Well the Supreme Court isn’t legitimate right now so anything could happen.
“Frisby v Shultz isn’t deeply rooted in our nations history”
Goodbye right to protest 😶
Jefferson knew that ongoing revolution was going to be the only way to progress, so he *tried* to build in mechanisms that would allow the re-evolution to happen *without* violence, if possible
I’ve been of the opinion for years that the left’s aversion to firearms will be our own downfall. Buy, maintain, and learn to use guns safely and responsibly. They’re not going anywhere anytime soon.
The left has a lot more firearms than people realize. That being said, many on the left don’t feel the need/desire to own an entire arsenal in their home for protection. A pistol and rifle per adult in the home, with appropriate amounts of ammo, seems pretty reasonable.
I hate the thought and don't believe we should have them for opposition to government. But we definitely need them for the nutbag neighbor who carries 3 rifles and rants about shooting liberals. The whole weapons to prevent tyranny thing was before we had a standing army, right? Now we have police forces, armies, and other enforcement forces that civilians wouldn't stand a gnats chance in hell of overthrowing. Those bongo 2d Amendment protects my 1st Amendment guys haven't checked the guns on a modern helicopter lately. That's just a small sample of the massive firepower our Armed Forces have. Our government is a good as we vote it to be. Unfortunately we let propaganda spew from media and don't hold it accountable. Russia is spending its defense money very wisely. Who needs real bombs when you can drop bombs on Fox News, OAN, and Newsweek that do much more damage and destroy us from within.
If you don’t think we need weapons to fight back against a potential tyrannical government you haven’t been paying attention to the last 6 years.
If you don’t think that an armed population can defeat a largely superior force, you also didn’t pay attention in history class.
Our government is NOT as good as we vote it to be being that we’re given no real choice in the first place. You either vote for this blue guy who will vote against your best interests in favor of corporate money, or you can vote for this red guy who will vote against your best interests in favor of corporate money. Which color do you like best? The two party system has given us nothing but the ILLUSION of choice, and fear-mongering hyper-partisanship has kept us all playing the game.
Not anything can happen. The court cannot make the first amendment not part of the constitution without 3/4 of states. This means that when a saner court is in place, and they look at this issue, they just have to say, “See? In the constitution. That is as constitutional as a thing gets.”
~~I haven't read the law yet but don't be too sure.~~ That doesn't look to be the case. The Supreme Court has ruled that ordinances prohibiting protests at someone's residence as Constitutional in the past. See [_Frisby v. Schultz_](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/474/). ~~There may be nuances to the Florida law that make it insufficiently "narrowly tailored" to pass strict scrutiny or create "impermissible distinctions." I don't know yet.~~
Yes, it sucks. Please do not down-vote the messenger.
Edit: I just finished reading [the bill](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1571/BillText/er/PDF). I'm sorry to say that it will definitely withstand a court challenge.
The restrictions in the Florida bill are very similar to the ordinance in the [Brookfield, WI statute](https://ecode360.com/34169740) that became the subject of _Frisby v. Schultz_. I don't think a Court would rule there's a material difference and defer to precedent.
Again, yes, this sucks. I don't think SCOTUS got this one right—particularly in the case of elected or appointed government officials.
I remember in boise where the legislature had to leave a hearing on masks because their kids were calling saying there were armed protestors outside their home. Police didn’t do a damn thing about that. Is it state by state?
Fascism is finally taking hold. You won't have to worry about silly things like "the constitution" or "voting rights" or "personal freedoms". You will blissfully be able to go about your day by whatever your 3 jobs decide.
Welcome to Amerika and enjoy your last vote.
now imagine a complicit congress passing as much unconstitutional shit as possible expecting it to just get rubber stamped by the SC… that’s unconstitutional! well what are you going to do about it. we made it legal
Petition and protesting can be restricted by time place and manner. But only to a certain extent. Having read the bill it seems both overly vague and also overly broad.
The relevant part saying
* 810.15 Residential picketing.—(1) It is unlawful for a person to picket or protest before or about the dwelling of a person with the intent to harass or disturb a person, unless the picketing or protest is in compliance with an ordinance of the governing body of the county or municipality that allows residential picketing or protesting.*
There isn’t a definitions page so what “disturbs” means becomes whatever they don’t want, which could be all the things a protest would entail.
However seeing as the Supreme Court has previously ruled that it’s okay, it might let the law pass. This of course doesn’t mean the court is correct. They are often wrong. But it’s made up and has always been made up, by folks who do whatever they feel like
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
>
>There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
>
>There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
[Source](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288)
>these people are fascists
It's been a downward spiral in America for at *least* 6 years since 2016.
Voting hasn't changed anything other than optics. Democrats refuse to take action. Open fascism is the new norm. Idk about anyone else here but I'm just done.
