FL: Gov. Ron DeSantis Signs Controversial Bill Restricting Protesters into Law

[PSOL]

I do not want to see an America whose prisons are filled to the brim with political activists.

[Person Man]

I do not want to see an America whose prisons are filled to the brim with political activists.

I’m sure they will learn that they will have to do more than protesting if that happens and that they will have to be conquered than simply silenced. Just as no amendment is absolute, every amendment means something.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-legislature-florida-ron-desantis-death-of-george-floyd-ed554b00260af498fa30ca4b534fb643

When signed into law, penalties would be enhanced for crimes committed during a riot or violent protest. It would allow authorities to hold arrested protesters until a first court appearance. And it would establish new felonies for organizing or participating in a violent demonstration.

It would also strip local governments of civil liability protections if they interfere with law enforcement’s efforts to respond to a violent protest and add language to state law that could force local governments to justify a reduction in law enforcement budgets.

The proposal would also make it a second-degree felony to destroy or demolish a memorial, plaque, flag, painting, structure or other object that commemorates historical people or events. That would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Without knowing the exact wording, it sounds sane and popular. If Biden would sign (and he should!) anything like this in response to January 6th, MSM would never said it's "controversial", no, on contrary, they would be ecstatic.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeMyGod/status/1384480279218114568

[Person Man]

Again, I will put this out there. What do you think liberal state attorneys will do in areas with abortion clinics? There are a few in Florida and they attract sidewalk counselors. If that’s not “mob intimidation” then that alone makes this statute unconstitutional for vagueness.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Have rioters ever simply considered, oh I don't know.... not rioting?

“President Carlson signs ‘Freedom of Access to Roads and Highways’ Act (FARH) criminalizing the obstruction of roadways by protesters”
-CNN; November 19, 2027

“Tucker just took the first step towards criminalizing all protests against his administration”
-Jacobin; November 20, 2027

[Person Man]

Again, I will put this out there. What do you think liberal state attorneys will do in areas with abortion clinics? There are a few in Florida and they attract sidewalk counselors. If that’s not “mob intimidation” then that alone makes this statute unconstitutional for vagueness.

I wouldn't object to providing another tool to prosecutors dealing with "protesters" who menace and harass young women outside of Planned Parenthood clinics. The pro-life movement is responsible for enough threats and violence to justify it.

Reasonable people with anti-abortion views should be able to distinguish between those who hold quiet prayer circles or stand with a sign for a few hours and those who try to intimidate by screaming at people entering the clinic, aggressively following them, or entering the lobby and making trouble.

But even then, where do we draw the line between rioting and protesting and rioting and an insurrection?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Interesting, it allows for victims of riots to sue the local government in the scenario of gross incompetence. 

Seattle would be f---ing bankrupt.

When they kicked out the last vestiges of CHAZ from Cal Anderson Park, the losers all ran to a nearby house, whose owner wasn't home, broke into it and occupied it and declared it their new CHAZ HQ.  And they wouldn't leave until the city gave in to all their demands.  I forget how Jenny finally got rid of them.

[Badger]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeMyGod/status/1384480279218114568

And DeSantis and those jackasses around him all applauded.

This bodes well.

[Badger]

Have rioters ever simply considered, oh I don't know.... not rioting?

“President Carlson signs ‘Freedom of Access to Roads and Highways’ Act (FARH) criminalizing the obstruction of roadways by protesters”
-CNN; November 19, 2027

“Tucker just took the first step towards criminalizing all protests against his administration”
-Jacobin; November 20, 2027

The line here between what you folks consider a riot versus with the rest of us consider a protest is very very thin. It usually has to do with the level of skin melanin of its participants.

[lfromnj]

https://www.wfla.com/news/polk-county/desantis-expected-to-sign-controversial-anti-riot-bill-in-polk-county/

Here's the main stuff the bill does.

Make it more difficult for cities and counties to reduce funding for law enforcement, allowing local elected officials to challenge those budget decisions, and giving the state power to approve or amend the local budget

Allow those local governments to be sued if they fail to stop a riot

Define “riot” as a violent public disturbance involving 3 or more people acting with common intent resulting in injury to others, damage to property, or the imminent danger of injury or damage

Enhance penalties for people who commit crimes during a riot

Create a new second-degree felony called an “aggravated riot,” which occurs when the riot has more than 25 participants, causes great bodily harm or more than $5,000 in property damage, uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or blocks roadways by force or threat of force

[Badger]

https://www.wfla.com/news/polk-county/desantis-expected-to-sign-controversial-anti-riot-bill-in-polk-county/

Here's the main stuff the bill does.

Make it more difficult for cities and counties to reduce funding for law enforcement, allowing local elected officials to challenge those budget decisions, and giving the state power to approve or amend the local budget

Allow those local governments to be sued if they fail to stop a riot

Define “riot” as a violent public disturbance involving 3 or more people acting with common intent resulting in injury to others, damage to property, or the imminent danger of injury or damage

Enhance penalties for people who commit crimes during a riot

Create a new second-degree felony called an “aggravated riot,” which occurs when the riot has more than 25 participants, causes great bodily harm or more than $5,000 in property damage, uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or blocks roadways by force or threat of force

Jesus. Let's break this down to see just what a horrible, Draconian, and arguably unconstitutional law this is, rather than merely enforcing current laws saying you can't throw rocks at cops or break windows.

