Point taken, but I expect the upshot will be draconian laws against protesting in general.

[Rossami]

... said nobody outside your fevered imagination.

What Brett said is that vandalism is not protest. And that is, legally, generally correct. Destroying your own property can be an act of speech and thus of protest. But destroying the property of others is a crime that gets no protection from the First (or any other) amendment.

[Sarcastr0]

He called it extortion.
Not many on here are arguing against vandalism, or that this is 100% protected speech.
The pushback is against the the 'We must allow a huge penalty for Patriotism Reason.' Which Brett is right there with.

[Brett Bellmore]

I called it extortion because, if the vandalism will stop if you get your way about something, that's exactly what it is.

[Sarcastr0]

By this logic, all civil disobedience is extortion. MLK was an extortionist.

No one uses words like that.

[MaddogEngineer]

Of course they do. You do. That’s what is alleged the J6 crowd was doing to Mike Pence, at Trump’s behest.

These eco-activists are doing the same thing: those are some very fine pieces of art/historic relics, it would be a shame if something happened to them. It’s entirely justified because we’ll all be dead if you don’t do what we want, with no one left to admire them. By threatening to destroy them we're preserving the opportunity of future generations to appreciate them.

[MaddogEngineer]

MLK was drawing attention to a great injustice. A fundamental principle of civil disobedience is a willingness to suffer the consequences, no matter how unjust.

Greta just got off on her latest offense, because she’s fighting the good fight. It’s the opposite of civil disobedience. There’s little cost to committing the offense. Normal people aren’t going to respect these activists because they suffer few consequences, and many of the acts they are committing have no relation to their cause.

A black person being arrested for sitting at a lunch counter is directly related to the injustice. Throwing paint at the Mona Lisa has no connection to climate change.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's not all extortion. One clue is how you wrote a bunch of rambling text to qualify your statement all to hell when you try to argue that's what it is.

I repeat: no one uses words like that. You call any of that stuff extortion, you will come of as both overly formal and overly dramatic. Not a great combo. Unless, I suppose, you're an engineer...

[Brett Bellmore]

"By this logic, all civil disobedience is extortion. MLK was an extortionist."

I'm sorry, was MLK committing vandalism? I must have missed that.

[Sarcastr0]

Your logic is not is limited to vandalism, Brett.

Explain why this doesn't apply to all lawbreaking: "I called it extortion because, if the X will stop if you get your way about something, that’s exactly what it is."

You're abusing English to ramp up the drama, and it's causing some pretty degenerate implications.

[Nige]

Everything transactional is extortion by that logic. And they're not actually threatening to destroy or damage anything, just make a fuss.

[Darwinnie]

These are the same people who would “suspend” the Constitution to reinstate Trump. Incredible.

[Michael Ejercito]

Is the Constitution absolute?

[Darwinnie]

Yes. Did you think it’s optional?

[Michael Ejercito]

Then every word of it is absolute.

[MaddogEngineer]

And they are just as wrong/crazy.

See, that's not so hard now is it?

[Nige]

This barely amounts to vandalism, since all it did was basically make a mess that could be swept up with a brush. But Brett's calling for the immediate suppression of the entire movement! Contrast the calm with which he refers to J-6th.

[Sarcastr0]

Slippery slope arguments now Brett?

What an incredible libertarian you are.

[Don Nico]

Brett, that does not mean that they deserve the "death penalty" as Blackman would like

[Brett Bellmore]

What Blackman actually said is that they should get the maximum sentence allowed by law. For vandalism, that would not be a death sentence.

[Nige]

Pretty sure we're just a few comments away from someone declaring it to have been insurrection, then the ensuing Blackman fifteen-blog-post boregasm.

[Don Nico]

I realize that Brett; hence the scare quotes.

[Trollificus]

I dunno, nobody's painted "White Lives Matter" on a George Floyd statue yet.

[Kleppe]

As you would have it, you won't have any descendants because they were all aborted.

[SimonP]

Kleppe - this is inappropriate.

Around the VC, what we typically say is, "You won't have any descendants because all of your progeny will be left leaking out of the wart-ridden asshole of your faggot whore."

[Trollificus]

That's a little over the top. Per my rhetoric class, and simple human decency, I'd have left off the part about the warts. It's 2024, they could be a fashion statement.

[AmosArch]

In 100 years society will still be here probably in much the same form barring some disaster that is primarily non-manmade climate change related like a meteor or nuclear war.

The people who think everybody's gonna be sailing around floating cities with Kevin Costner ala water world are so delusional I don't know what to say to them.

If they're so convinced maybe they should focus their energies on promoting nuclear power rather than destroying famous artwork and blocking highways during rushhour.

[Nige]

'maybe they should focus their energies on promoting nuclear power'

This is the stupidest fucking shit, and they haven't destroyed anything.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Not even the IPCC thinks that will happen. You are besotted with ... fake news? Department of Misinformation propaganda?

[Nige]

No, they're quite restrained about the more dire possible outcomes of the things that are going to happen. That one is far from the worst.

