>Politicians who describe whole categories of persons as “criminals” are imputing to them permanent character traits that are frightening to most people, while simultaneously positioning themselves as our protectors.
What category specifically is the Portland Police describing as "criminals"? They are specifically calling those partaking in a riot "rioters". None of this is race related, and as a matter of fact, the vast majority of these rioters are white.
>Such language undermines the democratic process of reasonable decision making
The decisions have been made. Defacing and burning down buildings and assaulting officers is illegal. Partaking in this illegal behavior in large groups is what rioters do.
>Another salient example in the U.S. context is the use of the term “riot” to describe political protests.
No one is describing the peaceful protests as riots. The riots are described as riots.
The rest of your post is full of illogic and is clearly not describing what we're seeing in Portland. By no legal definition is what's going on in Portland now considered a "peaceful protest".
>Discussion that uses terms like “criminal” to encompass both those who commit multiple homicides for pleasure and those who commit traffic violations
Homicides are criminal, many traffic violations are decidedly NOT CRIMINAL, and instead are civil infractions. Much like riots are criminal and protests are civil. Perfect example actually, thanks for proving my point.
Law enforcement wants to brand protesters as rioters because it helps law enforcement aims and goals, which is to end the protest and the riots. This should be obvious, as they have allowed looting and rioting in instances, as well as curtailing and meaningfully impeding constitutionally protected protest activity. When law enforcement is allowed to designate people or groups as rioters indiscriminately, and then brutalize them, then arrest them, it’s clear that your rights are being impinged. Doubly so if you’re a journalist, though I feel that double standard has outlived its usefulness; the subsequent protections ought to apply to everyone subject to US law, but that’s a different topic entirely. The fact of the matter is anyone posting on this site now has more power and reach than any “journalist” in 1776, and can do as much or more “journalism” on a Twitter account today than William Randolph Hearst could on a good day in 1898.[1][2]
An interesting historical footnote from [1]:
A leader of the Cuban rebels, Gen. Calixto García[3], gave Hearst a Cuban flag that had been riddled with bullets as a gift, in appreciation of Hearst's major role in Cuba's liberation.
>Law enforcement wants to brand protesters as rioters because it helps law enforcement aims and goals, which is to end the protest and the riots.
Categorically false. There were dozens upon dozens of peaceful protests across the country in the past weeks that were decidedly not branded as riots. Very few police departments have declared groupings as riots, fewer than ten. Orders of magnitude less than the amount of protests.
>This should be obvious, as they have allowed looting and rioting in instances, as well as curtailing and meaningfully impeding constitutionally protected protest activity.
This makes little sense and actually disproves your point? City councils and mayors oversee the police departments and tell them to stand down.
>When law enforcement is allowed to designate people or groups as rioters indiscriminately, and then brutalize them, then arrest them, it’s clear that your rights are being impinged.
So you just said they're not able to since in other areas they've been told to stand down and not enforce or designate anything. You can't have it both ways.
>and can do as much or more “journalism” on a Twitter account today than William Randolph Hearst could on a good day in 1898.[1][2]
As for why everyone deserves the same protections that journalists do under the law, the same journalists being subpoenaed in OP are broadcasting citizen journalists’ content as well. We’re all journalists now.
What category specifically is the Portland Police describing as "criminals"? They are specifically calling those partaking in a riot "rioters". None of this is race related, and as a matter of fact, the vast majority of these rioters are white.
>Such language undermines the democratic process of reasonable decision making
The decisions have been made. Defacing and burning down buildings and assaulting officers is illegal. Partaking in this illegal behavior in large groups is what rioters do.
>Another salient example in the U.S. context is the use of the term “riot” to describe political protests.
No one is describing the peaceful protests as riots. The riots are described as riots.
The rest of your post is full of illogic and is clearly not describing what we're seeing in Portland. By no legal definition is what's going on in Portland now considered a "peaceful protest".
>Discussion that uses terms like “criminal” to encompass both those who commit multiple homicides for pleasure and those who commit traffic violations
Homicides are criminal, many traffic violations are decidedly NOT CRIMINAL, and instead are civil infractions. Much like riots are criminal and protests are civil. Perfect example actually, thanks for proving my point.