[ad_1]
-
A federal judge blocked Florida’s controversial riot law on Thursday.
-
Defended by Governor Ron DeSantis, the law criminalizes protests that turn violent.
-
Civil rights groups sued him, claiming he violated First Amendment rights and targeted black people.
-
See more stories on the Insider business page.
A federal judge on Thursday blocked Florida’s “riot” law, which Gov. Ron DeSantis advocated as a way to curb violent protests in the state.
North Florida District Judge Mark Walker said the order binds Florida agents, employees and attorneys, according to court documents, and blocks law enforcement as defined by the word. “riot”.
The state defines a “riot” in law as three or more people participating in a violent public disturbance that causes property damage or injury to someone, according to court documents. The Dream Defenders, a coalition campaigning for the abolition of police and prisons, sued the state, arguing that its new definition of a “riot” was too vague.
Freedom advocates said in the lawsuit that the law was too vague because it did not clarify whether people participating in a peaceful protest that turned violent could be charged, and Walker agreed. Walker said in the ruling that the state’s definition of a riot could lead to lawsuits against innocent people.
“If this court does not direct law enforcement, the lawless actions of a few dishonest individuals could effectively criminalize the protected speech of hundreds, if not thousands of law-abiding Floridians,” Walker wrote.
Walker said the state couldn’t re-define the word “riot”, but it could always remove them.
Signed by DeSantis in April, the law criminalizes protests that turn violent. He said the protests can be characterized as “mob intimidation,” a first-degree offense that can result in up to a year in prison. The protests could also be characterized as “riots,” which the law has established as a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, ABC News reported.
The controversial law has led to a handful of lawsuits by civil rights groups claiming it violated First Amendment rights and targeted black people. Walker noted in his ruling that plaintiffs suggested the law was put in place in response to the racial justice protests that took place in the summer of 2020, but he was concerned that this might have wider effects.
“Although the plaintiffs say they and their members fear that it will be used against them because of the color of their skin or the messages they express, its vagueness allows those in power to arm its application against all group that wishes to express all message the government disapproves of, ”Walker wrote.
Read the original article on Business Insider
[ad_2]
Source link