The FBI weren’t able to gin up enough “domestic terrorism disruptions” to match their budget. Probably the majority of the ones arrested are parents at school board meetings, or people quietly praying at abortion centers, or parents sending mean letters to teachers or staff. When using first amendment rights and tagging them a “disruption”, everything in the US is a domestic terrorist disruption, if they are not politically aligned to the government.
BTW, disruption is not a legally chargible term that I can find, except on “school disruption” (see below) and basically its a “subjective” term in school based event, that ultimately violates “free speech”.
When an agency has a goal to find DTD’s it “finding a crime to prosecute a man”. Why have a goal of number of arrests, only so they can justify their budget? If they fail at using the money in budget line items, do they return the money they don’t use? (Kek, thats a rhetorical question)
disruption
noun
: the act or process of disrupting something : a break or interruption in the normal course or continuation of some activity, process, etc.
Does Criminalizing ‘Disruption’ in Schools Violate Free Speech?
Police officers who patrol school hallways have the authority to punish, search and arrest students deemed “disruptive.” But when it comes to arresting students for so-called “disruption” — the most subjective of all school-based offenses, which can entail protests and even the filming of misbehaving school police officers — officers’ outsize power is potentially unconstitutional, argue the authors of a paper published in the Lewis & Clark Law Review.
Examining Masters v. Kentucky, a Kentucky appellate case dismissing a First Amendment challenge to an open-ended “school disruption” statute, authors Frank LoMonte and Anne Marie Tamburro argue that Kentucky and other states have statutes that expose students to criminal penaltiesbased on a threshold lower than what the First Amendment requiresto validate even a minor disciplinary sanction.
Leaving intact the nation’s “most aggressively broad” statute criminalizing certain speech and conduct directed toward school employees, the Masters case involved Johnathan Masters, an education graduate student who distributed surveys to secondary school students as part of his research. When the principal failed to distribute the surveys, Masters began arguing and asked the principal to “fight” — an offense that resulted in a misdemeanor violation of the school disruption statute.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied Masters’ petition to hear the case, putting an end to his argument that Kentucky’s statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Ending at the court of appeals, the case carries broad implications, even if Masters’ behavior was legitimately punishable.
“If the reasoning of Masters were to take hold elsewhere, it would be nearly impossible for speakers to bring successful constitutional challenges against school-disturbance laws,” write LoMonte, the director of University of Florida’s Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, and Tamburro, a UF law student.
The Masters case contrasts with the High Court’s landmark Tinker v Des Moines ruling that determined school authorities may not impose discipline for the content of speech without a showing thatpunishment “is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.”
The 1968 Tinker ruling technically shifted substantial power away from school authorities. In practice, though, school authority figures regularly prevail in First Amendment cases, and courts have bolstered schools’ claims of “disruption,” even where “the risk seems speculative and the speech addresses matters of public concern,” the authors write.
https://thecrimereport.org/2021/08/24/does-criminalizing-disruption-in-schools-violate-free-speech/
https://twitter.com/RealStevefriend/status/1636136608343760896?s=20