If the traffic-stopping protests of 2016 accomplished one thing, it's getting Minnesota lawmakers to start talking about them.

Unfortunately, much of that talk misses the point. While legislators discuss a bill aimed at cracking down on protests, such as those that occurred in the wake of the police shootings of Jamar Clark and Philando Castile, the discussion should be about what caused the demonstrations.

As these discussions unfold amid protests on a national scale, it's important to change the conversation, making it about the deepening political divide in this state and this country, rather than assigning specific blame and adding repercussions.

In recent weeks, we have bared witness to what happens when people feel their voices aren't being heard, whether it's the women who marched on Washington, D.C., after President Trump's inauguration, the prolife advocates who followed, or the countless protesters who continue to speak out today.

Topics and intent may vary, and we may not agree with all that is said, but we will always support the right to protest and raise voices in the face of perceived injustices. It's the bedrock of our country.

The effort to seemingly toss aside that foundation is what disturbs us most regarding legislation being discussed in St. Paul and at least eight other state capitals. The Minnesota version would allow cities to charge protesters for police services if demonstrators are convicted of illegal assembly or public nuisance. Cities also would be allowed to sue convicted protesters.

On the surface, it appears to protect taxpayers, but the underlying message is chilling: If you want to speak out, be prepared to pay.

It raises the bar for protesters. There are already lines drawn between the legal and illegal, and punishments are in place for those seeking to take demonstrations over the line.

Whether it's stopping traffic to protest injustice or shutting down activity due to any other illegal action, the bar needs to be established at one level and repercussions need to be equal if the hazards and costs are the same. Protesters shouldn't be expected to pay more because they oppose those who would gain from the proposed legislation.

We're not advocating efforts to defy the law and risk the safety of others, but we do understand how some can be compelled to take such actions. That compulsion isn't a crime that deserves inflated punishment.

Rather, it's something that should force us — and our lawmakers — to take pause. We need to think about why people feel compelled to speak out, stop traffic, risk arrest and continue to protest.

We need to ponder what can be done to change the need for such a compulsion, rather than simply seek ways to stifle and risk escalation in the future.

FROM AN EDITORIAL IN THE ROCHESTER POST-BULLETIN