1) depriving local governments of basic control of their own budgets. You want to reduce police and increase the number of social workers or mental health workers because you think that'll better address the problems of your particular City? Too bad! Representative Billy Bob redneck from nowheresville Florida is Chairman of the house finance committee and thinks you commies and nigg...um, "urban folks" need to be taught what's what. Once again, Republicans prove himself to be all in favor of local government / state or federal control, that is until the second local governments start doing things they don't like. This alone warrants trashing this bill.

Civil immunity for not "stopping a riot". So ganar the days of police commanders an officer showing restraint, seeking to contain protesters and rioters, keep their head down, prevent injury to other persons oh, and wait until the crowd fins out and clear the streets. Now, the Florida legislature has Dean that police commanders need to wait in early swinging batons with riots to break them up aggressively or else the city will get sued. What could possibly go wrong creating a direct Financial incentive for City leaders to bring the hammer down on protesters immediately and aggressively. Which of course is exactly what are little Florida neo-fascist legislature wants.

I would have to see the exact language but I really don't like this thumbnails description of 3 people acting with common intent that results - - keyword results - - in property damage or physical harm. It sounds like if you're part of the a protest and one of the other individuals causes damage, you are now legally liable for the actions of someone else without engaging in illegal activity yourself. Just being in a crowd of three or more where someone else appears sufficient. If so, that is God awful and unconstitutional.

Fourth point. Needs more detail to be assessed.

Yes, creating a high-level - - 2nd degree - - felony for blocking a road. FYI, the legal definition of force would simply be protesters locking arms or the like to suffice, not throwing bricks or pounding on car windows of Meek little white suburbanite family that took a wrong turn. That is beyond draconian.

Yeah, this bill sucks.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

5,000 worth of property damage is an incredibly low bar.

Republicans are really just brazenly authoritarian at this point.

[lfromnj]

https://www.wfla.com/news/polk-county/desantis-expected-to-sign-controversial-anti-riot-bill-in-polk-county/

Here's the main stuff the bill does.

Make it more difficult for cities and counties to reduce funding for law enforcement, allowing local elected officials to challenge those budget decisions, and giving the state power to approve or amend the local budget

Allow those local governments to be sued if they fail to stop a riot

Define “riot” as a violent public disturbance involving 3 or more people acting with common intent resulting in injury to others, damage to property, or the imminent danger of injury or damage

Enhance penalties for people who commit crimes during a riot

Create a new second-degree felony called an “aggravated riot,” which occurs when the riot has more than 25 participants, causes great bodily harm or more than $5,000 in property damage, uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or blocks roadways by force or threat of force

Civil immunity for not "stopping a riot". So ganar the days of police commanders an officer showing restraint, seeking to contain protesters and rioters, keep their head down, prevent injury to other persons oh, and wait until the crowd fins out and clear the streets. Now, the Florida legislature has Dean that police commanders need to wait in early swinging batons with riots to break them up aggressively or else the city will get sued. What could possibly go wrong creating a direct Financial incentive for City leaders to bring the hammer down on protesters immediately and aggressively. Which of course is exactly what are little Florida neo-fascist legislature wants.

I would have to see the exact language but I really don't like this thumbnails description of 3 people acting with common intent that results - - keyword results - - in property damage or physical harm. It sounds like if you're part of the a protest and one of the other individuals causes damage, you are now legally liable for the actions of someone else without engaging in illegal activity yourself. Just being in a crowd of three or more where someone else appears sufficient. If so, that is God awful and unconstitutional.

As far as I understand the bill did remove the expanded stand your ground law proposed in November which legalized the shooting of looters by private citizens.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-self-defence-laws-ron-desantis-looting-riots-mob-b1721320.html

If the government refuses to allow one to protect your property then they should be taking management of said protection. They have taken their duty and failed. Either legalize shooting looters or keep liability for weak local governments.

This part of the law seems like a very good compromise in order to prevent vigilantism while still protecting people's property.

[Badger]

I realize that we're talking about a southern state, but the desecration of memorials and historic sites that we have seen over the past year in all parts of the country has become outrageous enough to merit stiffer penalties. It's not just a matter of people tearing down statues of Confederate generals in towns where the state has outlawed local control of public spaces. That part of the bill, at least, seems justifiable.

I initially recommended this post because I agreed exactly. However, having read the summary of the law posted by l f r o m n j--and you can see my response to it--I just can't trust this bill to do anything remotely just or sensible worth a tinker's damn.

I'll readily admit I haven't read the exact Provisions about increasing penalties for desecration of monuments, but this entire bill is so got awfully Draconian, unconstitutional, and above all clearly vindictive towards left-wing protesters that I cannot trust that it amended the laws even regarding such a common sense point as yours in a remotely fair and reasonable way.

There are already laws on the books prohibiting vandalizing monuments and the like, and every aspect of this bill appears to be god-awful, so I can only operate under a rebuttable presumption that any proposed changes to this area the law will likewise be $hite.

