#criminalizingdissent — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #criminalizingdissent, aggregated by home.social.
-
#Anthropic Building a #PreCrime System to Surveil #AntiAI #Dissenters, Investigation Shows | Common Dreams
One legal expert said that as AI companies “become more hated, there’s more pressure on them to over-disclose knowing that some of the people they identify for law enforcement shouldn’t be targeted.”
by Brad Reed, September 9, 2026
"The American Prospect on Wednesday published an investigation revealing that top artificial intelligence firm Anthropic is building a predictive surveillance system aimed at tracking activists who are opposed to advanced AI development.
"The Prospect found that Anthropic last month issued a job posting seeking an intelligence specialist to “identify, assess, track, and investigate global threats including geopolitical instability, terrorism, crime, activism, nation-state targeting of the AI sector.”
Read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/anthropic-pre-crime-surveillance#PreCrime #ThoughtCrime #AIResistance #ResistanceIsFertile #AISucks #CriminalizingDissent #TheResistance #WaterIsLife #AirIsLife #HumanIntelligence #TechFascism #Fascism #CharacteristicsOfFascism
-
#Anthropic Building a #PreCrime System to Surveil #AntiAI #Dissenters, Investigation Shows | Common Dreams
One legal expert said that as AI companies “become more hated, there’s more pressure on them to over-disclose knowing that some of the people they identify for law enforcement shouldn’t be targeted.”
by Brad Reed, September 9, 2026
"The American Prospect on Wednesday published an investigation revealing that top artificial intelligence firm Anthropic is building a predictive surveillance system aimed at tracking activists who are opposed to advanced AI development.
"The Prospect found that Anthropic last month issued a job posting seeking an intelligence specialist to “identify, assess, track, and investigate global threats including geopolitical instability, terrorism, crime, activism, nation-state targeting of the AI sector.”
Read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/anthropic-pre-crime-surveillance#PreCrime #ThoughtCrime #AIResistance #ResistanceIsFertile #AISucks #CriminalizingDissent #TheResistance #WaterIsLife #AirIsLife #HumanIntelligence #TechFascism #Fascism #CharacteristicsOfFascism
-
#Anthropic Building a #PreCrime System to Surveil #AntiAI #Dissenters, Investigation Shows | Common Dreams
One legal expert said that as AI companies “become more hated, there’s more pressure on them to over-disclose knowing that some of the people they identify for law enforcement shouldn’t be targeted.”
by Brad Reed, September 9, 2026
"The American Prospect on Wednesday published an investigation revealing that top artificial intelligence firm Anthropic is building a predictive surveillance system aimed at tracking activists who are opposed to advanced AI development.
"The Prospect found that Anthropic last month issued a job posting seeking an intelligence specialist to “identify, assess, track, and investigate global threats including geopolitical instability, terrorism, crime, activism, nation-state targeting of the AI sector.”
Read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/anthropic-pre-crime-surveillance#PreCrime #ThoughtCrime #AIResistance #ResistanceIsFertile #AISucks #CriminalizingDissent #TheResistance #WaterIsLife #AirIsLife #HumanIntelligence #TechFascism #Fascism #CharacteristicsOfFascism
-
#Anthropic Building a #PreCrime System to Surveil #AntiAI #Dissenters, Investigation Shows | Common Dreams
One legal expert said that as AI companies “become more hated, there’s more pressure on them to over-disclose knowing that some of the people they identify for law enforcement shouldn’t be targeted.”
by Brad Reed, September 9, 2026
"The American Prospect on Wednesday published an investigation revealing that top artificial intelligence firm Anthropic is building a predictive surveillance system aimed at tracking activists who are opposed to advanced AI development.
"The Prospect found that Anthropic last month issued a job posting seeking an intelligence specialist to “identify, assess, track, and investigate global threats including geopolitical instability, terrorism, crime, activism, nation-state targeting of the AI sector.”
Read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/anthropic-pre-crime-surveillance#PreCrime #ThoughtCrime #AIResistance #ResistanceIsFertile #AISucks #CriminalizingDissent #TheResistance #WaterIsLife #AirIsLife #HumanIntelligence #TechFascism #Fascism #CharacteristicsOfFascism
-
#Anthropic Building a #PreCrime System to Surveil #AntiAI #Dissenters, Investigation Shows | Common Dreams
One legal expert said that as AI companies “become more hated, there’s more pressure on them to over-disclose knowing that some of the people they identify for law enforcement shouldn’t be targeted.”
by Brad Reed, September 9, 2026
"The American Prospect on Wednesday published an investigation revealing that top artificial intelligence firm Anthropic is building a predictive surveillance system aimed at tracking activists who are opposed to advanced AI development.
"The Prospect found that Anthropic last month issued a job posting seeking an intelligence specialist to “identify, assess, track, and investigate global threats including geopolitical instability, terrorism, crime, activism, nation-state targeting of the AI sector.”
Read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/anthropic-pre-crime-surveillance#PreCrime #ThoughtCrime #AIResistance #ResistanceIsFertile #AISucks #CriminalizingDissent #TheResistance #WaterIsLife #AirIsLife #HumanIntelligence #TechFascism #Fascism #CharacteristicsOfFascism
-
Trump Goes After Anonymous Email Provider in Italy. The Real Target Is Free Speech in the U.S.
Trump designated an Italian web-hosting provider as a foreign “terror” group. It could take #antifascist sites in the U.S. offline.
Matt Sledge
August 28 2026"In the latest escalation of the Trump administration’s war on the left, the U.S. government’s designation of a popular antifascist webhosting provider as a terror group could shutter a swath of radical websites in the U.S.
"Secretary of State #MarcoRubio and Treasury Secretary #ScottBessent announced Wednesday that they were targeting the Italy-based A/I Collective with terror sanctions. Federal law gives the Treasury Department broad discretion to apply the terror label to foreign groups.
"A wide array of #anarchist, antifascist, and #FarLeft groups in the U.S. and abroad use the privacy-minded collective’s offerings, including an anonymous email service and its popular noblogs.org blogging platform.
