This is a classic political trap designed to put Democrats on the defensive, and we shouldn't take the bait.

The Manhattan Institute's push to classify basic disorderly conduct or vandalism as felony "civil terrorism" is an obvious, dangerous overreach designed to chill legitimate, peaceful first amendment assemblies. We should absolutely oppose creating authoritarian tools that can be weaponized against peaceful citizens holding those in power accountable.

But the way we win this argument is by being completely clear: peaceful protest is a constitutional right, but vandalism, rioting, and property destruction are crimes.

Mainstream Democrats have always stood for law and order alongside civil rights. We don't support broken windows, blocking highways, or destroying property. By firmly drawing that line, we completely neutralize their trap.

We can protect the First Amendment from right-wing overreach without ever giving them the ammunition to falsely claim we excuse lawlessness.

Also, I’m not sure what the trap is here? Did this sort of legislation pass in Utah because unwary Utah democrats fell into the trap. I believe that fighting the narrative that criminal activity during civil protest raises misdemeanors to felonies that are best described as civil terrorism requires direct confrontation with that narrative itself.
I’m not sure how agreeing that breaking existing laws is a crime will ensure that this already moving policy shift towards classifying misdemeanors as civil terrorism felonies will be stopped in its tracks. Many democratic representatives have already made this point clear regarding the destruction of property. The disagreement lies in how serious one considers the crimes within the context of protest. In the confines of protest, should they be elevated, should they be minimized, or should they be treated as they would be outside those confines? Advocates for these enhancements already refer to protest crimes as civil terrorism. The advocates of this policy only need acceptance of this shift in characterization to succeed in many jurisdictions regardless of mainstream Democrats’ proclamations of non support.

You are entirely right that when it comes to the literal legislative fight, Democrats must directly confront and defeat the dangerous "civil terrorism" narrative. Nobody should accept elevating standard misdemeanors into felonies just because they happen during a protest.

The "trap" I am referring to isn't about what happens inside a state house... instead, it is about how the opposition weaponizes this issue on the campaign trail to independent swing voters.

The opposition wants Democrats to sound like they are minimizing property destruction or accepting blocking highways, because they can turn around and use those soundbites in devastating general election attack ads.

By being crystal clear that we fully support the first amendment but draw a hard line against actual vandalism, we completely disarm their ability to paint us as soft on crime. We can aggressively fight their overreaching "civil terrorism" laws much more effectively if we don't allow them to successfully trap us into looking like we excuse lawlessness.

When the 2020 protests in ATL began to turn violent; Mayor Bottoms immediately came out & said "we're not going to stand for this" and started cracking down hard. At the START...and it was working.
But then "community leaders" went to her and complained about being heavy handed & she caved The city then had people again turn violent, buildings burn & a child KILLED. She didnt run for reelection.
We will see nothing but those pictures in the coming ads for Nov.

Your point is well taken. The soft on crime narrative the GOO has used against the Democratic Party and its candidates has been effective during my adult life. Any nuanced explanation of what’s at stake here must be prefaced by recognition that property crimes are to be taken seriously. If the GOP is allowed to run with their soft on crime narrative, everything the Democrats say will be seen by many through the lens of that bias. We have to ameliorate that presumption if we hope to have a more complex analysis reach those who are not on the same page. We often present complex ideas before making sure the underlying motives and premises are clearly understood.

REPUBLICANS only want to STOP people from being HEARD and their crimes from being TOLD.

They have been hypocritical asswads for years! They publish fantasy “research “ papers and flog them around as “Proof!!!” whatever good, decent, and needed legislation gets stopped dead. ACA was one of their big targets. Critical Race Theory another.

"Reich Wing, Fascist, anti-Democracy Propaganda Institute"

That works for me.

The law, the rules, apply to the opposition only (to democrats). This can be our new form of government if we go along (fascism). I am going to fight like hell against this bullshit.

Classic conservative reactionaryism: use authoritarian force to compel conformity and punish dissent.

As an aside, here is something else the media get wrong: there’s no such thing as diversity, equity and inclusion ‘programs’; DEI has nothing to do with hiring or employment advancement – there’s no such thing as ‘DEI’ as misrepresented and lied about by conservatives.

That is horrible.

Will we put a stop to it?

Masked armed thugs identifiable by their criminal organization: ICE.