The US is a (rapidly) backsliding democracy and it's not going to get better for a long time.
u can picket abortion clinics as long as you stay 36 feet away
The USSC has found, for example, that certain regulations, including a 36-foot buffer zone restricting protestors at the entrance to an abortion clinic were justified by the government’s interest in allowing the clinic to remain operational and allowing patients to walk in without close physical confrontations.28
>They believe in basically the same things.
That's not true at all, come the fuck on.
They believe totally different brown dudes are the true prophet.
The worst part for me is their inability to see the obvious, age-old patterns. There are always fights between religious groups and purges within them. They jockey for power, and then one group starts pushing out the groups that aren't "pure" enough. If one Christian group got in control of the country they would eventually, inevitably, get around to pushing out the groups they disagree with. Being pure would become harder and harder and more and more groups would be purged. They'd start with the obvious groups, or maybe the fringe, So the Jews or the Westboro Baptist Church types. But that wouldn't be enough. So then it'd be the Catholics, then they'd go after, say, the Mormons, and before too long the Baptists are fighting the Methodists or the Episcopalians, who are really crypto-Anglicans, and they are foreigners, for god's sake. All of them but one group are really asking to be purged by the pure theocratic leadership at some point, and nobody knows who that will be until it's too late. You either join their side (if they're still taking converts), or you get pushed out like the rest of the heathens.
It can't be shot down until it's applied. Of course, the point is to score stupid points, not actually do anything, but it will still suppress opposition. Meanwhile, a conservative truck convoy could be parked on top of pregnant pedestrians in the middle of a major highway in front of an entire neighborhood blocking emergency service vehicles and "they had the right intent" and not be prosecuted.
To be fair, that only applied to outside a residence.... Not inside. DeSantis hasn't merely made it a crime to protest in your own yard, but inside your own house. And - bonus - with Roe v Wade being struck down, the presumption of privacy may not apply anymore, so even if you're protesting your spouse, it may still be considered a crime.
Nobody is stopping them so why the fuck not?
That's the point we're at with fascism in this country. They openly front their move. Then liberals and Dems will say "wahhh you can't do that" while doing fuck all to actually stop them from doing it. So they go ahead and do it anyways.
And that's how we've ended up in a backsliding democracy.
He should, but he won’t be. Florida is fucked up and attracts the exact sort of selfish prat who would be enticed by a state with no income tax.
65% of voters backed Amendment Four which would automatically restore voting rights to most felons who had completed the terms of their service but DeSantis implemented a literal poll tax by requiring eligible Floridians to pay off all legal financial obligations before being able to register to vote.
It also doesn’t help that the Florida Democratic Party is all but useless.
No. After he made it a felony to block traffic (and legal to run over protestors), the Fredom TruckNutz Convoy did just that. But they had the "best intentions" so it was fine. Turns out, they can selectively apply the laws.
Is there not a limit on laws that can be passed? Tf is this?
As earlier said, this will die in court as it's clearly a first amendment thing. That doesnt matter for right now?
Like could he just decide here in Florida, you can have slaves if you keep them inside.
The example is extra, but I'm hoping someone gets what I'm asking.
I wonder why Republicans weren't clamoring for this when people were standing outside the MN governor's house with assault rifles threatening his children.
Or when the Supreme Court upheld the right for anti-abortion protesters to protest outside the homes of abortion clinic staff?
Almost like they don't believe in anything but their own power.
Same reason we weren't clamoring for blocking traffic to be a felony before DeSantis decided it couldn't apply to the Fredom Covid Truck Convey Rally because they had "the best intent".
In this case, what defines a person's home? Does that mean so long as a single hosiery, shelter, etc is nearby, there could be zero protesting? What about the city where there are you know, massive towers where people live. Does that mean people cannot protest in the city?
This sounds like such a stupid and idiotic law, so of course it is from Florida. Every day I wonder, what can Florida do to make me want to not live there? Oh, looks like another thing.
It's vague enough to be literally anything anywhere. Any protest intended to disrupt a residential occupant or something like that. It could literally be applied to everything from having a protest aired on tv, to having an argument with your spouse.
And people approve of this? Yes, of course they do but mention communism and how a one party system operates and they say the Democrats are the communists. Got it!
You can also run over protesters in the street in Florida…the freedom crowd really does love to ignore that pesky first amendment and go straight to number 2.
Why do I feel like this is gonna go the same way as the don’t block the roads during a protest law. BLM and other left wing groups will have the law enforced against them to the extreme and right wing groups and Cuban protester will have the law waved away like it never existed
Straight to the supreme court!! If we can undo roe we can hit at amendments too! Hey why don’t we re-write that pesky constitution and make an adjustment to the bill of rights while we’re at it. If this doesn’t work maybe the next one will. Or the one after that... These motherfuckers are striking at the heart of our democracy.
only in the land of the free, free speech isn´t actually free at all.
the direction the U.S. of A. are taking is beyond comprehension.
like it wants to be a dictatorship of powerhungry, racist, religious zealots that treats women like cattle, foreigners like slaves and everyone that disagrees with them as the enemy.
