Federal Judge Blocks Florida From Enforcing Anti-Riot Law

[mudwhistle]

They aren’t. Like laws muzzling discussion of CRT, this is just another example of the right’s anti-constitutional authoritarianism.

Freedom of speech?
Freedom of assembly?

 

[Coyote]

You’ve don’t have the right to assault and kill cops, loot stores, or burn businesses you loon. CRT is bullshit, just like all your “arguments”.

Since no one is claiming that as a right...what is your point? Just trying to justify rightwing authoritarianism?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You want riots?

“HB1’s new definition of ‘riot’ both fails to put Floridians of ordinary intelligence on notice of what acts it criminalizes and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, making this provision vague to the point of unconstitutionality,” Walker wrote in the order granting a temporary injunction against the law until the issue is settled in court.

Walker wrote that HB 1 “requires individuals to ‘speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes,’ at the risk of their liberty.”

[…]

In court before Walker last week, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued HB 1 is chilling free speech with civil rights groups reporting declining memberships and demonstration participation.

HB 1’s “chilling effect” may be in the eye of the beholder, Walker wrote in his ruling, but it’s a real constitutional concern.

“While there may be some Floridians who welcome the ‘chilling effect’ that this law has on the Plaintiffs in this case,” he wrote, “depending on who is in power, next time it could be their ox being gored.” ibid

Exactly.

The sole purpose of this bad-faith measure was to silence citizens of color and deny them the right to engage in lawful, warranted protest against racism and violence.

Intended to intimidate black Americans, the law is another manifestation of Republican tyranny and the right’s resurrection of Jim Crow.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Since no one is claiming that as a right...what is your point? Just trying to justify rightwing authoritarianism?

We saw the same rightwing authoritarianism with the Florida measure violating the First Amendment rights of private social media, likewise struck down by the courts.

 

[JustAGuy1]

“HB1’s new definition of ‘riot’ both fails to put Floridians of ordinary intelligence on notice of what acts it criminalizes and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, making this provision vague to the point of unconstitutionality,” Walker wrote in the order granting a temporary injunction against the law until the issue is settled in court.

Walker wrote that HB 1 “requires individuals to ‘speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes,’ at the risk of their liberty.”

[…]

In court before Walker last week, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued HB 1 is chilling free speech with civil rights groups reporting declining memberships and demonstration participation.

HB 1’s “chilling effect” may be in the eye of the beholder, Walker wrote in his ruling, but it’s a real constitutional concern.

“While there may be some Floridians who welcome the ‘chilling effect’ that this law has on the Plaintiffs in this case,” he wrote, “depending on who is in power, next time it could be their ox being gored.” ibid

Exactly.

The sole purpose of this bad-faith measure was to silence citizens of color and deny them the right to engage in lawful, warranted protest against racism and violence.

Intended to intimidate black Americans, the law is another manifestation of Republican tyranny and the right’s resurrection of Jim Crow.

Bullshit. "Rioting" isn't "free speech", you blacks just want to be able to loot and steal with no repercussions.

 

[Dana7360]

I can't believe that there are so many stupid people here.

For all you stupid people:

It's already illegal to riot or to cause a riot.

So there is no need or reason to write more laws when rioting and inciting a riot is already illegal.

That isn't want this law was about and everyone knows it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Making yourself look dumber day by day loser.

That bridge happened long ago.

Why in the hell would anyone oppose an anti riot legislation.... well except for 1930s Germany

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I can't believe that there are so many stupid people here.

For all you stupid people:

It's already illegal to riot or to cause a riot.

So there is no need or reason to write more laws when rioting and inciting a riot is already illegal.

That isn't want this law was about and everyone knows it.

Correct.

This law is about conservatives seeking to silence Americans of color engaged in peaceful, lawful protest against police violence and criminality.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Correct.

This law is about conservatives seeking to silence Americans of color engaged in peaceful, lawful protest against police violence and criminality.

Riots are not peaceful you idiot loon

Cripes Jones do you need a nap?

 

[bripat9643]

Correct.

