>> Law makers in South Dakota have passed legislation into law that would essentially
make it increasingly difficult for individuals to protest the Key Stone XL Pipeline.
Now, the native american in the area are planning on protesting it and as a result of these
laws that were signed by the governor of South Dakota It is very likely that they will be
held responsible for anyone who is a provocateur or anyone who causes any type of trouble during
this protest.
So as a result the Oglala Sioux tribe has responded by saying that the governor is banned
from visiting the reservation.
So Julian Bear Runner, who is the tribe's Council President, says the following.
If you do not honor this directive, meaning if you do not do away with these new laws,
we will have no choice but to banish you.
Now, the issue here is that the company that's behind the Keystone XL pipeline has been working
with lawmakers in the State of South Dakota to encourage them to pass these insane draconian
laws that essentially outlaw protesting.
Now Bear Runner pledged that the ban would last until Noem, that's the governor, rescinds
her support for a pair of laws that the state passed in response to promised demonstrations
against the pipeline project.
The laws which codify these regulations are designed to prevent protest that may disrupt
pipeline construction.
So Governor Kristi Noem says the following in regard to the legislation.
By the way, she's the one who pushed one of these laws.
She says my pipeline bills make clear that we will not let rioters control our economic
development.
Now to give you more details into the laws they would allow officials to sue activists
if violence or lawbreaking occurs at a protest they organized, promoted or somehow encouraged,
money collected from those lawsuits would be used to pay for damage claims stemming
from that demonstration or for law enforcement costs.
So I have more details on this, but jump in, guys, I wanna hear what you think.
>> There are a couple of things going on here.
One of which he sort of eluded to Ana is the suppression of activism of any sort in this
country.
There's more of that happening in many different ways and this is the latest version of it.
Where you, in essence, you ban protesting or you limit it to a certain area.
We've been kind of okay with limiting it to a certain area.
And these designated protest areas that are oftentimes miles away from where the actual
thing that is being protested is going on.
They haven't run the Supreme Court you're not allowed to protest outside the Supreme
Court.
So I guess what I'm talking about is this limiting of activism this limiting of protesting
is a real thing.
And you see it a with the ag gag laws in the animal activist movement, they're not allowed
to photograph some the heinous things going on inside the animal agriculture.
They hold these various people, activists, responsible for economic damage and that brings
us me to the second point which you were mentioning.
I mean they view all of this as the economic engine of the state.
And if you get between them and the economic engine of the state, they will hold you responsible.
So, I see it as a suppression of activism across the board.
I mean, from antiwar activism, to this activism standing in the way of the pipeline.
But I also see it as again the triumph of big money over protest.
>> You know, I got to make a point about a story that we did earlier which was about
Laura Loomer and some of the crazy conspiracy theorists who in site violence getting banned
from these social media platforms.
That has been a giant story that every single media outlet I can think of has covered in
great detail.
There's this notion that these are the real victims here that, you know, first amendment
rights need to be considered, even though these are private companies that have made
decisions to ban them.
Look, I think that that's a fair debate and a fair conversation.
But the reason why I bring that up is because that type of story receives a disproportionate
amount of attention.
Whereas issues that I would argue actually do violate our Constitution and our constitutional
right to free speech barely get any play.
I mean we're talking about outlawing those ag gag laws, I'm so glad that you brought
them up because yes, I mean those activists and those protesters who wanted to draw attention
to the cruelty toward You know animals in factory farming and things like that.
They were attacked viciously by these industries and they were successful in passing those
ag gag laws.
And no one said anything.
I mean there was some coverage by independent media but in this case the same thing is happening.
You have protesters being targeted, you have laws getting passed that are incredibly vague
in their language.
In order to make it very, very likely the law could be used against protesters that
aren't doing anything wrong, right?
>> Right, so and then she says, my pipeline bills make clear that we will not let rioters
control our economic development.
There's two points to be made there.
First, who's gonna call them rioters?
I had to take the word of Kristi Noem who is made very clear what her priorities are.
Her priorities are to let this happen.
And so the person that she's gonna allow to control our economic development, are the
people that don't care about the folks who live where that development is going to take
place.
And so she's been making it very explicit exactly what she intends to do.
And it's very frustrating and then to the point of, essentially your incentive structure
when you're saying that people like the Laura Loomer's get more coverage, you're just trying
to, at that point do we have to incentivize these folks who are who are affected by life-threatening
pollution and oil spills to be more ridiculous.
Like what do they have to do?
Do they have to go to the, I was a valedictorian on my class, no, and you know why they're
not gonna do that?
Cuz they have real problems.
>> Exactly.
>> These are real problems, and they can't, I mean, the tears that they cry are real and
they're not ridiculous, vaudeville act tears.
>> They're not publicity stunts with the very clear intention of making money and profiting.
These are people who are actually concerned about the area in which they live in, how
this pipeline project is going to impact that environment, and no one cares.
It appears that no one in a lot of different media outlets cares, and maybe they don't
find the story sexy enough.
But even if you don't find it sexy enough, you have to consider what this means and the
type of precedent it sets when it comes to free speech.
This is a real free speech issue.
>> Yeah and and the pipelines.
You know, the threat of the pipeline is toxic buying these water supplies and this is a
real threat.
As Brett says it's, this is something that Is really happening.
The Laura Loomer thing is the media doing its masturbatory thing where they live on
social media.
So if it's happening on Facebook or Twitter, it gets a lot more play.
But this is real life, and this is real suppression.
If this were happening in Venezuela it would be used as an example of a fascist regime
and an authoritarian regime suppressing protest.
>> That's such a great point.
>> But it's happening here and as we've said, people aren't even really talking about it.
>> And that's also if you watch Knock Down the House the documentary, where Paula Jean
Swearengin is talking about all the pollution and cancer that's been brought to her West
Virginia town She say that people came in here and polluted this way, then if another
country did it we declare war immediately and, in this situation both of those things,
we have suppression of political speech and you have murder by pollution.
>> Thats such a good point.
Yeah absolutely, and just to compare Venezuela and the excuses that we are hearing from lawmakers
that want to pursue military intervention in Venezuela.
They keep mentioning things like but the people are hungry, right?
Which I agree with.
The people in Venezuela are hungry.
I don't think that US military intervention is gonna make it better but we have children
in our own country that are going hungry and lawmakers that are turning a blind eye to
it over and over again.
So can you argue that another country needs to invade the United States to do something
about it?
Of course you wouldn't make that argument.
>> Do you think that Kristi Noem cares about this banishment?
After all, was it a month ago, when there were floods on the Pine Ridge Reservation.
She wouldn't go visit.
>> That's right.
>> She didn't go visit for a long time.
So if you're talking about people who are hungry in Venezuela, you're talking about
people who don't have water there.
Certainly water everywhere but not a drop to drink.
They had to go find drinkable water.
Go through the standing water back to where they were and at a time when it took forever
to get enough support from the governor to actually come in there and do something.
I wonder if in her, the dark recesses of her heart, she's saying finally I don't have to
go to that place.