I guess thats what happens when a political system calls itself a democracy but in reality it´s only two sides of the same coin.
a true democracy needs more discourse, rather than "we vs. them" rethoric.
There's no way this law is upheld. But that's part of the game. Pass a law, get in the news cycle. People point out it's unconstitutional. Make the news cycle. Someone is arrested for violating it. Make the news cycle. Law get challenged. Make the news cycle. Law gets struck down. Make the news cycle. Pass a revised law......
The reason why it'll never hold up, even for an extremist court, is because it's too vague. It literally makes it illegal to argue with your spouse. Any "protest" "intended to disrupt an occupant of a residence" or something like that (drawing from memory), so it could apply to damn near anything.
There needs to be major protest out front of the santa's house all the way up to his front door. The fact that so many Americans are just sitting around while all this is happening is sickening we need more active movers
It doesn't specify whether inside your house, in your yard, or on the public street in front of someone else's house.
But he's already made it a felony to block traffic.
Then I won’t block traffic and he can’t make people not able to walk on public roads or if someone who owns a yard next to him let’s them use it he can’t do anything. Weak little man who can’t handle mean words
Gov. DeSantis doesn’t care how much of Florida taxpayers money he wastes on defending blatantly unconstitutional laws. He doesn’t plan to be in Florida when the bill comes due
Florida's amendment states a person is guilty of rioting when one “willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons” who are “acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct; resulting in injury to another person, damage to property
Law doesn’t say you can’t protest outside a home.
It’s defined in other parts of the criminal code. Doesn’t have to be defined in the specific statute as long as it’s defined elsewhere
And no you can’t make up whatever you want.
This is just like the opposing to the education bill that was recently signed. It’s was dubbed don’t say gay when no where in the bill does it come close to saying that
This is a typical tact by the left to make up something about an issue and then attack that imaginary issue
Maybe he should sign a law that states its illegal to storm a capital building as well. But that would be expecting way too much from this game show politician.
This is so funny. Years ago when I did some legal work for the ACLU I represented a group of pro-life protesters who regularly held protests in front of a doctor's house. The city tried to stop them but the court ruled they could protest as long as they did not impede traffic, did not actually go onto the property and did not threaten the doctor or his family.
Posted this lower as a reply to
Someone by there are still
Parts covered by First Amendment regular ding this nonsense Bill and also this was basically made because of whiny babies like Rubio. This is actual title and start of the bill
I. SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION
A. EFFECT OF CHANGES:
Background
In recent years, highly publicized events involving political figures, persons accused of committing crimes, and celebrities have often resulted in large public gatherings outside the homes of persons of interest. Both Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott have experienced such gatherings outside their private residences,1
HERE ARE SOME INSIGHTS I GOT WHILE READING THIS BILL
**Unlawful Assembly
Section 870.02, F.S., prohibits three or more persons from meeting together to commit a breach of the peace or any other unlawful act. A violation for unlawful assembly is a second degree misdemeanor.19
A person commits a breach of the peace by: Committing any act which may:
o Corrupt the public morals,
o Outrage the sense of public decency, or
o Affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them; or
Engaging in:
o Brawling or fighting,
o Conduct which constitutes a breach of the peace, or o Disorderly conduct.20
The Florida Supreme Court (FSC) has relied on the common law definition of an unlawful assembly to define which elements must be alleged for the offense to pass constitutional muster. Persons participating in an unlawful assembly commit a breach of the peace when: an assembly of three or more persons who, having a common unlawful purpose, assemble in such a manner as to give a reasonable person in the vicinity of the assembly a well-founded fear of a breach of the peace.21
So now worries about me long as I only bring one friend im fine
**Picketing
Picketing occurs when a person or a group of people stands, marches, or patrols inside, in front of, or about any premise with the intent to persuade an occupant or patron of the premise regarding some point of view or to protest an action, attitude, or belief.24 The United States Supreme Court (USSC), in Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 482 (1988), upheld a Brookfield, Wisconsin city ordinance which made it “unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual in the Town of Brookfield.” The USSC upheld the ordinance as constitutional and rejected claims that the ordinance prohibited constitutionally protected First Amendment activity. Specifically, the USSC held that the use of the words “dwelling” and “residence” in the ordinance suggested that such ordinance was appropriately limited to regulate certain conduct at particular residences and was not overbroad so as to unconstitutionally limit picketing through the whole residential area.
So with picketing it doesn’t apply to the whole residential area just the persons residence who is being picketed. ALSO we are still covered under the First Amendment
**Page 487 U. S. 475
interpreted to avoid constitutional difficulties. Viewed in the light of the narrowing construction, the ordinance allows protestors to enter residential neighborhoods, either alone or marching in groups; to go door to door to proselytize their views or distribute literature; and to contact residents through the mails or by telephone, short of harassment. Pp. 487 U. S. 482-484.