[Z Crazy]

So why not just do the whole Animatrix blot-out-the-sun thing to make sure there are ice floes at the mouth of the Amazon next year?

[Doug Heffernan]

I would think that "the case housing the original Constitution" would be a fairly durable case, unlikely to be damaged by any sort of powder, whether colored red or not.

Was the case housing damaged? Does it need to be replaced? Would a light dusting not bring the case housing back to good as new? If not, maybe this original document needs to be housed in a better case.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Heffernan, would it be that surprising if the original Constitution were housed in a better case, in a safer location, far removed from whatever it is the public sees on display?

[Krayt]

Which one, aren't there 6?

[Don Nico]

They are like the pieces of the "one true cross."

[David Nieporent]

The one with the treasure map on the back.

[MN2828]

That was the Declaration of Independence

[Krayt]

Which one, aren’t there 7?

[Trollificus]

Oh sweet summer childe. You think there was only one treasure map?

[David Nieporent]

I know. Stop pouring red powder on my joke.

[Rossami]

Since this was done as an act of "protest" by people who have already demonstrated a disregard for the law and the rights of others, the cleaners cannot simply assume that the red dust was innocuous.

At the very least, I would treat this as a possible bio-hazard. My first guess when I saw "red powder" was that they smuggled in some dried blood. But even if it was merely powdered red dye, you have to worry that the pigments will do damage beyond just the casing. Consider the possibility of a dye particle in a joint in the casing that gets in and does its damage only when the case is eventually opened. A "light dusting" alone is unlikely to remove all possible risks of dyeing. For an important historical or artistic artifact, even something as simple as this vandalism has probably triggered clean-up efforts that will cost at least a few thousands of dollars.

[Trollificus]

Blood loses it's dramatic crimson color pretty quickly.

[starlord1988]

I don't know what punishments for similar incidents have been with other works, but the punishment for this, if any, should be the same as those. I don't think the work of art or document the behavior was targeted towards should make a difference in the amount of punishment that is given for the behavior.

[NvEric]

More acts of violent extremism by misguided and unintelligent persons acting on a conspiracy foisted by paid other persons who are forwarding dangerous misinformation about simple and predictable weather patterns.

As to the red powder, it's likely a pigment for coloring concrete or paint and is likely a carcinogen of some sort, see prop 65. Or, powdered fruit punch Kool-Aid, which is worse ! - Red 5 is a bitch.

[Nige]

Desperately trying to make this more serious than it was.

[damikesc]

...says the guy claiming that 1/6 was an attempt to overthrow the government...

[Nige]

I mean it literally was. I don't know what to tell you if you don't know that basic fact. But since we're comparing - 1/6 - actual violence, stuff got damaged, someone died, aim was to keep Trump in power. 2/14 - red powder, no violence, mess made but nothing actually damaged, perpetrators did it, said their piece, walked away. But which one generates the towering right-wing rage?

[damikesc]

Just a protest that went south.

This was an attempt to destroy the Constitution.

[Nige]

No, it wasn't. Nobody sane would believe it was. Jan 6th was literally an effort to destroy the actual Constitution, not an historical document.

[ducksalad]

someone died

Excellent analogy. If a National Archive security guards had shot and killed one of the protestors (red power could’ve been poison, after all), you’d be here saying the protestors were responsible for the death.

Right?

[Nige]

Wel it didn’t happen, so we can invent any number of circumstances whereby it might have happened, from them being gunned down mercilessly despite offering no threat to anyone to them breaking the glass case and using the shards to stab people.

[Trollificus]

SOMEONE DIED???! STUFF GOT DAMAGED???!!
omgomgomg Something must be done!

Wait...we talkin' about people walking around the Capitol Building, and some people attacking what appeared to be a deliberately understaffed security crew with an enraged Ashli Babbit? We talking about an insurrection so dangerous it made AOC soil her "Tax the Rich" thong all the way over in another building?? That sounds more silly than "nation teetering on the brink of collapse" buddy.

You must be talking about the BLM riots, in which nobody was shot point blank by panicky police, and which appeared to be aimed at black-owned small businesses (once the Nike store was cleaned out.)

One "action" delayed an electoral vote count by some minutes. The other cost billions and a couple dozen lives. Though at least the BLM riots created a situation where guilty white libs could be scammed of some of their ill-gotten gains. Which is a good thing,

There aren't enough hysterical adjectives in the language to make those few broken windows (and, I know, feet on Pelosi's desk, unforgiveable) equivalent to the mostly peaceful raging building fires (large corps insured, small businesses lost, no regrets ever expressed).

And while people are whining about the suggestion that the Constitution defacers (attempted) get "maximum penalty allowed by law", the J6 protesters were held, incommunicado and uncharged, for ridiculous lengths of time, in a manner very reminiscent of Soviet-era treatment of protesters as insurrectionists. Again, this is an insurrection sans plan or weaponry. ("Plans" made up by Dems after the fact don't count.)

