way2go! 7. Practice Pack, Arbeitsheft

42 UNIT 07 | You be the judge Read the article about legal consequences of the Standing Rock protests. Some parts are missing. Choose the correct part (A–L) for each gap (1–9). There are two extra parts that you should not use. Write your answers in the boxes provided. The first one (0) has been done for you. READING 4 Harsh new anti-protest laws restrict freedom of speech, advocates say A new oil pipeline was looming in Oklahoma, and Ashley McCray wanted to be part of the resistance. She and other activists (0) near McCurtain, one of the towns where the Diamond Pipeline was about to slice through the landscape. Only days after McCray and the coalition announced their plans to resist the Diamond Pipeline construction, an Oklahoma state lawmaker (1) to increase penalties for interfering with pipeline projects and other “critical infrastructure.” The law, which the governor signed, imposed punishments of up to 10 years in prison and $100,000 in fines – and up to $1 million for any group organizing protests. Merely (2) intended for a pipeline suddenly risked a year in prison. Dozens of laws that aim to restrict high- profile protests have been introduced in at least 31 states and the federal government since November 2016. Fifteen have been enacted, according to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, including the critical- infrastructure pipeline bill signed in Oklahoma and similar bills in Louisiana and Iowa. Some of the laws (3) of rioting and terrorism and would even increase penalties for blocking traffic. The pipeline bills may get their first test soon in Louisiana, where three activists were arrested this month on felony charges due to one of the new laws after they maneuvered kayaks on a bayou to block construction of an oil pipeline. They were arrested by off-duty officers with the State Department of Public Safety who (4) but were working at the time for a private security firm hired by the pipeline developer. If the district attorney brings charges, the activists (5) itself, said William Quigley, a professor at Loyola University College of Law in New Orleans, who is representing the three people pro bono. They face up to five years in prison. In 2017, 84 members of Congress wrote a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions (6) who tamper with pipelines could be prosecuted as domestic terrorists. Sponsors of the state pipeline bills have also invoked terrorism. “There’s a legal process to stop something,” said Oklahoma state representative Mark McBride, a Republican who sponsored another bill that assigns civil liability to anyone who pays protesters. “But if you’re chaining yourself to a bulldozer or you’re standing in the way of a piece of equipment digging a ditch or whatever, it might be, yes, you’re (7) to the project and to the person that’s contracted to do that job.” Some pipeline opponents have conducted dangerous and illegal stunts, cutting pipelines or closing valves, but the majority of protests (8) . If they’ve broken laws, activists say, they’ve done so as part of the tradition of civil disobedience to enact change. “All of the social progress we’ve made has depended, over the entire history of this nation, from the very beginning, on that ability to (9) that are wrong, things that are legal but should not be,” said Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law. “These bills put that fundamental element of our democracy in jeopardy.” Nur zu Prüfzwecken – Eigentum des Verlags öbv