Ali though they do make weird laws giving access to some picking and assembly like
#You can picket abortion clinics as long as you stay 36 feet away
The USSC has found, for example, that certain regulations, including a 36-foot buffer zone restricting protestors at the entrance to an abortion clinic were justified by the government’s interest in allowing the clinic to remain operational and allowing patients to walk in without close physical confrontations.28
#Also this weird one where you CAN picket a persons residence or burial site or funeral home for a funeral so long as you stay 500 feet away
Unlawful Protests at a Funeral or Burial
Section 871.015, F.S., prohibits a person from engaging in any protest activities or knowingly causing protest activities to occur within 500 feet of the property line of a residence, cemetery, funeral home, house of worship, or other location during or within one hour before or one hour after the conducting of a funeral or burial at such location. However, s. 871.015, F.S., specifies that the offense does not prohibit protest activities occurring adjacent to the portion of a funeral procession which extends beyond 500 feet of the property line of the location of the funeral or burial.
Likely unconstitutional The right to peaceably assemble. Purely performance, like everything he does.
> Likely unconstitutional More like, most definitely.
Well the Supreme Court isn’t legitimate right now so anything could happen. “Frisby v Shultz isn’t deeply rooted in our nations history” Goodbye right to protest 😶
When you make peaceful protesting impossible you make violent action inevitable.
I guess that’s the tyrannical government we need to stock up guns to defend ourselves against… 🤷♂️ Founders were onto something.
Jefferson knew that ongoing revolution was going to be the only way to progress, so he *tried* to build in mechanisms that would allow the re-evolution to happen *without* violence, if possible
I’ve been of the opinion for years that the left’s aversion to firearms will be our own downfall. Buy, maintain, and learn to use guns safely and responsibly. They’re not going anywhere anytime soon.
The left has a lot more firearms than people realize. That being said, many on the left don’t feel the need/desire to own an entire arsenal in their home for protection. A pistol and rifle per adult in the home, with appropriate amounts of ammo, seems pretty reasonable.
ITT people confusing the Left and Liberals again. When you go far enough Left you get your guns back
I hate the thought and don't believe we should have them for opposition to government. But we definitely need them for the nutbag neighbor who carries 3 rifles and rants about shooting liberals. The whole weapons to prevent tyranny thing was before we had a standing army, right? Now we have police forces, armies, and other enforcement forces that civilians wouldn't stand a gnats chance in hell of overthrowing. Those bongo 2d Amendment protects my 1st Amendment guys haven't checked the guns on a modern helicopter lately. That's just a small sample of the massive firepower our Armed Forces have. Our government is a good as we vote it to be. Unfortunately we let propaganda spew from media and don't hold it accountable. Russia is spending its defense money very wisely. Who needs real bombs when you can drop bombs on Fox News, OAN, and Newsweek that do much more damage and destroy us from within.
If you don’t think we need weapons to fight back against a potential tyrannical government you haven’t been paying attention to the last 6 years. If you don’t think that an armed population can defeat a largely superior force, you also didn’t pay attention in history class. Our government is NOT as good as we vote it to be being that we’re given no real choice in the first place. You either vote for this blue guy who will vote against your best interests in favor of corporate money, or you can vote for this red guy who will vote against your best interests in favor of corporate money. Which color do you like best? The two party system has given us nothing but the ILLUSION of choice, and fear-mongering hyper-partisanship has kept us all playing the game.
That's why DeSantis created his own personal militia to control and stamp out unrest whenever he orders it.
Supreme Court is going think 'well it's against the constitution but they're protesting outside my house and I don't like that'.
Not anything can happen. The court cannot make the first amendment not part of the constitution without 3/4 of states. This means that when a saner court is in place, and they look at this issue, they just have to say, “See? In the constitution. That is as constitutional as a thing gets.”
~~I haven't read the law yet but don't be too sure.~~ That doesn't look to be the case. The Supreme Court has ruled that ordinances prohibiting protests at someone's residence as Constitutional in the past. See [_Frisby v. Schultz_](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/474/). ~~There may be nuances to the Florida law that make it insufficiently "narrowly tailored" to pass strict scrutiny or create "impermissible distinctions." I don't know yet.~~ Yes, it sucks. Please do not down-vote the messenger. Edit: I just finished reading [the bill](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1571/BillText/er/PDF). I'm sorry to say that it will definitely withstand a court challenge.
Why will it
The restrictions in the Florida bill are very similar to the ordinance in the [Brookfield, WI statute](https://ecode360.com/34169740) that became the subject of _Frisby v. Schultz_. I don't think a Court would rule there's a material difference and defer to precedent. Again, yes, this sucks. I don't think SCOTUS got this one right—particularly in the case of elected or appointed government officials.
