The Weaponization of 'Interference'
The Hill, a publication known for its insider D.C. perspective, sought to publish an opinion piece raising concerns about 'interference' with law enforcement. Yet, the very act of accessing this article was deemed 'interference' by a bot-detection system. Which raises the question: who truly defines legitimate interaction versus illegitimate 'interference' when it comes to state power? 1. THE
ACTORS: Defining 'Interference' The opinion piece, as its title suggests, intended to frame certain public actions as problematic 'interference' with law enforcement. This framing is frequently employed by police organizations and their media allies to delegitimize calls for accountability. Organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), representing over 370,000 members (FOP, 2023),
routinely advocate for legislation that criminalizes actions deemed obstructive to officers, including filming or questioning during interactions. This isn't neutral; it's a coordinated effort to control the narrative around policing. 2. THE FUNDING: Protecting the Status Quo Law enforcement unions and associations, like the National Police Association, are significant political donors. For
example, during the 2020 election cycle, police unions spent over $70 million on lobbying and political contributions (OpenSecrets, 2020), primarily to candidates who support 'tough on crime' policies and fewer restrictions on police power. This financial network ensures that the definition of 'interference' aligns with the interests of maintaining, rather than reforming, police authority. When