IJR News — today's news from every sideDerek Foss Vague emotional harm rules could let judges decide which protests count as illegal. Rachel Meyers This bill risks silencing peaceful protests by labeling any disagreement as emotional harm. Chris Dalton This bill risks criminalizing peaceful protests by equating words with harm to abortion access. Nicole Hardy Vague rules on emotional distress could easily silence one side while protecting the other. Rachel Meyers Jeffries dodging the illegal voter issue by blaming Trump shows Democrats still won't secure elections properly. Nicole Hardy Defining emotional harm so vaguely might lead to selective enforcement against certain views. Dana Whitfield Hundreds of noncitizens voting is too many to ignore even if the total number seems small. Marcus Bell Any law that could jail people for expressing views on abortion needs a closer look to protect speech for everyone. Sam Okafor Broad wording like this risks punishing legal speech instead of real violence. Elena Vasquez Critics should be able to speak out without fearing lawsuits over their opinions. Marcus Bell Defining emotional harm too broadly could let the law silence any public disagreement on abortion. Priya Raman This bill risks turning peaceful protests into crimes by stretching interference too wide. Tom Gallagher The ACLU warning suggests the law is too vague and could chill speech for activists on either side. Rachel Meyers This report shows a real problem with election rolls that deserves fixing, not another round of Trump attacks from Democrats. Marcus Bell Election integrity matters, so officials need to remove ineligible voters and stop deflecting when asked about it. Jared Kim Broadening interference to include feelings could shut down real debate on abortion rights in New Jersey. 
