“There are protests outside my house three or four times a week,” Schumer said Tuesday. “The American way of demonstrating peacefully is good.” The Washington Post, “Yes, experts say protests in SCOTUS judges` homes appear to be illegal,” May 11, 2022 In the past, the Supreme Court has considered bans on housing protests. For example, in Frisby v. In the Schultz case, the Supreme Court upheld a Wisconsin law prohibiting targeted pickets outside a person`s home. Increase possible sanctions for protests near oil pipelines and other infrastructure, including those under construction. The bill creates the criminal offence of “trespassing on critical infrastructure,” which is entering or remaining on a critical infrastructure facility or on the construction site of such a facility knowing or indicating that presence is not permitted. Under the bill, interference with critical infrastructure is an offence punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of $1,000. The bill also creates the criminal offence of “obstruction of critical infrastructure,” defined as intentional obstruction of the operation of or access to an infrastructure facility or construction site or the construction site of a facility or the handling or damage of plant equipment. A person who obstructs critical infrastructure, such as blocking the entrance to a pipeline construction site during a protest, can be charged with a crime punishable by up to ten years in prison and $10,000 if the obstacle results in damages of more than $1,000 or loss of profit. The bill also provides that an organization that “aids, supports, requests, indemnifies, conspires with, orders or procures” a person to commit the crime of obstruction of critical infrastructure will be fined up to $100,000 and civil damage to infrastructure for loss of profits. “Critical infrastructure” is broadly defined and includes, but is not limited to, oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, airports and railways – or their construction sites. (The full text of the law can be found here) Would create a new legal justification for the use of lethal force against protesters. As introduced, the bill would expand New Hampshire`s self-defense laws to justify the use of lethal force against a person by a person they believe is “likely” to use “any unlawful force” while committing an “insurrection” against someone in a vehicle, house, or curve.

The proposed bill justifies lethal force against someone who is “likely” to use “any” amount of violence while committing a “riot” – even against a third party. **Note: The bill was amended prior to its passage by the House of Representatives, extending the justification for self-defense to cases where lethal force against someone is likely to use “unlawful force to commit a crime against a person in a vehicle” and not to commit a “riot.”** (See full text of the law here) Expands the governor`s power to Restrict protest activities on land and restrict demonstrations that disrupt road traffic. The law allows the governor and sheriff to prohibit gatherings of 20 or more people on public lands if the gathering could damage the land or interfere with the tenant`s use of the land. The law allows the South Dakota Department of Transportation to prohibit or otherwise restrict a person or vehicle from stopping, standing, parking, or being present on a highway if it interferes with traffic. The act also expands the crime of trespassing and provides that a person who objects to a posted order not to enter an area where gathering was prohibited would be guilty of criminal trespassing. Obstruction of traffic or the commission of a criminal trespass is classified as a Class 1 offence punishable by one year`s imprisonment or a fine of $2,000, or both. (The full text of the law can be found here) Would redefine “rioting” under Alabama law as a “turbulent disturbance” in public by five or more people gathered acting with common intent, creating a “serious threat” of significant property damage or serious injury, or “significantly impeding” a government function. This definition is broad enough to cover noisy but peaceful protests as well as noisy parties.

In contrast, current Alabama law requires an individual to engage in “violent behavior” as part of a group in order to have committed a “riot.” Knowingly participating in a “riot” is a Class A offense punishable by one year in prison and a $6,000 fine. The bill provides that if property damage or injury occurs, anyone who participates in the group will be guilty of a “serious insurrection,” a new Class C crime that can be punished with up to 10 years in prison. The bill expands the current definition of “incitement to riot” under Alabama law to a person who “funds” or “supports or promotes” another person in order to participate in an “uprising.” Given the law`s broad definition of “riot,” the redefined definition of “incitement” could cover people who are only marginally associated with a protest, such as people distributing bottled water to protesters. The bill creates a rebuttable presumption against granting bail to anyone accused of “sedition” or “serious sedition”; it also adds mandatory minimum prison sentences for “sedition”, “intensified sedition” and “incitement to sedition”, and requires that anyone found guilty pay compensation for property damage caused by the “uprising”. The bill would create a new Class D crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison for anyone who intentionally “hammers, marks” or “degrades” a public monument, even if the marks are only “temporary.” Doing so during an “uproar” or “illegal assembly” would be a Class C crime. According to the bill, “riots”, “intensified uproar”, “incitement to riot” and “damage to a public monument” are to be considered “violent offences” for sentencing purposes. Finally, the bill would exclude from the public service anyone convicted of “sedition”, “intensified sedition” or “incitement to sedition”. (The full text of the law can be found here) Conservative political commentator Bill O`Reilly raised the issue during a segment of his May 11 show “No Spin News.” He played a clip in which White House press secretary Jen Psaki said protests for abortion rights had been peaceful. Create new civil and criminal liability for protesters on pipeline ownership, as well as civil liability for any organization or entity that supports them. Similar to SF 3230/HF 2966, which was introduced during the 2019-2020 session, the bill would hold a person who enters a property that contains a pipeline or other “essential public service facility” liable for property damage they commit during an intrusion.

Any natural or legal person who “recruits, trains, supports, advises, hires, consults [or] conspires knowingly with someone” who harms or damages property could be held “jointly and severally liable”. If the person interferes with the intent to “interfere or significantly impede the operation of a covered facility, utility or pipeline,” the person is guilty of a felony and may be fined three years and/or $5,000. The phrase “significantly impede or inhibit” could be interpreted as encompassing peaceful protests that block access to infrastructure typically defined by Minnesota law to include bus stops and parts of bridges. The general wording used in the joint and several liability provisions could be interpreted as including assistance to a protester by providing water or medical assistance. (The full text of the law can be found here) Can public universities or colleges restrict protests? 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) The government has more power to regulate the expression of opinion when acting as the owner who controls its internal operations than as a sovereign legislator.