ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — Florida’s new “anti-riot” law championed by Republican 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.
A key issue is defining what the word “riot” means in the statute. Walker noted that past Florida laws sought to prevent demonstrations that could threaten segregationist Jim Crow-era practices.
“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.
DeSantis said during an appearance in New Port Richey that the state will take its case to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The governor called the ruling by Walker a “foreordained conclusion” and has said he frequently prevails when appealing Tallahassee judges’ orders.
“I guarantee you we’ll win that on appeal,” DeSantis said.
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 argue the law appears specifically aimed to halt protests by Black people and other minorities.
The measure was passed earlier this year by the GOP-led Legislature and signed into law in April by the governor. It was a reaction to demonstrations around the country following last year’s killing by Minneapolis police of George Floyd, a Black man, that stirred passions nationwide under the banner of the Black Lives Matter movement.
The plaintiff groups and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida issued a joint statement praising the decision, saying the law “appears designed to target those who protest police violence.”
“As states around the country threaten to pass similar legislation, today’s decision serves as a powerful reminder that such unjust and unconstitutional efforts cannot stand,” the statement said.
State Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, a Democrat who is running for governor, called the law “dangerous and discriminatory” and said in a statement that Walker’s ruling shows “the governor’s continued attempts to strong-arm and silence opponents are unconstitutional.”
The governor’s lawyers have argued that the law continues to allow peaceful protest but is an effort to draw a sharp distinction between that and a violent riot. Walker found that argument unpersuasive.
“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.”
The law, also known as HB1, stiffens penalties for crimes committed during a riot or violent protest. It allows authorities to detain arrested protesters 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.
© 2021 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
Judge Walker seeks to protect rioters and protesters who are likely to destroy property, kill, loot, and steal because holding them accountable infringes upon their free speech. Maybe one day they will exercise their free speech on your property.
One could only hope that would actually happen. Think of the enjoyment we might have watching how quickly that judge would change his ruling.
More and more, i’d love to see one of these “peaceful protests’, BURN DOWN THE HOMES of these insane judges.. WHILE THEY ARE HELPLESS to do a damn thing to stop it.
MAYBE THEN they wouldn’t be coddling the rioters so bloody much.
Appointed by Barack Obama need I say more?
So much for pelosi’s comment the other year, of “there’s no obama judges, no trump judges. THERE ARE JUST judges!”
What part of “Riot” does this Democrat fool Judge not understand??
riot
noun
a: a violent public disorder
specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
b: public violence, tumult, or disorder
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Just like what part of “Shall not be infringed” do they not understand.. BUT ITS NOT “lacking understanding”. ITS LACK OF CARING!
Riots are not protected speech. Then you have ” because you must have intent to do violence ???because it is unclear what it means to Participate” ??? Well democrats are changing anyone at Jan 6 protect it doesn’t matter if they were violent or not
RIOTING has never ever been protected speech.. NOR SHOULD IT.
that judge is hoping by his dissertation that the blm groups and antifa groups don’t throw him into the fire first. But he should know by now he will be the first they toss.
Well if rioting is now a protected activity the Democrats should give up on their January 6 prosecution!
YOu jut know, they will NEVER apply that law evenly though.
When my daughters were teens, the rule was “if your friends start doing something wrong, leave them IMMEDIATELY or I will have to assume that you are participating in the bad activities.”
Same idea applies to all adults who become near a bad activity.
As my father always said “IF you are in a group, that’s say, serving alcohol to minors, illegally, AND YOU DO NOTHING TO STOP IT, you are just as GUILTY, as those who are GIVING THE BEER TO the minors are..”
A distinction can be made between a lawful demonstration and an illegal riot when the police declare a riot and order the crowd to disburse. Then it can be assumed that remaining individuals are rioters. Before that, those just demonstrating have a responsibility to leave when illegal violence occurs or to police their own demonstration by removing the violent either themselves or with police help. If the intent of a demonstration is to make a viewpoint known, that aim is subverted when violence becomes the message.