I will admit it made Adam Kinzinger cry but so did "Eat, Pray, Love".

[Nige]

Yeah, the difference betweent stuff getting damaged and people getting hurt and nobody getting hurt and nothing getting damaged is pretty considerable, all things considered.

'the J6 protesters were held, incommunicado and uncharged, for ridiculous lengths of time, in a manner very reminiscent of Soviet-era treatment of protesters as insurrectionists.'

No they weren't.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whining, bigoted, un-American right-wing losers are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and much of what one finds at a white, male, faux libertarian blog with a faint academic veneer.

[Michael Ejercito]

More acts of violent extremism by misguided and unintelligent persons acting on a conspiracy foisted by paid other persons who are forwarding dangerous misinformation about simple and predictable weather patterns.

I heard a similar argument somewhere before.

I just do not presently recall where.

[SomeGuy 2]

I don't know what the penalty is for this under current law. But a year in federal prison should be more than enough to give them time to think about their life choices. The prisons themselves aren't that scary-- American prisons are quite soft, comparatively speaking-- but the disruption caused by being out of circulation for a year is quite a bit more damaging. Plus a year staring at the inside of a cage tends to make criminals think about their life choices.

[Don Nico]

"year in federal prison "
It's a misdemeanor, damnit.

[David Nieporent]

Any prosecutor who can't find a way to make this a felony — or, rather, multiple felonies — isn't even trying.

[Michael Ejercito]

They would not even need to twist the law, or come up with novel applications, to do this.

[Trollificus]

OR, they are currently engaged in similar activity in connection with a former president. Or combing their thesauri for language justifying long jail terms for protesters and trespassers maybe?

Yeah, the Biden regime is already well-practiced at "discretionary enforcement" of the law. They start by adding "extremist" and go from there.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

something that I – and I suspect you – find of the highest value: the United States Constitution

Me? Sure. Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Not so much.
Justice Ginsburg: “Don’t use the US Constitution as a model”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, we can all agree on that. But saying it is "of value" is not quite the same thing as saying it has to be followed in a particular way.

It is "of value" to Living Constitutionalists, too, because even they recognize that without it, their power grab would have no legitimacy whatsoever.

[Ed Grinberg]

(deleted)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Take them out back and shoot them.
This is so much worse than Jan 6th.

[Nige]

You simply could not parody this.

[Estragon]

Seriously:

Can you go even 2 days without posting a murder fantasy on these pages? Try it! Challenge yourself.

[Bill Poser]

This doesn't even make sense: people may not be taking anthropogenic climate change as seriously as it should be, or may even be denying it, but the issue is very well known. Stunts like this, which may draw attention to little known issues, but are very unlikely to influence anyone's view of an issue, are pointless when the issue is well known.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who knew it wasn't Anthrax?

That's why this isn't funny.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you look at somebody doing something, and it makes no sense to you, perhaps you're not understanding what they're really doing.

This isn't really an effort to "draw attention".

It's extortion.

The message here isn't "Climate change is important!"

It's, "Do as we say (about Climate change) or we will destroy your precious and irreplaceable things."

[Krayt]

Countries without constitutions, but with rule of dictatorship, don't do so well on climate. Or protests.

[Nige]

'It’s, “Do as we say (about Climate change) or we will destroy your precious and irreplaceable things.”'

No, they're pointing out that climate change will destroy all the precious things. This 'act of destruction' was purely symbolic and no amount of towering performative outrage will change that.

[damikesc]

Much like a protest of poor voting laws was not an attempt to overthrow a government. You cannot change that, no matter how you caterwaul.

[Nige]

A protest like that would not, no. Jan 6th was, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's extortion -- and why I think they should be shot.

[Nige]

'people may not be taking anthropogenic climate change as seriously as it should be,'

This fact is far more important than anything the protestors do. Whether what they're doing is detrimental or not, I don't know. So far it's mostly made conservatives, who are politically committed to denying climate change anyway, ridiculously angry which, let's face it, was something also acheived by a trans person drinking beer and Taylor Swift going to a game.

[damikesc]

...or somebody calling a woman "sir" when he REALLY believes he is a woman, even though he is not.

[Nige]

Oh who gives a fuck you whiny twit.

[Trollificus]

Climate hysteria skeptics don't have just "denial" and "under-reaction" as options. There is also "achievable amelioration" wrt the effects on human civilization and a realistic assessment of possible positive effects of warming. We only ever hear about "withering drought" and "catastrophic flooding" as likely effects of the geological and atmospheric redistribution of H2O. There's never a mention of areas that will become arable, or more agriculturally productive; never a consideration of areas that will LOSE annual destructive flooding...it cannot be that every aspect of a change in climate will be negative, and anyone presenting such a scenario has other agendas than scientific understanding.

[Nige]

;it cannot be that every aspect of a change in climate will be negative, '

Well, it'd be a bit weird to worry about any limited positive effects when there's the rest to deal with.

