‘Is it enough to stand passively near violence?’: Judge strikes down DeSantis’ anti-protest law

GettyImages-1332538961.jpg?1631112719

The law banned “willfully participating in a violent public disturbance” but fails to specify what that is, the Post reported of Walker’s ruling. “Is it enough to stand passively near violence?” he wrote. “What if you continue protesting when violence erupts? What if that protest merely involves standing with a sign while others fight around you? Does it depend on whether your sign expresses a message that is pro- or anti-law enforcement? What about filming the violence? What if you are in the process of leaving the disturbance and give a rioter a bottle of water to wash tear gas from their eyes?”

The ACLU Florida wrote in a news release about the lawsuit that it “targets Black protestors and their allies who demand racial justice and has already slowed protest activity among Black organizers in Florida.”

Activists stated in the lawsuit:

The  Act  is  rife  with  constitutional  infirmities. By  defining  new protest-related  crimes,  and  by  amending  the  definitions  of  terms  like  “riot”  to extend  far  beyond  their  historical,  common-law  roots,  Florida  now  permits  the arrest,  detention,  and  prosecution  of  protestors  who  are  not  engaged  in  criminal conduct,  but  rather  who  simply participate  in  certain protests. At  the  same  time, the  Act  creates  mandatory  minimums  for  certain  offenses  and  prohibits  bail  for those arrested—ensuring that even wrongfully detained non-violent protestors must remain  in  custody  for  extended  periods  of  time.    The  law  also  allows  those  who intentionally injure or kill protestors to escape civil liability for their conduct.  And the Act includes new offenses that, as written and intended, will be applied to such basic free-speech activities as electronically posting the name and email address of a  state  legislator  or  sheriff—public  figures—on  the  Internet.    The  enactment  of these overbroad and vague offenses, coupled with heightened penalties for existing ones, serves to do exactly what was intended—i.e., silence Black people and their allies who protest racial injustice.”

Ultimately, Walker’s decision to deem the law unconstitutional in a 90-page ruling supports activists’ interpretation of the law. “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.

DeSantis said in a media appearance that he plans to appeal Walker’s decision. “We will win that on appeal,” he s said. “I guarantee we will win that on appeal.”

Democrat and State Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who is running for governor, called the law “dangerous and discriminatory” in a media statement“Today’s injunction is a win for Floridians’ First Amendment rights, blocking enforcement of a dangerous and discriminatory law,” she said. “We have now seen three court decisions in as many days where the judicial system has confirmed what we have long known: The Governor’s continued attempts to strong-arm and silence opponents are unconstitutional.”

RELATED: Florida governor rebrands bill to silence Black Lives Matter as response to Capitol riot

scroll to top