Florida’s new “anti-riot” law championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis as a way to quell violent protests is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
The 90-page decision by U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee found the recently-enacted law “vague and overbroad” and amounted to an assault on First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly as well as the Constitution’s due process protections. People engaged in peaceful protest or innocently in the same area when a demonstration turned violent could face criminal charges and stiff penalties under the law, the judge said.
“If this court does not enjoin the statute’s enforcement, the lawless actions of a few rogue individuals could effectively criminalize the protected speech of hundreds, if not thousands, of law-abiding Floridians,” Walker wrote. “It unfortunately takes only a handful of bad actors to transform a peaceful protest into a violent public disturbance,” the judge added.
The lawsuit was filed against DeSantis and other state officials by the NAACP Florida conference, Dream Defenders, Black Lives Matter Alliance Broward and other groups who claimed the law appears specifically aimed to halt protests by Black people and other minorities.
The law, also known as HB1, stiffens penalties for crimes committed during a riot or violent protest. It allows authorities to detain arrested rioters until a first court appearance and establishes new felonies for organizing or participating in a violent demonstration.
It also makes it a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to destroy or demolish a memorial, plaque, flag, painting, structure or other object that commemorates historical people or events. In addition, the measure requires that local governments justify any reductions in law enforcement budgets.
The measure was passed earlier this year in response to nationwide riots. The governor’s lawyers have disputed the judges ruling, saying that the law continues to allow peaceful protest but is an effort to draw a sharp distinction between that and a violent riot. But the judge rejected such claims.
“Because it is unclear whether a person must share an intent to do violence and because it is unclear what it means to participate, the statute can plausibly be read to criminalize continuing to protest after violence occurs, even if the protestors are not involved in, and do not support, the violence,” Walker wrote. “The statute can also be read to criminalize other expressive activity, like remaining at the scene of a protest turned violent to film the police reaction” [Market Watch].
MANAGING EDITOR: CARSON CHOATE
PHOTO CREDITS: NEW YORK POST
Latest posts by Carson Choate (see all)
- Sudan government officials reportedly arrested, Prime Minister’s house surrounded by military - October 25, 2021
- Sen. Mike Lee encourages Sen. Joe Manchin to switch parties amid conflicting spending agendas - October 25, 2021
- President Biden hosts budget talks in Delaware with Senators Chuck Schumer, Joe Manchin - October 25, 2021