[Ferguson97]

Right-wing conservatives are here to convince you that murder is an appropriate response to property damage, but property damage isn't an appropriate response to murder.

[lfromnj]

Right-wing conservatives are here to convince you that murder is an appropriate response to property damage, but property damage isn't an appropriate response to murder.

They removed that part of the law actually which legalized shooting looters.

[HisGrace]

There are certainly things I don't like about this like letting someone run over people blocking a road, meddling in local budgets, or giving special protections to Confederate monuments.

But I fail to see how this violates the 1st Amendment in any way. Destroying property, assaulting people, and blocking public roads have never been protected as "speech" and that is what is given more severe penalties by the "aggravated riot" distinction.

Maybe I'm missing something since almost all the news articles I can find about this just quote a bunch of people telling you how bad it is instead of telling you what it actually does.

[Person Man]

There are certainly things I don't like about this like letting someone run over people blocking a road, meddling in local budgets, or giving special protections to Confederate monuments.

But I fail to see how this violates the 1st Amendment in any way. Destroying property, assaulting people, and blocking public roads have never been protected as "speech" and that is what is given more severe penalties by the "aggravated riot" distinction.

Maybe I'm missing something since almost all the news articles I can find about this just quote a bunch of people telling you how bad it is instead of telling you what it actually does.

There’s more to the bill than that.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Right-wing conservatives are here to convince you that murder is an appropriate response to property damage, but property damage isn't an appropriate response to murder.

To be fair, there's a certain consistency to that position. That (their) property is more important than (your) life is a pretty core part of the Republican agenda.

[Badger]

https://www.wfla.com/news/polk-county/desantis-expected-to-sign-controversial-anti-riot-bill-in-polk-county/

Here's the main stuff the bill does.

Make it more difficult for cities and counties to reduce funding for law enforcement, allowing local elected officials to challenge those budget decisions, and giving the state power to approve or amend the local budget

Allow those local governments to be sued if they fail to stop a riot

Define “riot” as a violent public disturbance involving 3 or more people acting with common intent resulting in injury to others, damage to property, or the imminent danger of injury or damage

Enhance penalties for people who commit crimes during a riot

Create a new second-degree felony called an “aggravated riot,” which occurs when the riot has more than 25 participants, causes great bodily harm or more than $5,000 in property damage, uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or blocks roadways by force or threat of force

Civil immunity for not "stopping a riot". So ganar the days of police commanders an officer showing restraint, seeking to contain protesters and rioters, keep their head down, prevent injury to other persons oh, and wait until the crowd fins out and clear the streets. Now, the Florida legislature has Dean that police commanders need to wait in early swinging batons with riots to break them up aggressively or else the city will get sued. What could possibly go wrong creating a direct Financial incentive for City leaders to bring the hammer down on protesters immediately and aggressively. Which of course is exactly what are little Florida neo-fascist legislature wants.

I would have to see the exact language but I really don't like this thumbnails description of 3 people acting with common intent that results - - keyword results - - in property damage or physical harm. It sounds like if you're part of the a protest and one of the other individuals causes damage, you are now legally liable for the actions of someone else without engaging in illegal activity yourself. Just being in a crowd of three or more where someone else appears sufficient. If so, that is God awful and unconstitutional.

As far as I understand the bill did remove the expanded stand your ground law proposed in November which legalized the shooting of looters by private citizens.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-self-defence-laws-ron-desantis-looting-riots-mob-b1721320.html

If the government refuses to allow one to protect your property then they should be taking management of said protection. They have taken their duty and failed. Either legalize shooting looters or keep liability for weak local governments.

This part of the law seems like a very good compromise in order to prevent vigilantism while still protecting people's property.

Shooting peopke for breaking windows and stealing shoes, NOT when the owner or other persons are in imminent threat of harm, is a horribler idea. You were wrong in supporting it a couple months ago, and its no better an idea now when incorporated into a legislative compromise with sanity.

[AlterEgo]

Right-wing conservatives are here to convince you that murder is an appropriate response to property damage, but property damage isn't an appropriate response to murder.

They removed that part of the law actually which legalized shooting looters.

Well, that went right over your head.

[jdk]

This law is some communist china level sh**t.  Nice to see DeathSantis is using the CCP as his model for policy

[pbrower2a]

This will not pass Constitutional muster. The First Amendment clearly permits peaceful protests. Anyone who hijacks a peaceful protest to do such riotous acts as looting, vandalism, arson, or assaults is culpable for such behavior. One might as well fault news organizations for giving the time and location of a protest if someone shows up to do something inconsistent with a peaceful protest.

This makes clear that the Florida GOP seeks to gut democracy in Florida. This could be used against practically anyone who protests or strikes. Something like this suggests that a fascist or communist symbol belongs on the state flag.   

[GP270watch]

https://twitter.com/BN9/status/1415082270340362243

Cubans protesting in Tampa are blocking the road. DeSantis says it's different. What could be different? Even admits BLM protests in Florida were non-violent.

https://twitter.com/JasmenRogers/status/1415067879251316738