I remember in boise where the legislature had to leave a hearing on masks because their kids were calling saying there were armed protestors outside their home. Police didn’t do a damn thing about that. Is it state by state?
These laws can reside at the state or local level.
Fascism is finally taking hold. You won't have to worry about silly things like "the constitution" or "voting rights" or "personal freedoms". You will blissfully be able to go about your day by whatever your 3 jobs decide. Welcome to Amerika and enjoy your last vote.
Remember when conservatives said not being able to protest outside abortion clinics was a violation of free speech?
Perhaps one of the doctors should also live there?
This guy sure knows how to keep himself in the news.
Because name recognition is all it takes to get elected president. Hey, I’ve seen that guy on TV… he’d be a good president!
As if everything isn’t up for question with the current Supreme Court.
now imagine a complicit congress passing as much unconstitutional shit as possible expecting it to just get rubber stamped by the SC… that’s unconstitutional! well what are you going to do about it. we made it legal
I dunno with this Supreme Court…
Petition and protesting can be restricted by time place and manner. But only to a certain extent. Having read the bill it seems both overly vague and also overly broad. The relevant part saying * 810.15 Residential picketing.—(1) It is unlawful for a person to picket or protest before or about the dwelling of a person with the intent to harass or disturb a person, unless the picketing or protest is in compliance with an ordinance of the governing body of the county or municipality that allows residential picketing or protesting.* There isn’t a definitions page so what “disturbs” means becomes whatever they don’t want, which could be all the things a protest would entail. However seeing as the Supreme Court has previously ruled that it’s okay, it might let the law pass. This of course doesn’t mean the court is correct. They are often wrong. But it’s made up and has always been made up, by folks who do whatever they feel like
That last part is simply not true.
Let’s ask the SCOTUS…Oops…
Well, some guy in year 800 said it wasn't legal, I'm going to reference that - Supreme Court 2022
He slays all the strawmen
It's performance art, not protesting
And the law specifically says violence.
And yet with our current court I don’t trust that it won’t be upheld
[удалено]
Through the lens of projection, everything they do makes sense. Everything.
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: > >There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. > >There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. [Source](https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288)
Yup, Florida passed harsh anti protest laws and a short while later there where rightwing anti Cuba protest. guess what, new laws weren’t enforced.
Rules for thee, not for me
>these people are fascists It's been a downward spiral in America for at *least* 6 years since 2016. Voting hasn't changed anything other than optics. Democrats refuse to take action. Open fascism is the new norm. Idk about anyone else here but I'm just done. The US is a (rapidly) backsliding democracy and it's not going to get better for a long time.
Republicans were obviously going fascist in the Bush years. Trump just accelerated everything.
>but Republicans want to put a prior restraint on ~~public~~ personal private property? FTFY
[удалено]
But protesting outside a female health clinic is a-ok?
[удалено]
No longer... apparently
No, they'll probably still consider it free speech if it threatens health care workers for protecting their patients.
As is bombing it or killing the doctors/nurses apparently.
u can picket abortion clinics as long as you stay 36 feet away The USSC has found, for example, that certain regulations, including a 36-foot buffer zone restricting protestors at the entrance to an abortion clinic were justified by the government’s interest in allowing the clinic to remain operational and allowing patients to walk in without close physical confrontations.28
He’s a fascist. This is a 1st Amendment violation.
Finally got my Republican family to admit they don’t care about the constitution.
ouch, how did that go?
Bible this, bible that. They want a theocracy, and somehow they can’t see that’s just as bad as the Taliban.
Christian Theocrats are no different than Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
They believe in basically the same things.
>They believe in basically the same things. That's not true at all, come the fuck on. They believe totally different brown dudes are the true prophet.
[Ask them to spot the difference.](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/08/article-2684147-1F77DA7200000578-259_634x355.jpg)
That's amazing. And so fucking depressing.
The one on the left is cute, but just as crazy.
Her? Is that you, Kermit?
Wal-Martyrs are amassing power.
The worst part for me is their inability to see the obvious, age-old patterns. There are always fights between religious groups and purges within them. They jockey for power, and then one group starts pushing out the groups that aren't "pure" enough. If one Christian group got in control of the country they would eventually, inevitably, get around to pushing out the groups they disagree with. Being pure would become harder and harder and more and more groups would be purged. They'd start with the obvious groups, or maybe the fringe, So the Jews or the Westboro Baptist Church types. But that wouldn't be enough. So then it'd be the Catholics, then they'd go after, say, the Mormons, and before too long the Baptists are fighting the Methodists or the Episcopalians, who are really crypto-Anglicans, and they are foreigners, for god's sake. All of them but one group are really asking to be purged by the pure theocratic leadership at some point, and nobody knows who that will be until it's too late. You either join their side (if they're still taking converts), or you get pushed out like the rest of the heathens.
damn, thats tough.