[Commenter_XY]

This is a national disgrace, the attempted destruction of our founding documents, The Constitution.

Whatever the longest sentence for any J6 non-violent protestor cum demonstrator is, that is what their sentence should be. Some of those sentences to J6 non-violent protestors run for years, so the severity seems appropriate.

Yes, the trial. Of course, I am assuming these POS' perps will be kept in pre-trial detention, pending trial in Federal court, right? That DC jail we read so much about with the problems...sounds about right to me for detention. The eyes of America will be watching.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

This will come as a surprise, but different crimes have different penalties.

Your partisan tears are meaningless.

[Nige]

You know perfectly well they weren't trying to destroy it. They scattered some red powder on the display case. That is not even a desultory effort to destroy anything.

[damikesc]

Benefit of the doubt when you approve the message, eh?

Dult noted.

[Nige]

As opposed to turning them into mighty colossal monsters who by destroying one historical document could thereby destroy the actual Constitution of the United States!

It’s not that hard to discern their motives from their actions, and actually damaging the document was clearly not among them.

[Trollificus]

lol. Yet you have no trouble "discerning" that the J6 protesters were going to get hold of the bag with all the ballots in it and then be able to go "Neenner-neener! We got the bag and we say Trump won!"

Yeah. Insurrection. Or do you believe they were going to make their way into the labyrinthine catacombs below the Capitol where the actual "LEVERS OF POWER" are connected?

[Nige]

No, I tend to stick with what they actually did and what they tried to do, not whatever weird corridors your brain runs down.

[Trollificus]

They'll spend more time on MSNBC than in a DC jail.

[Commenter_XY]

That is the saddest part of all; their inevitable glorification by progressives.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As we learn in First Amendment doctrine, one way to garner attention is to destroy things that other people find valuable–such as burning draft cards and American flags."

This seems to elide a key element of the present situation, which SHOULD completely change the legal context.

If I destroy MY instance of a thing others find valuable, such as a flag, this is protest. But that's all it is, because it's MY property, and part of the bundle of rights that make up ownership is the right to destroy a thing.

If I destroy somebody else's instance of a thing others find valuable, perhaps the only instance? I'm not protesting anymore, I'm just a criminal.

Now, admittedly, this original copy of the Constitution is very well protected, you could hardly even see it under the armored glass the last time I took a look in person. (Maybe they've improved the clarity of the glass in the last half century.)

That's not to say, though, that a determined effort couldn't damage it. And a lot of other public works of art and monuments are not nearly so well protected. These eco-terrorists have already taken to throwing paint on marble monuments and statuary, and that's not harmless, marble is porous, removing paint is neither easy nor guaranteed not to leave residual damage.

Certainly the eco-terrorists, first cousins to the race iconoclasts who are already casually destroying statues, are gradually escalating, and you have to expect they're eventually going to be successful if the whole movement isn't stopped, and not gently.

Step one in stopping them is to stop treating these acts as the "protest" they plainly aren't.

[Commenter_XY]

Their act is vandalism, not protest. Bari Weiss nailed that one in her speech to FedSoc last year.

It is vandalism of the document, it is vandalism of our culture, it is vandalism of our values. That is what it represents.

[Nige]

It's both. And, of course, it is all those things you say, because those things are failing them now and refusing to protect their future.

[Rossami]

No, it's not both. Brett laid out the legal distinction quite clearly above. Vandalism damages other people's property. Protests do not.

[Nige]

It's an arbitrary and ahistorical and rather self-serving distinction, one that suits reactionaries who occupy comfortable positions in a society and are terrified that their position might be disrupted by people whose protesting does not stay within carefully proscribed limits. If a criminal element prevents a protest from being a protest, then one merely has to criminalise protest to make all protesters into just criminals.

[Michael Ejercito]

It’s an arbitrary and ahistorical and rather self-serving distinction, one that suits reactionaries who occupy comfortable positions in a society and are terrified that their position might be disrupted by people whose protesting does not stay within carefully proscribed limits.
You seem tyo be describing people who opposed the Capitol riot.

[Nige]

You seem to be reduced to fairly lame child-like comebacks you can't even get right.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There was a different status quo ante? Must have missed it...

[Nige]

Criminal acts and protests are as old as time. Well, maybe not that old, but they're fairly well established. It's understandable that you should prissily declaim that it is purely a crime, and leave the motivation out.

But though this may have been criminal, nothing was destroyed.

'if the whole movement isn’t stopped, and not gently.'

The inner fascists is never very far in.

[Rossami]

By the way, "nothing was destroyed" is not the legal standard. Graffiti on a building is still vandalism even if the building is left standing. Forcing the owner to spend time, effort or money cleaning up after you is a sufficient "damage" to make it vandalism.

And you have no room to talk about "inner fascists".

[Sarcastr0]

How in the world does your analogy between a building and a protective case apply??

And when Brett is arguing for pre-crime, maybe don't look like you're trying to defend that shit by deflecting.

