Would have broadened the definition of “domestic terrorism” in Georgian law to possibly include demonstrations, boycotts and other forms of protest and political expression. Under the bill, the previously high bar for committing domestic terrorism will be lowered from “harm to a group of 10 or more people” to causing harm to at least one person or disabling “critical infrastructure.” The new objective, “critical infrastructure,” in turn, is very broad, encompassing “public or private systems, functions, or assets, whether physical or virtual, that are essential to the security, governance, public health and safety, economy, or morality of that state or the United States.” The bill also introduces a new provision that targets actions that have a political or ideological component, so that domestic terrorism would include an action to promote “any ideology or belief,” whether held individually or as a member of a group. The Commission on Domestic Terrorism, as defined in the bill, would be a crime punishable by prison terms ranging from five years to life imprisonment. Given the general wording of the law and the extreme sanctions associated with it, legal officials were concerned that it would aim to monitor, punish and chill free speech activities, including protests. (The full text of the law can be found here) Laws in New Arkansas, Kansas and Montana increase penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. And a law in Alabama will allow cities in Lauderdale County, where protesters have demanded the removal of a Confederate statue, to control where protests take place and charge a fee to protest organizers. Would largely prevent a person convicted of a crime at a protest from receiving public support. Any “crime related to the person`s unlawful conduct during a demonstration, demonstration, rally, civil unrest or march” would exclude the person from a range of benefits, including food aid, education loans and grants, and unemployment benefits. Under the bill, a person who has himself been convicted of an offence considered to be somehow “related” to his or her participation in a peaceful protest could be permanently excluded from these benefits. (The full text of the law can be found here) Would create a new crime that could cover peaceful protesters blocking traffic. Under the bill, obstructing vehicles or pedestrians “on a public highway” would be a Class C crime punishable by 5 years in prison and $125,000 if committed during a “violent or disorderly gathering.” The bill defines “violent or disorderly gatherings” as a group of two or more people that cause property damage or injury. The definition seems to cover a large event in which some participants even commit minor property damage. The bill also creates a new Class C offence that causes an “alarm” by engaging in “threatening or intimidating behaviour” in a public place of accommodation.
The bill restricts access to public services and employment for protesters, provided that a person cannot receive public support or employment from the state if convicted of “sedition” or a crime involving the fact that it took place during a “violent or disorderly meeting.” The bill also prohibits the immediate release of a person arrested for “sedition” or for a crime committed during a “violent or disorderly assembly” until the person appears in court. Finally, the bill removes the immunity of public bodies, civil servants, employees and agents from a civil action arising from an “uproar” if the institution or person has been “grossly negligent” in protecting persons or property. If such regulations come into effect, they could encourage local governments and law enforcement agencies to take aggressive responses to protests to avoid costly prosecutions. (The full text of the law can be found here) Prohibit people from standing on Iowa highways to block traffic. The bill, which sponsors say aims to combat disruptive protests on highways, states that a person “shall not loiter or obstruct” a highway “with the intent to block normal and appropriate vehicular traffic.” Those who do so may be charged with a serious offence that can be punished with one year in prison for up to one year and a fine of $1,875. A second offence is a serious offence punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine of $6,250. A third offence is a Class D crime that can be punished with up to five years in prison and a fine of $7,500. The bill was originally introduced in March 2017 as SF 426. (The full text of the law can be found here) This would have created a new civil liability for protesters on infrastructure properties, as well as enforcement agent liability for any person or organization that supported them. The bill would hold anyone who enters property that contains an “essential utility facility, utility company or pipeline” liable for damage to persons or property, and any person or organization that “recruits, trains, assists, advises, hires, advises or conspires with them” would be liable on behalf of such damages. Under Minnesota law, a person who invades infrastructure assets is guilty of a serious offense; The bill would make anyone who “recruits, trains, assists, advises, hires, advises or conspires with him” an intruder who is also guilty of a serious offence punishable by one year in prison and a fine of $3,000.
If the person interferes “with the intent to significantly disrupt the operation or provision of services” through the institution, the bill would sentence anyone who “recruits, trains, assists, advises, hires, advises or conspires with” the intruder of a crime to 10 years in prison and a fine of $20,000. The term “significant disruptor” could be interpreted as encompassing peaceful protests that, for example, block access to infrastructure typically defined by Minnesota law to include bus stops and bridges. The general terms used in the provisions on the liability of enforcement agents could even be interpreted as assisting a protester by providing water or medical assistance. (The full text of the law can be found here) Increase penalties for “sedition” and “incitement to sedition” for defendants who are not New York residents by creating two new offenses. Under the bill, a non-resident who commits either “second-degree sedition” or “incitement to sedition” is guilty of “journey to second-degree turmoil,” a Class E crime. Notably, New York law defines “second-degree riots” to include “turbulent and violent behavior” involving four or more people who “intentionally or recklessly.” creates a serious risk of public concern. A person is guilty of “incitement to riot” under New York law if they “urge” ten or more people to “engage in turbulent and violent behavior that could trigger the public alarm.” The bill creates an additional Class D crime for non-residents who commit first-degree riots.
