Silencing dissent also happens locally
To the editor,
Across the country, we are seeing a coordinated federal and state level push to silence dissent. In Tennessee, a new bill says that drivers who strike protesters in the street with their car are immune from civil court actions. In Iowa, a new bill wrote that protesters who intentionally block traffic on a highway may now be charged with a felony and up to five years in prison. In Arizona a new bill would have allowed police to arrest peaceful participants in protests that turn “violent,” regardless of the individual’s actions. This same bill would also allow police to arrest organizers if protests resulted in damages. This bill was struck down. Through increasing the severity of punishment doled out to protesters, the state is trying to intimidate and dissuade others from voicing their dissent.
On a larger scale, it has been revealed that the Department of Homeland Security has been conducting mass surveillance on Black Lives Matter protesters since the murder of Mike Brown, and an FBI counter-terrorism task force has been assembled to monitor DAPL protestors in North Dakota.
Although small-town life can make us feel insulated, I want to make it clear, this repressive trend has just made itself visible here in Durango. I’m talking about the demonstration that occurred on the streets of downtown Jan. 20, the day of the inauguration. Be- fore we start, let’s get one thing straight: I am not writing to argue about the utility/legality of protesters blocking traffic (I recognize that city code states it is illegal to block traffic during a protest). Those of you making the argument that blocking traffic is illegal, well duh, that’s the point, google “civil disobedience.”
Aside from the tactics of demonstrators, a recent Durango Herald article noted that Anthony Nocella, professor at Fort Lewis College, was given a citation for these protests for “parading without a permit” and “obstructing the streets.”
There were around 200 protesters involved in the demonstration. Yet, the Durango Police Department decided only to charge Nocella. In fact, the DPD was there for the entire demonstration, and failed to give any kind of citation to any individual at the protest (Nocella was present). So, if there were 200 individuals, why only target Nocella? Nocella had nothing to do with organizing the demonstration and participated to ensure his students, many of whom participated, were safely demonstrating and knew their rights. Yet, the charges against Nocella imply that he alone is re- sponsible for the actions of 200 individuals. This is a two-pronged campaign by the DPD to simultaneously attempt to minimize the perception of dissent by attributing it all to a single person while using intimidation to threaten First Amendment rights.
Let’s be straight, this is a blatant attempt to intimidate those who dissent. Charges against Nocella move to vilify someone who believes public space should be a space for dissent and dialogue. This is a smear campaign, a clumsy attempt to make an example of a community member. It appears DPD wants to strike fear in the hearts of all potential/future organizers, this looks to me like a threat.
And yet, this is nothing new. In fact, this is the oldest trick in the book. Intimidation is an institutionalized tactic to suppress free speech and dissent.
This is a wake up call to all who think Durango is immune to anti-First Amendment attacks. They are here, and unless you show up and speak out, heightened repression will soon be the norm.
Anthony Nocella’s trial is set for April 12 at 10:30 a.m. at the Durango Municipal Court, 949 East Second Ave.
– Jim Rudin, Durango