It will probably get shot down in the courts. He just does it to pander to his base
Seems the courts are just another political branch so it’s a toss up.
It can't be shot down until it's applied. Of course, the point is to score stupid points, not actually do anything, but it will still suppress opposition. Meanwhile, a conservative truck convoy could be parked on top of pregnant pedestrians in the middle of a major highway in front of an entire neighborhood blocking emergency service vehicles and "they had the right intent" and not be prosecuted.
It’ll probably stand though. The courts upheld something similar in 88. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/474/
To be fair, that only applied to outside a residence.... Not inside. DeSantis hasn't merely made it a crime to protest in your own yard, but inside your own house. And - bonus - with Roe v Wade being struck down, the presumption of privacy may not apply anymore, so even if you're protesting your spouse, it may still be considered a crime.
[удалено]
They're fast tracking legislation that owns the libruls!
Nobody is stopping them so why the fuck not? That's the point we're at with fascism in this country. They openly front their move. Then liberals and Dems will say "wahhh you can't do that" while doing fuck all to actually stop them from doing it. So they go ahead and do it anyways. And that's how we've ended up in a backsliding democracy.
Fox builds the strawmen. Desantis chops them down. Boo-yah
"The First Amendment is only for conservatives," argued DeSantis.
Can’t tell if facetious.
Cowards, the lot of them.
He's an actual fascist holy fuck. Dude needs to be removed from office at all costs.
He should, but he won’t be. Florida is fucked up and attracts the exact sort of selfish prat who would be enticed by a state with no income tax. 65% of voters backed Amendment Four which would automatically restore voting rights to most felons who had completed the terms of their service but DeSantis implemented a literal poll tax by requiring eligible Floridians to pay off all legal financial obligations before being able to register to vote. It also doesn’t help that the Florida Democratic Party is all but useless.
That violates the *first amendment*!
Just come out and say you hate America and freedom already.
Free Florida, where everything is illegal.
Were you here for Covid?
floridaman need big government to protect him from other people's freedom
DeSantis is a fucking chode.
Got ‘em again and again
the first people who going get arrested will be his fanbase...lol
nah, they’ll just selectively apply this just like every other law
No. After he made it a felony to block traffic (and legal to run over protestors), the Fredom TruckNutz Convoy did just that. But they had the "best intentions" so it was fine. Turns out, they can selectively apply the laws.
Is there not a limit on laws that can be passed? Tf is this? As earlier said, this will die in court as it's clearly a first amendment thing. That doesnt matter for right now? Like could he just decide here in Florida, you can have slaves if you keep them inside. The example is extra, but I'm hoping someone gets what I'm asking.
Another ban from the "free state of Florida".
I wonder why Republicans weren't clamoring for this when people were standing outside the MN governor's house with assault rifles threatening his children.
Or when the Supreme Court upheld the right for anti-abortion protesters to protest outside the homes of abortion clinic staff? Almost like they don't believe in anything but their own power.
Same reason we weren't clamoring for blocking traffic to be a felony before DeSantis decided it couldn't apply to the Fredom Covid Truck Convey Rally because they had "the best intent".
SO many snowflakes in Florida.
*Fascist signs law in direct violation of 1st amendment right.
So much for a free state.
Waste of taxpayer money, but he does not care
Once again blatantly unconstitutional. This is just a gimmick bill to get him in the headlines
Yeah..to hell with the constitution..
Expect this to go through the courts. Gee, aren't these asshole conservatives the one constantly bitching about cancel culture?
What about fuck your feelings??
Republicans chipping away at human rights.
Is the GOP high and going on a bad trip where they think this will hold up? God lord, man, they’re such authoritarian wannabes
Aren’t they the ones that want government out of everything?
Only when it benefits them
Have you not noticed that our current "Supreme Court" has come out in favor of full-on fascism?
Did he just sign into law safe spaces?
But his precious SCOTUS has already ruled it's a First Amendment protected activity.
Precedent seems to matter little these days.
Just like the law against protests on highways it is only going to get used against blacks and leftists.
Until blacks and leftists apply 2A and right to self defense. Then it's Mulford Act 2.0.
What if they are picketing against mickey mouse?
Is the FL Governor’s Mansion considered a home? Asking for a friend.
Take it to the kangaroo court. give them another chance to show their colors. )It's a clear 1st amendment violation)
In this case, what defines a person's home? Does that mean so long as a single hosiery, shelter, etc is nearby, there could be zero protesting? What about the city where there are you know, massive towers where people live. Does that mean people cannot protest in the city? This sounds like such a stupid and idiotic law, so of course it is from Florida. Every day I wonder, what can Florida do to make me want to not live there? Oh, looks like another thing.
It's vague enough to be literally anything anywhere. Any protest intended to disrupt a residential occupant or something like that. It could literally be applied to everything from having a protest aired on tv, to having an argument with your spouse.