"The practice of designating an internet platform and service provider as a terror group — rather than those pursuing violence themselves — has 'huge' implications for the future free speech on the internet, warned Jillian York, the director of international freedom of expression at the #ElectronicFrontierFoundation.
" 'They are going after the messenger,' York said. 'I don’t think that the members of the group would necessarily condone the actions of the people that they hosted. What they do condone is the freedom to host, the ability to be anonymous, the ability to be private.'
"The A/I Collective told The Intercept that it is exploring its legal options to fight the sanctions, which block U.S. citizens and companies from providing the group with financial support.
"In an unsigned statement, the group said that it denies the U.S. government’s allegations.
" '#Antifascism and #anticapitalism are not #terrorism ,' the group said. '#Protesting is not terrorism. And everyone has the right to speak out and to struggle for #humanity.' " [And #MotherEarth ! ]
Source:
https://theintercept.com/2026/08/28/trump-antifa-terrorist-websites-free-speech/Archived version:
https://archive.ph/4ETk2#FreeSpeech #AutisticiInventati #Solidarity #USPol #WorldPol #SolidarityWithAutisticiInventati #FreedomOfExpression #SilencingDissent #CriminalizingDissent #CriminalizingProtest #Fascism #CharacteristicsOfFascism
-
#US Manufactured Crimes and Spied on Peaceful #Protesters During #Minneapolis Metro Surge, New Court Filing Reveals
By Brenda Norrell, Censored News, August 14, 2026
MINNEAPOLIS -- "While #Dakotas were praying at a #SacredSpring for those held in federal detention at the #WhippleBuilding in Minneapolis -- the U.S. government was spying on, and stalking, the #WhippleWatchers, a new court document reveals.
"The government is refusing to release all of its documents on its surveillance of those watching the Whipple building. The Whipple building is on the site of a former concentration camp, where Dakota and Ho Chunk were imprisoned, suffered and died.
" 'The government admits withholding at least five #ProjectWhippleShield #ROIs (Reports of Investigation) from the initial disclosures,' the court filing states.
"In the current case, the court document for discovery filed yesterday describes how the U.S. government spied on and tracked peaceful protesters during the #resistance to #OperationMetroSurge.
"Not only were peaceful protesters spied on, #stalked and #doxxed, but the #surveillance was carried out to #ManufactureCrimes when none existed, states the court document filed by a defense attorney for one of the government's targets."
Read more:
https://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2026/08/us-manufactured-crimes-and-spied-on.html#Authoritarianism #Fascism #USPol #UnionBusting #SilencingDissent
#CriminalizingDissent #DefundICE #DefundDHS #CharacteristicsOfFascism
#DepartmentOfHomelandInsecurity -
She protested #ICERaids. Then agents showed up at her door
by Meg Anderson, August 3, 2026
"Early one morning this June, #TreasureThoreson was drinking coffee on her couch in #Minneapolis when she heard a knock at the front door.
" 'I go and I see a woman standing there in office clothes, but with a Homeland Security vest over the top. And I see six more agents standing in my front yard,' Thoreson told NPR. "She said, 'We have a warrant for your arrest, for conspiracy.' "
"Thoreson, a special education teacher, was still in her pajamas. The agent let her change clothes and hug her partner goodbye before taking her into custody.
"The government charged Thoreson and 14 others with engaging in a conspiracy to impede federal agents — a conspiracy it says culminated in the use of blockades outside the Whipple Federal Building, which served as ICE's headquarters during the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota this past winter.
"The government cited meetings and conversations on the encrypted messaging app #Signal as evidence. At the advice of her lawyer, Thoreson declined to comment on the specifics of the indictment.
An increasing trend
"The charges against Thoreson are part of an escalating trend. NPR reviewed court records from the last five years to examine how the federal government is wielding one specific charge: conspiracy to impede or injure an officer, which can carry a sentence of up to six years in federal prison.
"The statute, which dates back to the Civil War, has historically been used infrequently. But since President #Trump took office last year, the Justice Department has charged more than three dozen people in at least 10 cases. All of them involve people protesting federal immigration enforcement.
The government has also indicted nearly 50 people on #conspiracy charges in #Michigan, #Texas and #Minnesota using different legal statutes."
Read more:
https://www.npr.org/2026/08/03/nx-s1-5886263/ice-dhs-immigration-enforcement-conspiracy-arrests#USPol #CharacteristicsOfFascism #CriminalizingDissent #SilencingDissent #ICESucks #DefundICE #TrumpSucks #DepartmentOfHomelandInsecurity
-
Three #AntiProtestLaws recently passed in #Arizona, #Kentucky and #Texas
Source: https://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/
Arizona
HB 2880: Banning #protest #encampments on #campusBars protest encampments on the campuses of state colleges and universities. Under the new law, individuals or groups that establish an “encampment” are no longer lawfully present on campus for the purpose of speech protections under Arizona law; they are criminally liable to prosecution for trespass; and they are liable for any damage they cause, including the "direct and indirect costs" of removing the encampment and "restoring" campus. The new law defines “encampment” as “temporary shelter” installed on campus and used to stay overnight or “for a prolonged period of time.” The law requires colleges and universities to order individuals to dismantle and vacate any encampment; if the individuals refuse to comply, the institution is required to take disciplinary action and report the individuals to local law enforcement for trespassing. The sponsor of the new law said that it was motivated by #ProPalestine protests on college campuses.
