From Newsgroup: alt.law-enforcement

(CN) u A judge in Oregon, Friday, reaffirmed her temporary restraining
order, blocking a Department of Homeland Security regulation that
criminalized certain actions taken by protestors outside a federal
building, including making ounusual noise.o

Two protesters u Chloe Longworth and Anna Lardner u sued the Donald Trump administration in December, claiming they were repeatedly targeted for protesting ICE on public sidewalks outside a one-block federal building in Eugene. The pair demonstrated there every Tuesday and said they were osubjected to arrest, detention, citation and warnings of the samedue to
their vocal protests," according to their complaint.

The lawsuit challenges new Department of Homeland Security rules that took effect late last year and criminalized common protest tactics outside
federal buildings, including making loud noise. In November, Longworth was arrested and given a citation for ostating her opinions regarding the lack
of moral character exhibited by ICE agentso using a megaphone, with the citation listing oprohibited conduct u unusual noise.o Lardner was
threatened with a citation while reading Timothy SnyderAs book, oOn
Tyranny,o to passing cars and pedestrians, using a megaphone."

The new regulations, the plaintiffs wrote, oviolate Oregon and US constitutions, and are obviously intended to chill the peopleAs First Amendment rights on traditional public forums.o

Five days after the federal complaint was filed, U.S. District Judge Ann
Aiken issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing the new regulations.

oWhether or not they in fact were targeted, the danger of discriminatory application exists,o Aiken wrote in her ruling, adding that the protestors
had oraised serious questions going to the merits of their First Amendment claims concerning the vagueness and overbreadth of the Unusual Noise
Provision as applied to a traditional public forum.o

Arguing to extend the temporary restraining order, plaintiffAs attorney Marianne Dugan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center said her clients used
the megaphone as a otool of political speech. They were not just standing outside making noise.o

The government countered that the protests distracted employees and made
them feel unsafe. In a pending motion to dismiss, Department of Justice lawyers cited an Internal Revenue Service employee who ocomplained that
the noise from the demonstration was interfering with the agencyAs routine business operations.o Other IRS employees also complained, osaying that it
was interfering with their ability to interview customers, a critical part
of their tax review duties.o

oAlthough warnings were issued to the protestors, including Plaintiff
Lardner, no arrests were made or citations issued,o the government wrote.

On Friday, Department of Justice attorney Michael Velchik described the current rules as a obread and butter set of regulations used to protect federal buildingso nationwide, noting that oOregon state law already
prohibits making unreasonable noises.o He emphasized the regulations were
not aimed at loud noise generally, but at banning onuisances.o

oItAs not just any loud noise,o Velchik said. oItAs interfering with operations on federal property,o though he later clarified that by
nuisance, he meant very loud noises coming through the megaphone.

oThere has to be some reasonable measure for what is loudness,o Judge
Aiken said, sounding skeptical. oI know there are measurable ways to look
at this, as opposed to just, eye of the beholder, or ear of the beholder.o

Velchik argued that different decibel levels could disturb different operations u a veteranAs center, for instance, could be more sensitive.
Aiken cut him off.

oIAm not writing for the U.S.,o she said sternly. oIAm writing for our community. I understand the building and the use of it as a historic place
for demonstrations.o

Aiken ended the hearing by saying she would ounderscore and reaffirmo the existing temporary restraining order and follow up with a more detailed opinion. She then noted that oother measures being taken at that building
that should be extremely helpful in addressing some of the nuances,o
though it was unclear what she meant.

For now, the case remains active.

Neither set of lawyers responded to an email requesting a comment on the ruling.

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-blocks-arrests-of-oregon-protesters- over-unusual-noise/
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2