[Rossami]

Because just like the building, the “protective case” has to be cleaned. And given the situation, it must be cleaned under the assumption that the ‘red powder’ is a possible biohazard and/or a persistent dye which could still damage the artifact when the case is eventually opened. The cleanup costs are not trivial and constitute damage sufficient to meet the legal elements of the crime of vandalism.

And Brett is not “arguing for pre-crime” – he is arguing about the value of deterrence. I disagree with Brett about the likely effectiveness of deterrence in this situation, but deterrence is unambiguously one of the five generally accepted criminal sentencing objectives.

[Sarcastr0]

A building is like a protective case in that they both need to be cleaned.

Come on, man. Everyone agrees vandalism sucks. What are you straining to prove beyond that other that Brett's drama isn't authoritarian, LIBERALS are the real authoritarians?

Deterrence in the criminal law context refers to the punishment for a crime deterring that particular action, it does not refer to ramping up punishment for a crime to deter fan-fiction future crimes.
Closest to Brett's drama I can think of is California's Three Strikes law, which has been pretty unjust and was based on a removal theory of punishment.

[MaddogEngineer]

Well gee, I guess even the minimum vandalism the J6 protesters did to the Capitol Building doesn’t really matter then. I must have imagined the outrage of some that the center of our democracy was desecrated by the insurrectionists.

It’s exhausting how people will make excuses for bad behavior depending on which tribe they belong to.

I for one have been in favor (since Jan 6) for every single person who did damage to attacked police offers to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That does not include bogus political charges on top of that, against people who did not commit violence or cause damage (or credibly incite the crowd).

Without double standards, we’d have none at all.

[Sarcastr0]

Does it occur to you why no one calls it the J6 vandalism?

I'm not excusing shit, you can tell because I call it vandalism.

I'm saying don't make up new crimes because of made up facts and how patriotic you feel.

[Nige]

'It’s exhausting how people will make excuses for bad behavior depending on which tribe they belong to.'

The contortions people will twist themselves into to draw equivalences beytween completely different incidents in order to piously make statemenst like this are extraordinary.

[Nige]

'And Brett is not “arguing for pre-crime” '

That is literally what he is doing. He actually does it a lot.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not pre-crime. They already committed the vandalism.

[Sarcastr0]

Your post above is explicitly not about the vandalism, it's about speculating your way into some pretend worse crime later on.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Pre-crime" is penalizing somebody for a crime you speculate they might commit in the future.

Here, they are to be punished for the crime they have already committed, and the likelihood of repeat is just cited as a reason to not blow it off. Hence, not pre-crime.

[Nige]

'Certainly the eco-terrorists, first cousins to the race iconoclasts who are already casually destroying statues, are gradually escalating, and you have to expect they’re eventually going to be successful if the whole movement isn’t stopped, and not gently.'

Eco-activists have climbed the anchor chains of Russian nuclear warships. They once painted a giant crack on a dam. This is NOT an escalation. This is postiviely tame. It's not even an escalation from wrecking racist statues. Nothing got wrecked. So you want them violently suppressed for things they haven't actually done.

[Trollificus]

Hmmm...I smell the beginnings of a novel criminal theory here.
So, did the statues refuse to let people of a particular race look at them or something? How, exactly, does a statue achieve "racism"?
Or is it just a statue of someone of whom you might disapprove, from your enlightened moral perch 200 years later? Can the statue *MAKE*

[Nige]

'How, exactly, does a statue achieve “racism”?'

Commemorate a racist. See? Not that hard.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you are arguing for a punishment based on things you've made up they may do in the future.

The harsh punishment you advocate for is tied to a crime that has not happened, and which you are making up.

That is precisely what you are doing. You've done it a number of times right here in this comment thread.

Not a particularized crime; no due process; propensity evidence; triggered by civil disobedience; patriotism-justifies-the-iron-fist.

If you ever were a libertarian, you are certainly not anymore!

[Rossami]

Sarcastr0, you're arguing with the strawman in your head again, not what Brett actually said.

[Sarcastr0]

"That’s not to say, though, that a determined effort couldn’t damage it. And a lot of other public works of art and monuments are not nearly so well protected. These eco-terrorists have already taken to throwing paint on marble monuments and statuary, and that’s not harmless, marble is porous, removing paint is neither easy nor guaranteed not to leave residual damage.

Certainly the eco-terrorists, first cousins to the race iconoclasts who are already casually destroying statues, are gradually escalating, and you have to expect they’re eventually going to be successful if the whole movement isn’t stopped, and not gently."

This is Brett, basing his punishment on speculative future acts.

Now quit defending him; he's off his rocker on this one.

[Commenter_XY]

That is correct, the strawman capitulated.

[Nige]

I can accept that making a mess like that counts as vandalism, but it doesn’t change the fact that nothing was, in fact, destroyed.

You’re right, it’s not very ‘inner’ is it?

[SimonP]

I don't know about the men in the OP, but typically these spectacular protests are intentionally calculated not to damage whatever object it is they're "attacking."

