Although political violence in the United States is a real problem, state domestic terrorism laws are arguably unnecessary. Indeed, federal policymakers have resisted enacting a specific crime of domestic terrorism, in part because of First Amendment concerns. In prominent cases of mass violence, such as the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Boston Marathon Bombing, or the church shooting in Charleston, the federal government successfully convicted the perpetrators without needing terrorism charges. Instead, they relied on a variety of laws that already criminalize violence. Besides being arguably unnecessary, state domestic terrorism laws can cause serious unintended consequences.
As this report will show, the overbroad and vague provisions of state domestic terrorism laws create significant First Amendment and free expression concerns. Read full report here.
This mini toolkit is intended to guide left movement groups through building a risk assessment for an event, action, or...
This report—which relies on an extensive literature review and interviews with prosecutors around the country—begins to catalog current AI uses...
This is a policy framework for police use of robots, including ground robots and unmanned aerial vehicles (“UAVs”), also known...
We showcase existing solutions and new research from the community. Support us by sharing your own resources to our hub.