Full bill text:
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/83353Status: enacted
Introduced 12 Feb 2025; Approved by House 3 March 2025; Approved by Senate 30 April 2025; Signed by Governor Hobbs 7 May 2025
Issue(s): #CampusProtests, #Trespass, Camping
Kentucky
HB 399: New penalties for protesters at the capitolCreates serious new criminal offenses that can cover #PeacefulProtesters at the state capitol, as well as anyone who “conspires” with or otherwise supports them. The first new offense applies to someone who enters the capitol, or impedes access to the capitol by a legislator or legislative staff, with intent to disrupt or impede legislative business—regardless of whether legislative business was in fact “impeded.” “Conspir[ing]” to engage in such conduct or “facilitat[ing]” another person to engage in the conduct is subject to the same penalties as actually engaging in it. It is a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by up to 3 months in jail) for a first incident, and a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail) for subsequent incident. The law creates a second, more serious offense for someone who engages in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” inside the Capitol with intent to disrupt or impede legislative business, if their conduct in fact “disrupts” or “impedes” the legislature’s business—even momentarily. As written, the offense could cover a demonstrator who shouts a single chant during a legislative hearing. “Conspir[ing]” to engage in such conduct or “facilitat[ing]” another person to engage in the conduct is subject to the same penalties as actually engaging in it. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail) for the first incident, and a Class D felony (up to 5 years in prison) for third and subsequent incident. Prior to passing the bill, lawmakers added an amendment which provides that the law will not be construed "to prohibit... [a]ssembly in traditional public forums, including but not limited to the Capitol rotunda and outdoor areas of the Capitol grounds." While helpful, the amendment does not immunize all peaceful protest activity that the law could potentially punish, including protest organizing. When he vetoed the bill (later overridden), Governor Beshear noted the risks it poses to lawful #FirstAmendment activity.
Full bill text:
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/25rs/hb399.htmlStatus: enacted
Introduced 6 Feb 2025; Approved by House 7 March 2025; Approved by Senate 13 March 2025; Vetoed by Governor Beshear 25 March 2025; Veto overridden 27 March 2025
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response
Texas
#SB2972: New restrictions on #CampusProtestsRequires public colleges and universities to adopt new limitations on campus protests that among other things would ban protest encampments, limit protesters’ ability to wear a mask, and restrict vigils and other demonstrations at night. Under the law—which revises Texas’s 2019 law on campus speech—all public colleges and universities in the state must have policies that among other things prohibit: a) erecting tents or otherwise “camping” on campus; b) wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in “expressive activities” on campus with certain intent, including intent to “intimidate others;” c) engaging in “expressive activities” between 10pm and 8am; d) engaging in “expressive activities” in the last two weeks of a school term by inviting speakers or using sound amplification or drums; and e) using sound amplification while engaging in “expressive activities” during class hours if it “intimidate[s] others.” Preexisting provisions of the law define “expressive activities” broadly as “any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment,” including but not limited to assemblies, protests, speeches, carrying signs, or distributing written material. As such, colleges and universities would seemingly be required to ban all kinds of expression between 10pm and 8am, from conversations in the dining hall to someone sending a text or wearing expressive clothing. The law repeals a provision in the 2019 law that established all common outdoor areas of campus as traditional public forums where anyone could engage in First Amendment activity, and replaced it with a provision authorizing the governing boards of schools to designate select areas as public forums.
Full bill text: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB2972Status: enacted
Introduced 14 Mar 2025; Approved by Senate 14 May 2025; Approved by House 28 May 2025; Signed by Governor Abbott 20 June 2025
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Camping
#USPol #CriminalizingProtest #CriminalizingDissent #AntiProtestLaws #TexasProtestLaws #KentuckyProtestLaws #ArizonaProtestLaws #ClothingBans #CollegeCampusProtests #MaskBans #EncampmentBans
-
YIKES! Please read and share this!
via @UnicornRiot
"We’ve been forced to spend around $55,000 to date because of Energy Transfer’s legal campaign against our freedom of the press.
"We’ve only raised back $38,916 of this so far.
"Your donation helps us keep operating despite corporate attempts to silence us"
https://donorbox.org/unicorn-riot-nodapl-legal-defense
#EnergyTransfer #SLAPPs #NoDAPL #WaterIsLife #MutualAid #LegalDefenseFund #SilencingDissent #Resistance #CorporateColonialism #Oiligarchy #CriminalizingDissent #CriminalizingProtest #Authoritarianism #EnergyTransfer #StandWithStandingRock #StandingRockSioux #IndigenousResistance #IndigenousAllies #DAPL #NorthDakota #StandWithStandingRock #SLAPPsLawsuits #FossilFuel #BigOilAndGas #Academi #ErikPrince #Blackwater #ACAB #PrivateSecurity #BigOil #KelcyWarren #Oiligarchy #WaterProtectors #CorporateFascism #StandingRockReservation
-
#LawFirms, #universities and now #CivilSociety groups are in #Trump’s sights for #punitive action
By LISA MASCARO
Updated 12:04 AM EDT, April 18, 2025WASHINGTON (AP) — "First the nation’s top law firms. Then its premier universities. Now, President Donald Trump is leaning on the #advocacy groups that underpin U.S. civil society.
"Trump said Thursday that the administration is looking at the tax-exempt status not just of Harvard, but environmental groups and specifically the ethics watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or #CREW. It could be a devastating financial blow to the #nonprofit organizations — and his perceived #PoliticalFoes.
"The president’s remarks, during an event at the White House, began to confirm what advocacy groups have been quietly warning: Trump’s campaign of retribution is coming next for them.
" 'It’s supposed to be a charitable organization,' Trump said about CREW, in particular. 'The only charity they had is going after Donald Trump. So we’re looking at that. We’re looking at a lot of things.' "
#CharacteristicsOfFascism
#SilencingDissent #USPol #Authoritarianism #AuthoritarianRule #CriminalizingDissent #EnvironmentalGroups #WaterIsLife #AirIsLife #LandIsLife #FightForTheFuture #DefendMotherEarth -
#LawFirms, #universities and now #CivilSociety groups are in #Trump’s sights for #punitive action
By LISA MASCARO
Updated 12:04 AM EDT, April 18, 2025WASHINGTON (AP) — "First the nation’s top law firms. Then its premier universities. Now, President Donald Trump is leaning on the #advocacy groups that underpin U.S. civil society.
"Trump said Thursday that the administration is looking at the tax-exempt status not just of Harvard, but environmental groups and specifically the ethics watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or #CREW. It could be a devastating financial blow to the #nonprofit organizations — and his perceived #PoliticalFoes.