This was key to many of Just Stop Oil's actions. These people understand that the objects they're targeting are extremely valuable parts of our national or cultural heritage. They don't want to destroy or permanently damage them. They're just trying to attract enough attention, from a broad enough group of people, that some portion of them look up their mission and learn more about the issues. (In the case of Just Stop Oil, for instance, one might have learned that they were not calling for an immediate cessation of the use of all petroleum products, but rather freezing new development in the UK economic zone.)

I can't say that I expect this little cesspit of the internet to have people who are interested in anything other than expressing extreme outrage over a protest they glance at, relating to an issue they assiduously avoid learning about. So I'm not surprised that you, like the other idiots here (including Josh himself) are responding emotionally rather than rationally. But it's worth pointing out that pouring dust over yourself is not an act of "eco-terrorism" or "treason" or whatever else you're trying to insinuate it should be treated as. It's an obnoxious but likely harmless protest. Not actually a big deal.

[MaddogEngineer]

Oh yes, anyone who believes differently than your enlightened-ness is in a "cesspit". How high-minded of you.

How exactly can you be sure of their intent, or their intelligence that their vandalism won't cause permanent damage? You can't be. No one can. A little bit of vandalism is okay, for the right cause, as long as it's not the intent.

Intent is a tricky thing. Just ask Derek Chauvin. Sometimes we criminalize things to deter anyone from coming close to the line.

[SimonP]

Oh yes, anyone who believes differently than your enlightened-ness is in a “cesspit”. How high-minded of you.

I do not think this place is a cess-pit because many people here disagree with me. I think this place is a cess-pit because of morons like yourself.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy is a cesspit for several reasons, including without limitation:

1) the habitual publication of racial slurs

2) the cultivation of a collection of superstitious gay-haters, Republican racists, conservative misogynists, white nationalists, faux libertarian Islamophobes, chanting antisemites, half-educated Christian dominionists, obsolete transphobes, white supremacists, and half-educated immigrant-bashers as a target audience

3) the lathering of those right-wing write-offs with a steady diet of partisan, cherry-picked red meat

4) the incessant, daily stream of multifaceted bigotry

5) the regular calls for liberals to be gassed; shot in the face; placed face-down in landfills; exterminated; pushed through woodchippers; raped; lined up and shot; sent to Zyklon showers, etc.

6) the chronic hypocrisy, particularly with respect to

a) this blog's viewpoint-driven, partisan censorship of those who make fun of or criticize conservatives and

b) this blog's misleading "libertarian" labeling (while not mentioning movement conservatism

7) the poor "scholarship," especially with respect to Today in Supreme Court History

8) even more right-wing bigotry

[Don Nico]

I guess you find it similar to defacing a Quran and flushing papers down a toilet.

The problem is specifying the bright line conditions for a felony under the US Code.

[Harvey Mosley]

I would find it similar to defacing the ORIGINAL Quran. A copy of it that you bought yourself? That would be the same as burning a copy of the Constitution you bought at the gift shop.

[Trollificus]

He should be sure to differentiate the "Not actually a big deal." actions from the "putting the sacred seat our beloved government at risk" ones.

[DaveM]

In a more robustly just society such as used to reign in any one-room school house across the land, we’d make them eat the red powder, drink the orange paint, dye their faces in the purple ink, glue the rest of their body parts to the pavement, and remove the concrete blocks from their own feet.

We’re much more (less?) civilized, now.

[Longtobefree]

At least they knew we had a constitution, which is more than several politicians.

[Nige]

Not the case housing! NOT THE CASE HOUSING!

[Voize]

This was a pointless stunt. DC has statutes about defacing manuscripts but they require a manuscript to actually be damaged. Attempt likely won't fly, it is difficult to argue the attention-seekers who did this were seriously trying to breach the case using a powder so benign that they poured it on themselves too. They could charge §22-1321(a)(1) disorderly conduct

In any place open to the general public [...] it is unlawful for a person to:
(1) Intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner as to cause another person to be in reasonable fear that a person or property in a person’s immediate possession is likely to be harmed or taken;

but that looks like a bit of a stretch too.

[Brett Bellmore]

§ 22–3312.01. Defacing public or private property. would be my first thought.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Again, how did people know the powder wasn't Anthrax?

[Nige]

They were better at risk assessment than you?

[Voize]

There are reports now that the two suspects are being held on suspicion of "destruction of federal property", which I take to refer to 18 U.S.C. §1361 which reads

Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished [...]

Several of the 1/6 defendants were charged under that statute, though I can only find two who were found guilty of that crime in isolation.
Hunter Ehmke pled guilty to 1361 in return for dropping other charges, sentenced to 4 months plus a fine and 3 years supervised release.
Troy Falkner pled similarly, sentenced to 5 months plus a fine and 3 years supervised release.

[ReaderY]

It would be grossly unfair to people who impeach a cabinet secretary without even bothering to pretend to come up with a high crime or misdemeanor he allegedly committed and without even bothering to pretend to collect any evidence, to accuse them of regarding the Constitution as having any value, let alone “highest value.”