This law is about conservatives seeking to silence Americans of color engaged in peaceful, lawful protest against police violence and criminality.

You have to bust out in a great big belly laugh when some leftwing moron whines about being silenced by conservatives. Did you know that Tom Cotton

Did you know that two California Democrats, Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney sent a letter to the CEOs of 12 cable and satellite providers — the tech companies that carry all sorts of cable-TV shows, everything from the Food Network and the Golf Channel to Fox News?

Here are a few questions they asked the cable providers:

“What moral or ethical principles (including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information and public health) do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?”

• “Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel, including Fox News, Newsmax and OANN, for using your platform to disseminate disinformation related directly or indirectly to the November 3, 2020, elections, the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, or COVID-19 misinformation?”
• And, “Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax and OANN?” And, “If so, why?”

But as one of the witnesses, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, said: “Making a statement and putting a question mark at the end of it doesn’t change the import of the statement.” In other words — if other words are even needed — when a member of Congress “asks” a question such as, “Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News… ” or “what moral principles” go into your decision on which channels to carry, they aren’t really questions. They’re words to the wise: Carry Fox and other conservative news organizations at your own risk. We can’t regulate the news business, but we sure can regulate your businesses.

It’s called intimidation, only slightly hiding behind a veil.

What about the House voting to remove Marjory Taylor Green from her committee assignment because they didn't like her talking about the election fraud? Is that your idea of free speech?

I could go on and on, but there are only so many hours in the day.

 

[bripat9643]

Correct.

This law is about conservatives seeking to silence Americans of color engaged in peaceful, lawful protest against police violence and criminality.

Beating people up is not speech, moron.

 

[Coyote]

Pathetic deflection asshole. YOU support rioting, looting, and murder. You just want no consequences for YOUR side’s criminal acts. Making yourself look dumber day by day loser.

Looks like another clueless statement from our resident potty mouth. I would ask for a link supporting your claim but you and ilk never seem able to come up with one.

 

[SavannahMann]

Clarifying the language is perfectly acceptable. Denying average citizens the right to defend themselves in mob situations is just not going to be allowed without a fight. I suspect the OP would cheerfully see some guy in his car surrounded by "righteous" protesters who are trying to get at him to harm or even kill him. This madness we've seen out west where mobs are protected and any person who harms them as a means of self-defense gets the full weight of the law.
THAT won't be accepted down south. Have a couple of situations like that where an innocent citizen is imprisoned for self-defense and all hell is going to break loose.

That’s not the problem with the law. Let’s say you show up to a MAGA rally. You are there to celebrate the awesomeness of Trump. It is a gathering of three or more people. The law says the group can now be arrested, if anyone causes problems. one of the group throws a brick at a black cop. Now the group is guilty of Rioting under the law.

The people arrested will face more severe penalties for their crimes, participating in a riot, than if they had done something without two other people there. And the people can be held without bail until their trial.

In other words, the things that you all claim to object to for the Congressional Rioters, would be the standard in Florida. Only in reality, not in propaganda.

Now, what are the problems with this law? First, because I am at a gathering where we are all celebrating the divine glow of Trump does not mean I am doing anything illegal. If someone throws a brick at a cop, that is his problem, not mine. I didn’t throw jack shit at the cop. If I am arrested for being a Trump Supporter, then I should have the same right to try and get bail as anyone else. And I should be responsible for my actions, not one of a few hundred unaffiliated individuals who share my passion for Trump.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They aren’t. Like laws muzzling discussion of CRT, this is just another example of the right’s anti-constitutional authoritarianism.

Freedom of speech?
Freedom of assembly?

Riots are NOT Free speech or assembly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Riots are not peaceful you idiot loon

Cripes Jones do you need a nap?

This appropriate, warranted ruling is yet another example of how dishonest conservatives are, and that all they do is lie.

It’s already against the law in Florida to engage in acts of violence which result in property damage – this ruling doesn’t change that.

The ruling doesn’t make it ‘legal’ to ‘riot’ – that’s a reprehensible rightwing lie.

