ORLANDO, Fla. (Legal Newsline) – Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has come to the defense of his anti-riot bill, urging a federal judge to throw out the constitutional challenge to it filed by Black Lives Matter Tampa and a lawyer group.
Two weeks after Judge Paul Byron refused to enter a temporary restraining order against it, DeSantis filed a motion to dismiss. He says the act does not specifically target protesting minorities, nor does it chill free speech by intimidating would-be protestors through increased criminal penalties for violence.
“The Act does not discourage, much less prohibit, any person from peacefully assembling, demonstrating, or speaking on any issue,” says the motion, signed by DeSantis’ deputy general counsel Nicholas J.P. Meros.
“The Act does not even apply to peaceful demonstrations or forms of expression. Rather, it outlaws people coming together, regardless of their motivation, to commit violence, damage property, or intimidate others into assuming or abandoning a viewpoint against their will.
“Prohibiting violence and destruction does not restrict Constitutionally protected expression – only dangerous, unlawful behavior.”
The law is challenged by BLM Tampa, the Community Empowerment Project and the Lawyers Matter Task Force.
The law turns participation in riots into a felony offense, sharply increases the cash bail amount and prevents protestors accused of rioting from being bailed from jail until their first court date.
On May 18, Judge Byron rejected the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order against the bill.
“Plaintiffs’ analysis of the particular constitutional issues presented here is too thin and conclusory to justify the extraordinary remedy of a TRO,” he wrote.
“The fatal flaw of Plaintiffs’ motion is that they take for granted that HB1 is unconstitutional – it may well be, but Plaintiffs do not explain how or why.”
The plaintiffs need to explain their argument better, Byron wrote, by pointing to the specific provisions of the law they allege are overbroad, vague or retaliatory.
“Furthermore, Plaintiffs must explain how those specific provisions are unconstitutional by directing the Court to supporting precedent. The only caselaw cited in the Motion supports the unremarkable proposition that open debate and public protests are central to the First Amendment,” Byron wrote.
The complaint said the law is unconstitutional because:
-It equates a peaceful demonstration or participation in a nonviolent protest with rioting or common intent to rioting;
-It exposes peaceful demonstrators and social advocates to criminal liability due to actions of others;
-It inadequately describes what conduct constitutes rioting or inciting a riot;
-It discourages peaceful protest and the support of nonviolent demonstrations; and
-It intimidates peaceful protestors by increasing the severity of punishment inflicted on those arrested at demonstrations.