Accusing them of valuing the Constitution would be a gross calumny against their character and integrity, indeed against everything they stand for.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good thing nobody did that, then.

[Sarcastr0]

But they did, Brett.
They counted on people with more zealotry than sense such as yourself to not understand how immigration law works, or even what it says.
This has been pointed out to you via SCOTUS cases and statutory text before; I've done it, and seen DMN do it. And you can't seem to learn.
So this nonsense makes you happy. Not because you're inherently dumb, because you've made an affirmative choice to be dumb.

But based on the recent special elections, it doesn't seem to be sticking very well at scale. I guess we'll see later this year.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/02/14/this-is-what-happens/

Incredibly, the news media, pundits and Democrats have the gall to complain that the impeachment of Mayorkas based on his policies and political animus rather than plausible allegations that he committed any “high crimes and misdemeanors” will turn impeachment into a purely political weapon to be abused by Congressional majorities. The Democrats shattered impeachment for all time with their two impeachments of Trump after several prominent Democrats argued that he should be impeached simply because House Democrats had the voted to do it and they hated the man. The party was searching for any excuse to impeach Trump, and did impeach him on dubious ground both times. I wrote—both times—that this meant the end of impeachment as the Founders intended it, and that henceforth it would have little meaning or impact except for partisan warfare and pay-back. The Mayorkas impeachment is product of that, and the Democrats are responsible, just as they were responsible for destroying the Supreme Court nomination process when they rejected an extraordinary judge, Robert Bork, that President Reagan had every right to nomination and have confirmed under the traditional comity of the process. Impeachment is dead as an effective restraint on Presidents and others.

[Nige]

I knew the Democrats were responsible for stuff the Republicans were doing. It’s like unmasking Old Man Withers at the end of Scooby Doo. The scary Republicans turn out to have been Democrats all along!

[Rossami]

For someone who was whining about "political norms" not that long ago, it's frustrating to see you willfully ignoring the damage your own political allies did to the norms you now want to rely on.

[Michael Ejercito]

One irony regarding Robert Bork is that he died in 2013, when Obama was President and Democrats controlled the Senate.

[Nige]

Dammit, why won't we just accept as perfectly reasonable the iron law that Democrats are responsible for Republicans' actions!

[Trollificus]

Sure. Seems as logically sound as the incessantly-repeated Dem assertions that TRUMP is responsible for the border problem, a bad economy, and an increase in racial division, four years on from his presidency.

[Nige]

Yes, it's as logical as criticising Trump's policies while president. Go with that.

[Josh R]

Trump's impeachments were for 1) using his official powers to falsely smear his main political rival in order to win an election and 2) stealing an election after the fact. These are High Crimes, unlike anything Mayorkas has done.

[Michael Ejercito]

1) the smear was not false. None of us knew how true it was. He just wanted a second look into the firing of that prosecutor Shokin, a second look which may have very well concluded that FJB did nothing wrong.
2) after what was done to him for four years, whatever he did that day was perfectly justified, legally and morally.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, defenders, and ideological allies, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason you disrespected, unwanted misfits on strong, mainstream campuses.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, Donald Trump is well known to be one of the country's foremost ethics campaigners. That was clearly his only concern!

[Josh R]

That day? He tried to steal the election from the election night through "that day" (and perhaps even after that).

You are seriously messed up if you think stealing an election is justified.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is the justification.

https://rumble.com/v4azhqc-system-update-show-222.html

[Josh R]

A 2+ hour video on "Russiagate" doesn't cut it. Summarize the main points.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, bullshit.

You can say you disagree with the charges, which is fine.

But there WERE charges, so the idea that they "didn't even bother to pretend" is stupid, even interpreting things most favorably to the claim.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, they didn't bother to pretend. They checked the box, but not even you think Marjorie Taylor Green understands thing 1 about immigration law.

[StonewallDeSoto]

That document is just a bad joke now. Let them destroy it.

[tkamenick]

What's the point of having security guards if they do absolutely nothing but stand there when people are doing things that security guards are supposed to stop?

[Nige]

More a job for the cleaning staff than security.

[Scooter]

Vicious children. I'm certainly not going to be moved by the metaphorical equivalent of a 4 year old laying in the supermarket aisle screaming "But I want it NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!". These brats need to grow up.

[DaveM]

I believe we can arguably draw a line connecting:

– People who want to destroy our cultural artifacts
– People who want to pull down our monuments
– People who want to replace our pop culture icons with politically-correct versions
– People who want to bring chaos to our streets
– People who want to remove our national borders
– People who want to deny that objective biological facts exist

The thread that binds them together is a particular worldview that is cynical about the progress of the West. It is the worldview of the people who are currently running the Democratic Party, the values of the “elite” left. They aren’t the values of the left’s base, I don't think, but I believe that the base is sympathetic to them.

The people currently running the Republican Party certainly have their own demons to deal with. But these particular issues, the ones getting all the headlines and the clicks, they are exclusively coming from the left, I think.