The law is clearly un-Constitutional, a violation of the First Amendment, a racist measure hostile to Americans of color, and a manifestation of rightwing tyranny.

 

[22lcidw]

They aren’t. Like laws muzzling discussion of CRT, this is just another example of the right’s anti-constitutional authoritarianism.

Freedom of speech?
Freedom of assembly?

If I was a "protester" at an event, I would be prepared in today's world. Learn from BLM and Antifa. They keep upping the anti. From firecrackers, smoke bombs, acids, M80's to weapons now. The so called proud boys or others or even Christian protesters are behind them in those things. If you go to their den, it must be with the idea to defeat them. Otherwise why do it? To know what they really are, the Antifa has had many of their women swing punches at others and then some punched back. And the male Antifa people would spout.. Why are you hitting a woman? This while these people are destroying areas and injuring and even killing other individuals.

 

[lantern2814]

Looks like another clueless statement from our resident potty mouth. I would ask for a link supporting your claim but you and ilk never seem able to come up with one.

Your surrender is noted.

 

[Auld Phart]

I can't believe that there are so many stupid people here.

For all you stupid people:

It's already illegal to riot or to cause a riot.

So there is no need or reason to write more laws when rioting and inciting a riot is already illegal.

That isn't want this law was about and everyone knows it.

It's already illegal to riot or to cause a riot.

including in cities like Baltimore Md, Portland Or, Ferguson Mo?

 

[Coyote]

Florida’s new riot law….

The problem with protests and riots is at what point do you intervene with force and with how much? We are a country strongly grounded in free speech rights and there has always been a high legal bar to overcome in challenges and a reluctance to intervene too forcefully.

Most of the protests WERE largely peaceful. Data, police reports, etc. show this. That keeps getting ignored with same tired memes and photos again and again. For the ones that turned violent (for multiple reasons)….were they handled well…not well? Portland maybe not so well. Portland culture is bizarre. I don’t understand why curfews were not upheld for example.

The problem with Florida is Florida’s protests, like many others, remained peaceful. Florida passed a law where the definition of riot is vague and broad, dangerously so for free speech rights. This is not private companies, this the government.

What is in the law:

What's in the anti-riot law and how will it play out? Brevard could be first to know

FLORIDA TODAY spoke with criminal defense attorneys, a public defender, a sheriff, a city attorney, and a first amendment expert.

www.floridatoday.com

“The law covers a lot of ground. It amends existing statutes, changing definitions and increasing penalties. It also creates an unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy that can overrule law enforcement budget decisions made locally.

It changes civil liability for damages and creates several new crimes: mob intimidation, cyberintimidation by publication, rioting and aggravated rioting. It also defines the destruction of historical markers, memorials or statues as distinct crimes. It also sets a mandatory minimum jail time of six months for the assault or battery of a law enforcement officer "in the furtherance of a riot."

Many of these new provisions are interlinked, hinging on the new definition of what constitutes a riot.”

In some of the specifics, a single state legislator can overrule local and municipal governments on budgetary decisions regarding police funding.

Another portion does something I actually like (going after doxxing) and think is needed, but is so vague and poorly worded it opens the door to going after journalists, including bloggers, who are just doing their job. It could have a chilling effect on free speech and a free press.

This is particularly frightening:

“Prior to the law, Florida had a blanket protection from permit requirements for political campaigning on the public right-of-way.

But the new law makes no accommodation for that.

Now someone can be arrested, and held without bail, for participating in an unlawful assembly. This could now include any gathering of three or more people that is not specifically permitted. Simply "standing on or remaining in the street, highway, or road" is now a civil infraction under the new law. If three or more people are doing that it's an unlawful assembly with the chance for arrest on a second degree misdemeanor charge without the ability to post bail before first appearance, according to the ACLU's Gross.“

There is more, but potential for abuse and the restrictions on free speech, free assembly are chilling and unconstitutional in multiple ways. Rightists ought to be alarmed as well.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Go fuck yourself you yellow coward. By the way, no man wants to “wrangle” with you. Normal men don’t swing that way. You’ve been reported for stalking.

Reported