"The president’s remarks, during an event at the White House, began to confirm what advocacy groups have been quietly warning: Trump’s campaign of retribution is coming next for them.
" 'It’s supposed to be a charitable organization,' Trump said about CREW, in particular. 'The only charity they had is going after Donald Trump. So we’re looking at that. We’re looking at a lot of things.' "
#CharacteristicsOfFascism
#SilencingDissent #USPol #Authoritarianism #AuthoritarianRule #CriminalizingDissent #EnvironmentalGroups #WaterIsLife #AirIsLife #LandIsLife #FightForTheFuture #DefendMotherEarth -
#LawFirms, #universities and now #CivilSociety groups are in #Trump’s sights for #punitive action
By LISA MASCARO
Updated 12:04 AM EDT, April 18, 2025WASHINGTON (AP) — "First the nation’s top law firms. Then its premier universities. Now, President Donald Trump is leaning on the #advocacy groups that underpin U.S. civil society.
"Trump said Thursday that the administration is looking at the tax-exempt status not just of Harvard, but environmental groups and specifically the ethics watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or #CREW. It could be a devastating financial blow to the #nonprofit organizations — and his perceived #PoliticalFoes.
"The president’s remarks, during an event at the White House, began to confirm what advocacy groups have been quietly warning: Trump’s campaign of retribution is coming next for them.
" 'It’s supposed to be a charitable organization,' Trump said about CREW, in particular. 'The only charity they had is going after Donald Trump. So we’re looking at that. We’re looking at a lot of things.' "
#CharacteristicsOfFascism
#SilencingDissent #USPol #Authoritarianism #AuthoritarianRule #CriminalizingDissent #EnvironmentalGroups #WaterIsLife #AirIsLife #LandIsLife #FightForTheFuture #DefendMotherEarth -
#LawFirms, #universities and now #CivilSociety groups are in #Trump’s sights for #punitive action
By LISA MASCARO
Updated 12:04 AM EDT, April 18, 2025WASHINGTON (AP) — "First the nation’s top law firms. Then its premier universities. Now, President Donald Trump is leaning on the #advocacy groups that underpin U.S. civil society.
"Trump said Thursday that the administration is looking at the tax-exempt status not just of Harvard, but environmental groups and specifically the ethics watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or #CREW. It could be a devastating financial blow to the #nonprofit organizations — and his perceived #PoliticalFoes.
"The president’s remarks, during an event at the White House, began to confirm what advocacy groups have been quietly warning: Trump’s campaign of retribution is coming next for them.
" 'It’s supposed to be a charitable organization,' Trump said about CREW, in particular. 'The only charity they had is going after Donald Trump. So we’re looking at that. We’re looking at a lot of things.' "
#CharacteristicsOfFascism
#SilencingDissent #USPol #Authoritarianism #AuthoritarianRule #CriminalizingDissent #EnvironmentalGroups #WaterIsLife #AirIsLife #LandIsLife #FightForTheFuture #DefendMotherEarth -
#RepublicOfGeorgia: First year of #Georgia’s ‘foreign agent’ law shows how #autocracies are replicating #Russian model − and speeding up the time frame
Published: March 28, 2025 6:25am EDT
"#Autocracy is on the move worldwide and becoming more resilient.
"One of the driving forces behind this phenomenon is something scholars call '#AuthoritarianLearning,' a process by which autocratic leaders study each other and adapt tactics based on what appears to work, and how to proceed when they encounter #resistance.
"Take Georgia. The ruling Georgian Dream party has steered the Caucasus nation from a path toward democracy back to autocracy – and it has done so by learning from Russia. In particular, it adopted a '#ForeignAgent' law in May 2024 – legislation that came straight from #VladimirPutin’s playbook.
"Sold to the public as increasing #transparency, the legislation has been utilized to persecute Georgia’s #opposition and arrest #dissidents with impunity.
"As researchers examining the structure and effects of autocratic regimes, we view Georgia’s first year of its foreign agent law as an example of how politicians are not only learning the tactics of Russian authoritarianism but improving on them in a shorter time frame."
#RightToProtest #AntiProtestLaws
#GeorgianLaws #CriminalizingDissent #CriminalizingProtest #HumanRights #RepublicOfGeorgia #GeorgianDream #ProtestSponsors #ExpandedPolicePowers #PoliceState #Authoritarianism #Fascism #Autocracy -
#SilencingDissent: The #Crackdown on #PeacefulProtest in #Europe
In our recently published Rule of Law report, Liberties’ members reported an increase in restrictions on the right to peaceful protest in all countries.
by Flore du Teilleul
April 10, 2025Excerpt:
"The right to peaceful protest is essential to our democracies, allowing people to come together with a unified voice to support or oppose key issues. It serves as a powerful mechanism for individuals to hold their governments to account and is often the last resort when prior messages go unheard. However, politicians often perceive this right as a threat, especially when force of numbers demonstrates support for an issue."In our recently published Rule of Law report, Liberties’ members reported an increase in restrictions on the right to peaceful protest in all countries - from bans on individual protests to the disproportionate use of force by the police and legislative changes. A widespread trend emerged of restricted #ProPalestine protests and #EnvironmentalDefenders receiving particularly harsh penalties.
Bans on Protests
"Restrictions on various protest movements justified on public safety grounds were documented in many member states. In #Germany, the Berlin Assembly Authorities implemented a temporary blanket ban targeting pro-Palestine demonstrations. Initially, the ban targeted celebrations of the mass murder and pro-Hamas demonstrations but later extended to all pro-Palestinian protests. Similarly, in #Latvia, an unregistered #FreePalestine movement protest was banned after an assessment by the state security service that the event would, among other risks, harm the country’s international interests.
