No, they’re not. What a ridiculous stretch to further broaden and water down what is considered racism.
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. Such language undermines the democratic process of reasonable decision making, replacing it with fear. Another salient example in the U.S. context is the use of the term “riot” to describe political protests. In the United States in the 1960s, the civil rights movement included black political protests in urban areas against police brutality (most famously in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles and the Harlem district of Manhattan). These protests were regularly described in the media as “riots.” As James Baldwin wrote at the time about the media description of these protests, “when white men rise up against oppression, they are heroes: when black men rise, they have reverted to their native savagery. The uprising in the Warsaw ghetto was not described as a riot, nor were the participants maligned as hoodlums: the boys and girls in Watts and Harlem are thoroughly aware of this.” 2 Such misrepresentations allowed Richard Nixon to run for office in 1968 on a “law and order” platform. Nixon’s administration is generally viewed as laying the groundwork for the subsequent mass incarceration of black American citizens.
In 2015, widespread protests by largely black crowds against police brutality occurred in Baltimore after the killing of Freddie Gray by police. In an article for Linguistic Pulse in April 2015, Nic Subtirelu compared different media outlets’ use of “protest” versus “riot” to describe the Baltimore protests. Subtirelu found that Fox News, the United States’ far-right media outlet, used “riot” in its coverage of the Baltimore unrest with more than twice the frequency of its use of “protest.” CNN, by contrast, used “riot” with only slightly more frequency than “protest,” and MSNBC used “protest” with only slightly more frequency than “riot” in its coverage of the unrest in Baltimore. 3 The misrepresentation of political protests as riots was a factor in the election campaign of Donald Trump, whose campaign had strong echoes of Nixon’s. Nixon, however, campaigned at a time of rising rates of violent crime. Trump’s successful “law and order” campaign took place under the conditions of some of the lowest rates of violent crime in recorded U.S. history.
Discussion that uses terms like “criminal” to encompass both those who commit multiple homicides for pleasure and those who commit traffic violations, or “riot” to describe a political protest, changes attitudes and shapes policy. A good example of what can result when language that criminalizes an entire group of people distorts debate and leads to unreasonable outcomes is the mass incarceration of American citizens of African descent.
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.
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
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]
>An interesting historical footnote from
Total non sequitur.
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.
Where did I leave my press pass? Oh, there it is.
See: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/10/protes...
Also, Jason Stanley’s book, “How Fascism Works” also has a write up on this usage of language too.