[Nige]

You certainly have summed up the mostly-non-existent-where-they-aren't-trivial threats driving the terror and fury that the right must surely find exhausting to sustain. If we could harness it as a source of power, nobody would have to protest climate change ever again.

[DaveM]

Oh, right, "climate change"! How could I have neglected that? Stated negatively, I'd characterize the belief in climate alarm as a rejection of the West's dominion of the earth. Stated positively, I'd characterize it as -- oddly enough -- a "conservative" desire to turn the clock back.

[Sarcastr0]

OUR POP CULTURE is a clue this is about you, personally, not some general push.

the West’s dominion of the earth is some God Said I could Be an Asshole shit and does not count as an argument, except against any ability to engage with you rationally.

[Nige]

'as a rejection of the West’s dominion of the earth.'

This blows past several levels of stupid. I am impressed.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Weat dominates the Earth.

[Nige]

No, the Weat shall *inherit* the Earth, but only after the rich and powerful have fucked it up completely.

[Trollificus]

Have you ever, during your busy efforts to dismiss any concern that “something is wrong in this country’, bothered to notice that “the rich and powerful” are becoming ever more rich and powerful even as the wokies (your side) are firmly in control of the corporate donor class, the media and academia?

How do you cognitively un-dissonance that fact?

[Nige]

Your head sure is full of straw. The rich and the powerful getting more rich and powerful doesn't have anything to do with any of the things listed above, yet you would have us believe they're the biggest problems facing the country, nay, the world? How do you cognitively un-dissonance that fact?

[Jerry B.]

Would have been funny if a group of far Right-wing MAGAs had been touring the Archives at the time and had beat those guys to a bloody pulp. I bet they'd be proud to serve any jail sentences that the Libs who run D.C. would levy on them.

[Estragon]

I’m not sure what about that would be “funny” in the conventional sense.

I think what you meant was “this is an outcome I like to fantasize about, because it pleases me to imagine violence being done to my enemies”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"...proud to serve any jail sentences..."

That would be a change!

[Bob from Ohio]

Anybody know the function of the women in white shirts and visor hats standing to each side of the case who don't move?

[Estragon]

Are they docents?

[Bob from Ohio]

Maybe. I don't see what other function they serve. They look kinda like guards but that can't be right.

[Commenter_XY]

Dotards? Statues?

[Trollificus]

They are serving the purpose of guards, as dictated by large corporations wrt their physical stores. Which is, "Do nothing."

[non-native speaker]

They can destroy a historical document, but they can't destroy the constitution. Not this way, at least.

[Lockean Liberal]

I’m actually shocked to hear a libertarian disagree with Texas v Johnson. Flag burning (including Texas v Johnson and United States v Eichmann) is doubly problematic to not protect. It’s obviously a symbolic act subject to free expression protections. In both cases the person burned a flag that belonged to them, that makes its destruction a property rights issue. I guess I had been under the impression libertarians hold property rights. I thought we held property rights as especially, if not uniquely important….

[Noscitur a sociis]

I believe your mistake was in accounting Prof. Blackman a libertarian.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nobody considers the Volokh Conspirators (other than Prof. Somin) libertarians . . . except a few disingenuous Volokh Conspirators who seem defensive about being movement conservatives in a world that is passing them by.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Bingo!

[Flight-ER-Doc]

A historical document deserves a historical punishment…..

They should be forced through a gauntlet, comprised of US Veterans (and the survivors of killed veterans)…..

All who want to join. Likely a million or more. And not unusual, so constitutional.

[Nige]

'A historical document deserves a historical punishment…..'

Not sure the historical document will survive all that, but ok.

[CJColucci]

These men should receive the maximum penalty allowed under law.

Maybe someone who holds himself out as a lawyer might deign to tell us what law applies and what the maximum penalty is.

[Trollificus]

Or you might deign to read the thread, which mentions a few that might be applicable. Unless that would delay your valuable contribution to the comments.

[CJColucci]

Blackman made the statement, let him flesh it out. He is not my teacher, I am not his research assistant, and he can’t make me do homework for him.

And for what it’s worth, I have looked at the attempts other commenters have made to put some meat on Blackman’s bones. Since the vandalism occurred on federal property, I doubt that the District of Columbia vandalism laws apply. There are some problems with the federal statutes that have been put forward. I don’t say this to criticize the commenters who have floated suggestions. They shouldn’t have to do Blackman’s homework for him either.

[FivebySixThree]

I always felt that these protestors have to be funded by the group most opposite of what they stand for simply under the idea, don't they realize the damage they do to their position by these actions?

go and protest in front of the business or government agency whose policies upset you and invite the press and more to it... but their actions usually end up turning people against them and only excite those already in their odd little circle of friends and supporters

[Nige]

Has there ever been a protest movement about which this was not said? These are harmless pranks, and they get the attention while the protests in front of governments and businesses which are happening all the time and which you are unaware of, do not.