"The Estonian police banned a protest in support of #Palestinians, which was later declared unlawful by the administrative court. In #Hungary, Prime Minister #ViktorOrbán publicly prejudiced support for Palestinians by linking it with terrorism, equating solidarity with civilians victims to threats to the public order. As the fifteen attempts to organise protests were successively banned, the government and the Prime Minister re-asserted their power by deciding what can be demonstrated for, namely, topics in line with their political interests. Following the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the Hungarian government has repeatedly declared and extended the state of danger, allowing for the adoption of emergency decrees restricting, among other rights, the freedom to assemble. Both the Hungarian Supreme Court and Constitutional Court upheld the protest bans on the basis of public safety and security, legalising the practice of police-authorised restrictions in times of conflict.
"Further restrictions, including bans on #slogans and #signs during #demonstrations, sought to criminalise protesters. Several individuals were arrested or fined for displaying signs or slogans related to Palestine. In #Belgium, activists faced administrative sanctions for carrying a #PalestinianFlag or the #keffiyeh. Similarly, in the #Netherlands, attendees of an #ExtinctionRebellion demonstration were prohibited from mentioning the conflict in the Middle East. The enforcement of restrictions went as far as arrests, as Croatian activists were charged with misdemeanor after projecting a message in support of Palestine on a building across from the Israeli Embassy in Zagreb.
"In Hungary, a demonstrator faced criminal charges after wearing a gas mask and removing it after being asked by the police. In a worrying trend of criminalising protest activities, several activists were arrested and charged with sedition before an Extinction Rebellion demonstration in the Netherlands.
Disproportionate use of force by the police
"The criminalisation of environmental and pro-Palestine protesters was worsened by the violent repression of the police through excessive use of force. This was particularly notable in Sweden, where student encampments in support of Palestinians were forcibly displaced and participants were charged with criminal offenses. #PainGrips, water guns and #WaterCannons were used against environmental activists, pro-Palestinian and anti-immigration demonstrators in Germany, the #Netherlands and #Ireland.
"Environmental activists faced similar fates, The NGO ‘#FranceNatureEnvironnement’ reported concerns to the UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders following the violent repression of protesters during a demonstration against the A69 highway. In #Sweden, a woman was dismissed from her job at the Swedish Energy Agency for participating in an environmental demonstration and a growing number of #EcoActivists were fined for participating in peaceful protests."
Read more:
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/rule-of-law-2025-protests/45384#RightToProtest #SilencingDissent #AntiProtestLaws #EuropeanLaws #Croatia #ACAB #CriminalizingDissent #CriminalizingProtest #FreePalestine #FreeGaza #EnvironmentalProtests #EnvironmentalActivists
-
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Wisconsin
AB 426: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil and gas #pipelines and other property of "energy providers." The law expands existing provisions related to trespass and property damage to broadly include the property of all companies in the oil and gas industry. Under the law, trespass onto the property of any "company that operates a #gas, #oil, petroleum, refined #petroleum product, renewable fuel, water, or chemical generation, storage, transportation, or delivery system" is a Class H felony, punishable by six years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Accordingly, protests in a range of locations may be covered, whether on land containing a pipeline or the corporate headquarters of an oil company. Any damage to property of such a company, with the intent to "cause substantial interruption or impairment of any service or good" provided by the company, is likewise a Class H felony under the law.
Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab426Status: enacted
Introduced 12 Sep 2019; Approved by Assembly 11 October 2019; Approved by Senate 5 November 2019; Signed by Governor Evers on 21 November 2019
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
AB 88: BROAD NEW DEFINITION OF "RIOT" and related felony offenses and civil liability
Would broadly define "riot" under Wisconsin law and create #vague new felony offenses as well as expansive civil liability that could cover #PeacefulProtest activity. The bill defines a “riot” as a “public disturbance” involving an act of violence or the threat of violence by someone in a gathering of 3 or more people. No actual damage or injury need take place for a gathering to become a “riot,” only a “clear and present danger” of damage or injury. As such, a large street protest where a single participant threatens to push somebody could be deemed a "riot," with no actual violence or property damage being committed by anyone. The bill creates a Class I felony offense—punishable by up to 3.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine—for anyone who intentionally incites another “to commit a ‘riot.’” The bill defines “incite” as “to urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate other persons.” As drafted, the incitement offense is not limited to urging actual violence against people or property, but could seemingly cover any expression of support for demonstrators in a crowd that had been deemed a “riot.” The bill also creates a Class H felony—punishable by up to 6 years in prison and $10,000—for someone who intentionally "commits an act of violence” (not defined) while part of a “riot.” Finally, the bill makes civilly liable protesters who allegedly commit a “riot” or “vandalism” offense, as well as any person or organization that provides “material support or resources” intending that they be used to engage in such conduct. Civil liability would apply regardless of whether anyone was criminally charged or convicted of “riot” or “#vandalism.” The bill’s definition of “material support” is similar to the broad federal law definition of material support for terrorism, and includes funding as well as “communications” and “training.” As such, the civil liability provisions could make individuals and groups even indirectly involved in organizing or otherwise supporting protests vulnerable to lawsuits and extensive monetary damages.
Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab88Status: pending
Introduced 28 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #Riot
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #BigOilAndGas #Oiligarchy -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Wisconsin
AB 426: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil and gas #pipelines and other property of "energy providers." The law expands existing provisions related to trespass and property damage to broadly include the property of all companies in the oil and gas industry. Under the law, trespass onto the property of any "company that operates a #gas, #oil, petroleum, refined #petroleum product, renewable fuel, water, or chemical generation, storage, transportation, or delivery system" is a Class H felony, punishable by six years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Accordingly, protests in a range of locations may be covered, whether on land containing a pipeline or the corporate headquarters of an oil company. Any damage to property of such a company, with the intent to "cause substantial interruption or impairment of any service or good" provided by the company, is likewise a Class H felony under the law.
Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab426Status: enacted
Introduced 12 Sep 2019; Approved by Assembly 11 October 2019; Approved by Senate 5 November 2019; Signed by Governor Evers on 21 November 2019
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
AB 88: BROAD NEW DEFINITION OF "RIOT" and related felony offenses and civil liability
Would broadly define "riot" under Wisconsin law and create #vague new felony offenses as well as expansive civil liability that could cover #PeacefulProtest activity. The bill defines a “riot” as a “public disturbance” involving an act of violence or the threat of violence by someone in a gathering of 3 or more people. No actual damage or injury need take place for a gathering to become a “riot,” only a “clear and present danger” of damage or injury. As such, a large street protest where a single participant threatens to push somebody could be deemed a "riot," with no actual violence or property damage being committed by anyone. The bill creates a Class I felony offense—punishable by up to 3.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine—for anyone who intentionally incites another “to commit a ‘riot.’” The bill defines “incite” as “to urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate other persons.” As drafted, the incitement offense is not limited to urging actual violence against people or property, but could seemingly cover any expression of support for demonstrators in a crowd that had been deemed a “riot.” The bill also creates a Class H felony—punishable by up to 6 years in prison and $10,000—for someone who intentionally "commits an act of violence” (not defined) while part of a “riot.” Finally, the bill makes civilly liable protesters who allegedly commit a “riot” or “vandalism” offense, as well as any person or organization that provides “material support or resources” intending that they be used to engage in such conduct. Civil liability would apply regardless of whether anyone was criminally charged or convicted of “riot” or “#vandalism.” The bill’s definition of “material support” is similar to the broad federal law definition of material support for terrorism, and includes funding as well as “communications” and “training.” As such, the civil liability provisions could make individuals and groups even indirectly involved in organizing or otherwise supporting protests vulnerable to lawsuits and extensive monetary damages.
Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab88Status: pending
Introduced 28 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #Riot
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #BigOilAndGas #Oiligarchy -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Wisconsin
AB 426: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil and gas #pipelines and other property of "energy providers." The law expands existing provisions related to trespass and property damage to broadly include the property of all companies in the oil and gas industry. Under the law, trespass onto the property of any "company that operates a #gas, #oil, petroleum, refined #petroleum product, renewable fuel, water, or chemical generation, storage, transportation, or delivery system" is a Class H felony, punishable by six years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Accordingly, protests in a range of locations may be covered, whether on land containing a pipeline or the corporate headquarters of an oil company. Any damage to property of such a company, with the intent to "cause substantial interruption or impairment of any service or good" provided by the company, is likewise a Class H felony under the law.
Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab426Status: enacted
Introduced 12 Sep 2019; Approved by Assembly 11 October 2019; Approved by Senate 5 November 2019; Signed by Governor Evers on 21 November 2019
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
AB 88: BROAD NEW DEFINITION OF "RIOT" and related felony offenses and civil liability
Would broadly define "riot" under Wisconsin law and create #vague new felony offenses as well as expansive civil liability that could cover #PeacefulProtest activity. The bill defines a “riot” as a “public disturbance” involving an act of violence or the threat of violence by someone in a gathering of 3 or more people. No actual damage or injury need take place for a gathering to become a “riot,” only a “clear and present danger” of damage or injury. As such, a large street protest where a single participant threatens to push somebody could be deemed a "riot," with no actual violence or property damage being committed by anyone. The bill creates a Class I felony offense—punishable by up to 3.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine—for anyone who intentionally incites another “to commit a ‘riot.’” The bill defines “incite” as “to urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate other persons.” As drafted, the incitement offense is not limited to urging actual violence against people or property, but could seemingly cover any expression of support for demonstrators in a crowd that had been deemed a “riot.” The bill also creates a Class H felony—punishable by up to 6 years in prison and $10,000—for someone who intentionally "commits an act of violence” (not defined) while part of a “riot.” Finally, the bill makes civilly liable protesters who allegedly commit a “riot” or “vandalism” offense, as well as any person or organization that provides “material support or resources” intending that they be used to engage in such conduct. Civil liability would apply regardless of whether anyone was criminally charged or convicted of “riot” or “#vandalism.” The bill’s definition of “material support” is similar to the broad federal law definition of material support for terrorism, and includes funding as well as “communications” and “training.” As such, the civil liability provisions could make individuals and groups even indirectly involved in organizing or otherwise supporting protests vulnerable to lawsuits and extensive monetary damages.
Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab88Status: pending
Introduced 28 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #Riot
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #BigOilAndGas #Oiligarchy -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Wisconsin
AB 426: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil and gas #pipelines and other property of "energy providers." The law expands existing provisions related to trespass and property damage to broadly include the property of all companies in the oil and gas industry. Under the law, trespass onto the property of any "company that operates a #gas, #oil, petroleum, refined #petroleum product, renewable fuel, water, or chemical generation, storage, transportation, or delivery system" is a Class H felony, punishable by six years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Accordingly, protests in a range of locations may be covered, whether on land containing a pipeline or the corporate headquarters of an oil company. Any damage to property of such a company, with the intent to "cause substantial interruption or impairment of any service or good" provided by the company, is likewise a Class H felony under the law.
Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab426Status: enacted
Introduced 12 Sep 2019; Approved by Assembly 11 October 2019; Approved by Senate 5 November 2019; Signed by Governor Evers on 21 November 2019
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
AB 88: BROAD NEW DEFINITION OF "RIOT" and related felony offenses and civil liability
Would broadly define "riot" under Wisconsin law and create #vague new felony offenses as well as expansive civil liability that could cover #PeacefulProtest activity. The bill defines a “riot” as a “public disturbance” involving an act of violence or the threat of violence by someone in a gathering of 3 or more people. No actual damage or injury need take place for a gathering to become a “riot,” only a “clear and present danger” of damage or injury. As such, a large street protest where a single participant threatens to push somebody could be deemed a "riot," with no actual violence or property damage being committed by anyone. The bill creates a Class I felony offense—punishable by up to 3.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine—for anyone who intentionally incites another “to commit a ‘riot.’” The bill defines “incite” as “to urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate other persons.” As drafted, the incitement offense is not limited to urging actual violence against people or property, but could seemingly cover any expression of support for demonstrators in a crowd that had been deemed a “riot.” The bill also creates a Class H felony—punishable by up to 6 years in prison and $10,000—for someone who intentionally "commits an act of violence” (not defined) while part of a “riot.” Finally, the bill makes civilly liable protesters who allegedly commit a “riot” or “vandalism” offense, as well as any person or organization that provides “material support or resources” intending that they be used to engage in such conduct. Civil liability would apply regardless of whether anyone was criminally charged or convicted of “riot” or “#vandalism.” The bill’s definition of “material support” is similar to the broad federal law definition of material support for terrorism, and includes funding as well as “communications” and “training.” As such, the civil liability provisions could make individuals and groups even indirectly involved in organizing or otherwise supporting protests vulnerable to lawsuits and extensive monetary damages.
Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab88Status: pending
Introduced 28 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #Riot
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #BigOilAndGas #Oiligarchy -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Wisconsin
AB 426: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil and gas #pipelines and other property of "energy providers." The law expands existing provisions related to trespass and property damage to broadly include the property of all companies in the oil and gas industry. Under the law, trespass onto the property of any "company that operates a #gas, #oil, petroleum, refined #petroleum product, renewable fuel, water, or chemical generation, storage, transportation, or delivery system" is a Class H felony, punishable by six years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Accordingly, protests in a range of locations may be covered, whether on land containing a pipeline or the corporate headquarters of an oil company. Any damage to property of such a company, with the intent to "cause substantial interruption or impairment of any service or good" provided by the company, is likewise a Class H felony under the law.
Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab426Status: enacted
Introduced 12 Sep 2019; Approved by Assembly 11 October 2019; Approved by Senate 5 November 2019; Signed by Governor Evers on 21 November 2019
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
AB 88: BROAD NEW DEFINITION OF "RIOT" and related felony offenses and civil liability
Would broadly define "riot" under Wisconsin law and create #vague new felony offenses as well as expansive civil liability that could cover #PeacefulProtest activity. The bill defines a “riot” as a “public disturbance” involving an act of violence or the threat of violence by someone in a gathering of 3 or more people. No actual damage or injury need take place for a gathering to become a “riot,” only a “clear and present danger” of damage or injury. As such, a large street protest where a single participant threatens to push somebody could be deemed a "riot," with no actual violence or property damage being committed by anyone. The bill creates a Class I felony offense—punishable by up to 3.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine—for anyone who intentionally incites another “to commit a ‘riot.’” The bill defines “incite” as “to urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate other persons.” As drafted, the incitement offense is not limited to urging actual violence against people or property, but could seemingly cover any expression of support for demonstrators in a crowd that had been deemed a “riot.” The bill also creates a Class H felony—punishable by up to 6 years in prison and $10,000—for someone who intentionally "commits an act of violence” (not defined) while part of a “riot.” Finally, the bill makes civilly liable protesters who allegedly commit a “riot” or “vandalism” offense, as well as any person or organization that provides “material support or resources” intending that they be used to engage in such conduct. Civil liability would apply regardless of whether anyone was criminally charged or convicted of “riot” or “#vandalism.” The bill’s definition of “material support” is similar to the broad federal law definition of material support for terrorism, and includes funding as well as “communications” and “training.” As such, the civil liability provisions could make individuals and groups even indirectly involved in organizing or otherwise supporting protests vulnerable to lawsuits and extensive monetary damages.
Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab88Status: pending
Introduced 28 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #Riot
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #BigOilAndGas #Oiligarchy -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - Part 2
HB 3135: New penalties for #protesters who block #streets and #sidewalksWould create new penalties for protesters who block streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways. Under the bill, someone who obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk or “other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances,” whether alone or with others, commits a misdemeanor, punishable by at least $500 and one month in jail. A second or subsequent offense would be a felony, punishable by at least $1,000 and at least three months and up to three years in prison. The bill defines “obstruct” to include conduct that makes passage “unreasonably inconvenient.” As such, protesters on a sidewalk who were deemed to have made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for pedestrians to pass could face jail terms. A substantially similar bill was introduced as HB 5446 in 2024.
Full bill text:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=3135&year=2025&sessiontype=RSStatus: pending
Introduced 4 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
HB 2757: Potential "#terrorism" charges for #NonviolentProtesters
Would create several new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent #MassAction,” is defined to include “violent protests” and “riots” that “appear intended” to coerce or intimidate groups, governments, or societies. The bill provides that participation in a “terrorist violent mass action” constitutes an “terrorist act,” and any entity that uses such actions “to advance its agenda” is a “terrorist group.” “Violent protest” is not defined in the bill or elsewhere in the law, nor does the bill require that a person individually commit any act of violence or property damage to be culpable of “terrorist violent mass action.” As such, someone who peacefully participates in a #nonviolent but #rowdy protest where a few individuals commit #PropertyDamage could conceivably face “terrorism” charges. Likewise, a #NonprofitGroup involved in organizing or supporting such a protest “to advance its agenda” could be deemed a “#TerroristOrganization” under the bill. Individuals and organizations not directly involved in such a protest could also face felony “terrorism” charges for providing protesters with “material support”—broadly defined by the bill as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” The bill also creates a new felony “terrorism” offense for “actions… taken for political reasons to bar other persons from exercising their freedom of movement, via foot or any other conveyance.” As written, that could cover a large, peaceful march that even temporarily stops traffic. Meanwhile, the bill provides complete immunity for people who “injure perpetrators or supporters of perpetrators” while attempting to “escape” such “terrorism.” This provision would seem to eliminate consequences for acts of violence against protesters by people whose movement has been blocked by a protest, including drivers who hit protesters with their cars. The bill also creates new felony “threatening terrorism” offenses for a person or group that "for political reasons blockades property containing critical infrastructure,” or that “trespasses for political reasons onto property containing critical infrastructure.” As such, nonviolent protesters who block a road to a pipeline or enter onto pipeline property could face “threatening terrorism” charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A nearly identical bill was proposed in 2024 (HB 4994) and 2023 (HB 2916).
