I don't find scraping publicly accessible data nearly as bad as when they circle planes over protests and track people. Not just the marshals service, but FBI[1] and even the US Air Force[2], etc. A prime example of this was during the riots in Kenosha, WI in 2020, and the subsequent trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. A good deal of the footage they used in the trial was from the FBI surveillance plane[3], and they supplied low resolution footage, but had all persons involved clearly marked and tracked. What they actually have is much clearer than what they provided to the lawyers under subpoena. Combine that with cell phone data, and trackers they manually place on "suspects" and their cars[4].
"You" is a nebulous term during any mass action. If provocateurs[1] can unilaterally turn a legitimate protest into a "riot" in a way that materially changes the rules of engagment, i.e. if a single anonymous person among thousands can instantly change a constitutionally protected activity into a crime for everyone present, then having a legally defined distinction that is easily subvertible may not be a great idea.
Nevermind the fact that guilt-by-physical-proximity-to-a-criminal is a legally-dubious concept.
1. Embedded counter-protesters or undercover law enforcement
I don't think that's sufficient to revoke 1A rights. I think the people who do those bad things should get locked up in jail, and any remaining actual peaceful protesters should get to continue protesting.
In a group of 100 - if one person is violent, and the other 99 are peaceful would that be a protest or a riot? What is violence? Throwing an egg? Ice cream, rocks?
That would be a protest. There are crimes called assault and battery in the US that are for individuals acting violently, and they can be committed with a pretty wide variety of items.
There is also a crime called 'inciting a riot' that can get you in trouble for trying to turn a protest violent even if you didn't try to hurt anyone yourself.
What is violence is definitely an interesting question, but the decision-making process used by police keeping a protest peaceful, and the charges that can be applied afterwards when a protest goes wrong, have a lot of case law and precedent established.
> That would be a protest. There are crimes called assault and battery in the US that are for individuals acting violently, and they can be committed with a pretty wide variety of items
So if a building is burnt down, it could be an arson at a site of protest, rather than automatically becoming a riot?
Is it criminal for police to try and incite violence at an otherwise peaceful protest? If they are successful in provoking violence, can they then legally disperse everyone?
An individual act of arson not disrupting or a protest or turning it violent is possible, sure.
It's illegal for police to deliberately ruin a protest. The right to protest is ultimately defended by the US constitution's first amendment (free speech) and there are federal, state and local laws and policies that stem from that.
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3zvwj/military-fbi-flying-s...
[2] https://theintercept.com/2020/07/23/air-force-surveillance-p...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial/ind...
[4] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/mysterious-p...