Readers Write (Jan. 26): Minnesota Legislature and protests, Sunday liquor sales and more; abortion and the Women's March; Trump and Twitter

I read with interest about Minnesota Republicans wanting to enact a law that will make public protesting a gross misdemeanor and punishable by up to a year in jail. Also, they want protesters to assume the cost of their protests. By that logic, the five boys shot in the Boston Massacre should have paid for their own burial expenses and been responsible for paying expenses incurred by the soldiers who shot them. And other protest organizers like Sam Adams would have had to chip in.

The right to protest is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which is part of our Constitution, the law of the land. Are Republicans now saying they want Minnesota to be ruled by the tyranny of the few? What happened to being an American and allowing for protest? Did not the likes of Thomas Jefferson say after Shays' Rebellion, and I paraphrase, that a little revolution is good for the soul every now and then? Just think about it: When you begin to limit our rights to protest, you are beginning to limit our right to be Americans. Is that what Republicans want, to deprive people of their constitutional rights?

• • •

Charging protesters the cost of the necessary police response seems like an obvious solution, but let's take a broader look. There are significant additional administrative expenses in forcing protesters to pay. We can't just expect them to line up, swipe their credit cards and be on their way. Protesters will need to be arrested and prosecuted, and to avoid countersuits, probably not just a select few. At what point in the process are arrests to be made? Every protest requires at least a precautionary police response. What's the chargeable threshold? (Pun intended). In lieu of paying, the most dedicated activists will welcome jail time as an ultimate statement, and poorer protesters won't be able to pay in order to avoid it. Consider how this policy would have worked during Vietnam and earlier civil rights and protest eras? How will history judge it?

• • •

To the Legislators intent on discouraging large protests and demonstrations: If your constituents are "tiring of the disruptive protests," there is a better way to stop them. How about actually listening to the protesters' grievances and fixing the problems they are pointing out? Demonstrations and protests are constitutionally protected free speech and an important part of our democracy. As a resident and taxpayer of St. Paul, I am willing to endure the occasional inconvenience to protect these democratic rights, and I hope we will all work together to make things better.

• • •

The introduction of two legislative proposals that deal with gun laws, HF 238 ("stand your ground") and HF 188 (which allows people to carry guns without permits) is alarming. I pray the Legislature will not cower to the threats of the NRA but instead reject these bills.

One Republican senator had the audacity to call out the Minnesota nonprofit agencies. She needs to understand that these agencies provide many services the Legislature can't or won't address.

On Saturday, my despair changed to hope as I watched the millions around the world who stood up to protest and march. It's time we make elected officials, at all levels of government, accountable. We must demand transparency, monitor votes and recruit people to run for office who are committed to social justice for all. Rid yourselves of reliance on fake news and demand truth. Allow the legitimate media to do their jobs. Let the revolution begin.

• • •

It was predictable and absolutely no surprise that the Legislature is going to again review allowing Sunday liquor sales now that big-box retailers are gaining a greater foothold in our state. Why wouldn't our state representatives be subjected to the same lobbying efforts and pressure that have steamrolled our city councils one by one as new megastores receive highly contested city approvals? This rapid development of big-box retailers is a story that most in the media covered, usually with much fanfare under the guise of more options and lower prices, but, unfortunately, none chose to conduct any thorough investigative reporting that examined both initial and long-term implications to consumers. With a long-term view, it appears what is actually transpiring is not about allowing "free enterprise" to thrive nor creating more flexibility and better options for consumers.

As a participant in the Women's March in our nation's capital, I feel I have an actual view of the focus of the message and the occurrences there. Within the eight hours I spent mingling among the half a million women, men and children, not once did I see anyone who was spit upon, yelled at or called a name for any reason, as a Jan. 25 letter writer asserts. There was no celebration of abortion, only a call for a woman to still be allowed to make that difficult decision for herself. I am not outraged but saddened by the current culture that so easily shows disrespect to those of us who did make the effort to join a march to support the equalizing of the rights of all humans.

While I do not approve of everything President Trump says and does, I do not disapprove of his use of Twitter. It is a convenient, modern way to communicate. Very soon after the telegraph was invented, President Abraham Lincoln took advantage of it often, and President Franklin Roosevelt took advantage of the radio with his Fireside Chats.