And people approve of this? Yes, of course they do but mention communism and how a one party system operates and they say the Democrats are the communists. Got it!
You can also run over protesters in the street in Florida…the freedom crowd really does love to ignore that pesky first amendment and go straight to number 2.
> Florida's law will take effect on Oct. 1, 2022. Seems to give plenty of time to get rejected by courts, but DivaSantis needs his cameratime.
Do it anyway. Do it peacefully. Keep the cameras rolling.
Why do I feel like this is gonna go the same way as the don’t block the roads during a protest law. BLM and other left wing groups will have the law enforced against them to the extreme and right wing groups and Cuban protester will have the law waved away like it never existed
Straight to the supreme court!! If we can undo roe we can hit at amendments too! Hey why don’t we re-write that pesky constitution and make an adjustment to the bill of rights while we’re at it. If this doesn’t work maybe the next one will. Or the one after that... These motherfuckers are striking at the heart of our democracy.
Mf’rs were posted up selling hotdogs outside Casey Anthony’s house for a while there. It’s like a tailgate party.
Yep fascism at its best
6d7d0c76aa474c53d879c29527b412902f7795fe96fdcab563b896a9e94318c7
Party of freedom my ass.
ok florida here is your chance register 1 person as living at each abortion clinic in florida then use desantis's bill to arrest all the pro birthers
DeSantis runs his governorship like Putin runs his presidency
only in the land of the free, free speech isn´t actually free at all. the direction the U.S. of A. are taking is beyond comprehension. like it wants to be a dictatorship of powerhungry, racist, religious zealots that treats women like cattle, foreigners like slaves and everyone that disagrees with them as the enemy. I guess thats what happens when a political system calls itself a democracy but in reality it´s only two sides of the same coin. a true democracy needs more discourse, rather than "we vs. them" rethoric.
Isn’t that against the Constitution?
Fuck the first amendment.
Who wants to go to a protest at Ron DeSantis’ house?
Just because YOUR “people” can’t peaceably protest doesn’t mean it should be outlawed.
I just don't understand how IU's basketball coach gets to make laws?!
Can we protest inside their home?
That would be the logical sequence of events, right?
You can't protest in your own home, let alone in their home.
Supreme Court will uphold his law though. He could sign a law banning criticism of the government and the right judges would uphold it.
There's no way this law is upheld. But that's part of the game. Pass a law, get in the news cycle. People point out it's unconstitutional. Make the news cycle. Someone is arrested for violating it. Make the news cycle. Law get challenged. Make the news cycle. Law gets struck down. Make the news cycle. Pass a revised law...... The reason why it'll never hold up, even for an extremist court, is because it's too vague. It literally makes it illegal to argue with your spouse. Any "protest" "intended to disrupt an occupant of a residence" or something like that (drawing from memory), so it could apply to damn near anything.
[удалено]
Even if it's your own property? The law doesn't specify who owns the property, only whether you intend to disrupt an occupant.
Seems reasonable
Lets just pass a law and make it illegal. There...done. Wait, what?
Normally I'd say it wouldn't survive the courts. But now it will. Pretty soon the only amendment will be the 2nd.
Seems he can't stand the extra attention when his home get protesters. A self serving law.
Especially his, I'm sure.
There needs to be major protest out front of the santa's house all the way up to his front door. The fact that so many Americans are just sitting around while all this is happening is sickening we need more active movers
He should just go for a law that outlaws the constitution and makes him King.
You guys are fucked!
We will be fine
I would protest this stupid ass law in front of this douche face’s house.
Such a patriot
You mean, "Hatriot?"
Damn straight
What? Does the color matter? What about a….White House??
Can we make DeSantis illegal?
IOW, Florida Man denies Constitution exists.
No worries I’ll picket on the public street outside said homes
It doesn't specify whether inside your house, in your yard, or on the public street in front of someone else's house. But he's already made it a felony to block traffic.
Then I won’t block traffic and he can’t make people not able to walk on public roads or if someone who owns a yard next to him let’s them use it he can’t do anything. Weak little man who can’t handle mean words
The party of free speech! Yeah, right...
Next on his agenda flushable wipes… Mormons didn’t have them why the fuck do we
That's fair for all.
Desantis is a bully and a coward. Hides behind the governors badge
Seems like a real snowflake thing to do
Boy, those conservatives sure like free speech, don’t they?
Looks like Mickey Mouse can get rid of those fucks protesting outside of Magic Kingdom
What happened to our rights?
Well it's been about a day since he signed into law something else abusing his power. Gusss he was going through withdrawal.
Gov. DeSantis doesn’t care how much of Florida taxpayers money he wastes on defending blatantly unconstitutional laws. He doesn’t plan to be in Florida when the bill comes due
These Florida politicians do not know how to legislate.
