[ad_1]
Thursday, the Tallahassee Division of the District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted a preliminary injunction blocking Florida’s controversial “riot” bill, dealing a blow to one of Governor Ron DeSantis’ central election promises and a victory for civil rights groups.
HB1, “Fight against public disorder,” was signed in law by DeSantis in April and harshly criticized for its brutal approach to protests and treatment of protesters. Created in the wake of George Floyd’s protests highlighting police brutality against people of color, HB1 created new criminal penalties for protesters and allowed the state to overturn municipal budget planning for police departments. Organizations such as NAACP and the ACLU from florida argued that the bill “cools[s] The First Amendment right of Floridians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
The gist of Judge Mark Walker’s decision revolves around the vague definition of the term “riot”. Article 15 (2) HB1 states that a “person commits a riot if [they] willfully participate in a violent public disturbance involving a gathering of three or more people. . . “while § 15 (3) (a) drops the infringement bar to”[participating] with 25 or more other people ”during a“ riot ”.
The complainants argued that it is not clear whether participation “in a larger demonstration where violence is occurring” can be interpreted as a “riot” and that the language of HB1 encourages police to act with ” extreme force ”against any group of people that can be found. guilty of riot. There is a fear that if “agitators” join peaceful protests, peaceful protesters will be targeted under the new rules. After the implementation of HB1, several civil rights groups canceled planned events for fear of possible police action.
The court agreed with the plaintiffs, noting that even a temporary violation of First Amendment rights “constitutes serious and substantial harm” that is not in the public interest. Acknowledging the plaintiffs’ charge that the law could lead to an increase in racial profiling, the court went further and said that this definition of “riot” is so vague that it “allows those in power to arm its application against any group that wishes to express a message that the government disapproves ”and that its magnitude goes against its constitutionality.
Justice Walker granted the injunction to suspend all application of the Bill’s definition of “riot,” noting that the state still had the power to “protect private property and public safety using the many tools at hand. its disposition “and the” lack of [public] interest in enforcing a law that is probably unconstitutional.
[ad_2]
Source link