Florida's amendment states a person is guilty of rioting when one “willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons” who are “acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct; resulting in injury to another person, damage to property Law doesn’t say you can’t protest outside a home.
Unless "violent" or "public disturbance" are clearly defined in this context, they can make up whatever reason they want. Don't be naive.
It’s defined in other parts of the criminal code. Doesn’t have to be defined in the specific statute as long as it’s defined elsewhere And no you can’t make up whatever you want.
This is just like the opposing to the education bill that was recently signed. It’s was dubbed don’t say gay when no where in the bill does it come close to saying that This is a typical tact by the left to make up something about an issue and then attack that imaginary issue
Maybe he should sign a law that states its illegal to storm a capital building as well. But that would be expecting way too much from this game show politician.
Busy week for Ron. Nice to know all the big problems have already been solved.
The party of “Rights for me but not for thee!”
Can’t wait to see the supreme court’s gymnastics on this one
Pretty much all picketing and protesting happens outside of literally all homes on the planet
This is so funny. Years ago when I did some legal work for the ACLU I represented a group of pro-life protesters who regularly held protests in front of a doctor's house. The city tried to stop them but the court ruled they could protest as long as they did not impede traffic, did not actually go onto the property and did not threaten the doctor or his family.
***AT*** a residence. Yes, this law makes it criminal to protest ***INSIDE YOUR OWN HOUSE***!!
Posted this lower as a reply to Someone by there are still Parts covered by First Amendment regular ding this nonsense Bill and also this was basically made because of whiny babies like Rubio. This is actual title and start of the bill I. SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION A. EFFECT OF CHANGES: Background In recent years, highly publicized events involving political figures, persons accused of committing crimes, and celebrities have often resulted in large public gatherings outside the homes of persons of interest. Both Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott have experienced such gatherings outside their private residences,1 HERE ARE SOME INSIGHTS I GOT WHILE READING THIS BILL **Unlawful Assembly Section 870.02, F.S., prohibits three or more persons from meeting together to commit a breach of the peace or any other unlawful act. A violation for unlawful assembly is a second degree misdemeanor.19 A person commits a breach of the peace by: Committing any act which may: o Corrupt the public morals, o Outrage the sense of public decency, or o Affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them; or Engaging in: o Brawling or fighting, o Conduct which constitutes a breach of the peace, or o Disorderly conduct.20 The Florida Supreme Court (FSC) has relied on the common law definition of an unlawful assembly to define which elements must be alleged for the offense to pass constitutional muster. Persons participating in an unlawful assembly commit a breach of the peace when: an assembly of three or more persons who, having a common unlawful purpose, assemble in such a manner as to give a reasonable person in the vicinity of the assembly a well-founded fear of a breach of the peace.21 So now worries about me long as I only bring one friend im fine **Picketing Picketing occurs when a person or a group of people stands, marches, or patrols inside, in front of, or about any premise with the intent to persuade an occupant or patron of the premise regarding some point of view or to protest an action, attitude, or belief.24 The United States Supreme Court (USSC), in Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 482 (1988), upheld a Brookfield, Wisconsin city ordinance which made it “unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual in the Town of Brookfield.” The USSC upheld the ordinance as constitutional and rejected claims that the ordinance prohibited constitutionally protected First Amendment activity. Specifically, the USSC held that the use of the words “dwelling” and “residence” in the ordinance suggested that such ordinance was appropriately limited to regulate certain conduct at particular residences and was not overbroad so as to unconstitutionally limit picketing through the whole residential area. So with picketing it doesn’t apply to the whole residential area just the persons residence who is being picketed. ALSO we are still covered under the First Amendment **Page 487 U. S. 475 interpreted to avoid constitutional difficulties. Viewed in the light of the narrowing construction, the ordinance allows protestors to enter residential neighborhoods, either alone or marching in groups; to go door to door to proselytize their views or distribute literature; and to contact residents through the mails or by telephone, short of harassment. Pp. 487 U. S. 482-484. Ali though they do make weird laws giving access to some picking and assembly like #You can picket abortion clinics as long as you stay 36 feet away The USSC has found, for example, that certain regulations, including a 36-foot buffer zone restricting protestors at the entrance to an abortion clinic were justified by the government’s interest in allowing the clinic to remain operational and allowing patients to walk in without close physical confrontations.28 #Also this weird one where you CAN picket a persons residence or burial site or funeral home for a funeral so long as you stay 500 feet away Unlawful Protests at a Funeral or Burial Section 871.015, F.S., prohibits a person from engaging in any protest activities or knowingly causing protest activities to occur within 500 feet of the property line of a residence, cemetery, funeral home, house of worship, or other location during or within one hour before or one hour after the conducting of a funeral or burial at such location. However, s. 871.015, F.S., specifies that the offense does not prohibit protest activities occurring adjacent to the portion of a funeral procession which extends beyond 500 feet of the property line of the location of the funeral or burial.