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=2757&year=2025&sessiontype=RSStatus: pending
Introduced 21 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #DriverImmunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, #TrafficInterference, Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - Part 2
HB 3135: New penalties for #protesters who block #streets and #sidewalksWould create new penalties for protesters who block streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways. Under the bill, someone who obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk or “other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances,” whether alone or with others, commits a misdemeanor, punishable by at least $500 and one month in jail. A second or subsequent offense would be a felony, punishable by at least $1,000 and at least three months and up to three years in prison. The bill defines “obstruct” to include conduct that makes passage “unreasonably inconvenient.” As such, protesters on a sidewalk who were deemed to have made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for pedestrians to pass could face jail terms. A substantially similar bill was introduced as HB 5446 in 2024.
Full bill text:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=3135&year=2025&sessiontype=RSStatus: pending
Introduced 4 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
HB 2757: Potential "#terrorism" charges for #NonviolentProtesters
Would create several new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent #MassAction,” is defined to include “violent protests” and “riots” that “appear intended” to coerce or intimidate groups, governments, or societies. The bill provides that participation in a “terrorist violent mass action” constitutes an “terrorist act,” and any entity that uses such actions “to advance its agenda” is a “terrorist group.” “Violent protest” is not defined in the bill or elsewhere in the law, nor does the bill require that a person individually commit any act of violence or property damage to be culpable of “terrorist violent mass action.” As such, someone who peacefully participates in a #nonviolent but #rowdy protest where a few individuals commit #PropertyDamage could conceivably face “terrorism” charges. Likewise, a #NonprofitGroup involved in organizing or supporting such a protest “to advance its agenda” could be deemed a “#TerroristOrganization” under the bill. Individuals and organizations not directly involved in such a protest could also face felony “terrorism” charges for providing protesters with “material support”—broadly defined by the bill as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” The bill also creates a new felony “terrorism” offense for “actions… taken for political reasons to bar other persons from exercising their freedom of movement, via foot or any other conveyance.” As written, that could cover a large, peaceful march that even temporarily stops traffic. Meanwhile, the bill provides complete immunity for people who “injure perpetrators or supporters of perpetrators” while attempting to “escape” such “terrorism.” This provision would seem to eliminate consequences for acts of violence against protesters by people whose movement has been blocked by a protest, including drivers who hit protesters with their cars. The bill also creates new felony “threatening terrorism” offenses for a person or group that "for political reasons blockades property containing critical infrastructure,” or that “trespasses for political reasons onto property containing critical infrastructure.” As such, nonviolent protesters who block a road to a pipeline or enter onto pipeline property could face “threatening terrorism” charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A nearly identical bill was proposed in 2024 (HB 4994) and 2023 (HB 2916).
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=2757&year=2025&sessiontype=RSStatus: pending
Introduced 21 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #DriverImmunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, #TrafficInterference, Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - Part 2
HB 3135: New penalties for #protesters who block #streets and #sidewalksWould create new penalties for protesters who block streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways. Under the bill, someone who obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk or “other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances,” whether alone or with others, commits a misdemeanor, punishable by at least $500 and one month in jail. A second or subsequent offense would be a felony, punishable by at least $1,000 and at least three months and up to three years in prison. The bill defines “obstruct” to include conduct that makes passage “unreasonably inconvenient.” As such, protesters on a sidewalk who were deemed to have made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for pedestrians to pass could face jail terms. A substantially similar bill was introduced as HB 5446 in 2024.
Full bill text:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=3135&year=2025&sessiontype=RSStatus: pending
Introduced 4 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
HB 2757: Potential "#terrorism" charges for #NonviolentProtesters
Would create several new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent #MassAction,” is defined to include “violent protests” and “riots” that “appear intended” to coerce or intimidate groups, governments, or societies. The bill provides that participation in a “terrorist violent mass action” constitutes an “terrorist act,” and any entity that uses such actions “to advance its agenda” is a “terrorist group.” “Violent protest” is not defined in the bill or elsewhere in the law, nor does the bill require that a person individually commit any act of violence or property damage to be culpable of “terrorist violent mass action.” As such, someone who peacefully participates in a #nonviolent but #rowdy protest where a few individuals commit #PropertyDamage could conceivably face “terrorism” charges. Likewise, a #NonprofitGroup involved in organizing or supporting such a protest “to advance its agenda” could be deemed a “#TerroristOrganization” under the bill. Individuals and organizations not directly involved in such a protest could also face felony “terrorism” charges for providing protesters with “material support”—broadly defined by the bill as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” The bill also creates a new felony “terrorism” offense for “actions… taken for political reasons to bar other persons from exercising their freedom of movement, via foot or any other conveyance.” As written, that could cover a large, peaceful march that even temporarily stops traffic. Meanwhile, the bill provides complete immunity for people who “injure perpetrators or supporters of perpetrators” while attempting to “escape” such “terrorism.” This provision would seem to eliminate consequences for acts of violence against protesters by people whose movement has been blocked by a protest, including drivers who hit protesters with their cars. The bill also creates new felony “threatening terrorism” offenses for a person or group that "for political reasons blockades property containing critical infrastructure,” or that “trespasses for political reasons onto property containing critical infrastructure.” As such, nonviolent protesters who block a road to a pipeline or enter onto pipeline property could face “threatening terrorism” charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A nearly identical bill was proposed in 2024 (HB 4994) and 2023 (HB 2916).
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=2757&year=2025&sessiontype=RSStatus: pending
Introduced 21 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #DriverImmunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, #TrafficInterference, Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - Part 2
HB 3135: New penalties for #protesters who block #streets and #sidewalksWould create new penalties for protesters who block streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways. Under the bill, someone who obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk or “other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances,” whether alone or with others, commits a misdemeanor, punishable by at least $500 and one month in jail. A second or subsequent offense would be a felony, punishable by at least $1,000 and at least three months and up to three years in prison. The bill defines “obstruct” to include conduct that makes passage “unreasonably inconvenient.” As such, protesters on a sidewalk who were deemed to have made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for pedestrians to pass could face jail terms. A substantially similar bill was introduced as HB 5446 in 2024.
Full bill text:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=3135&year=2025&sessiontype=RSStatus: pending
Introduced 4 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
HB 2757: Potential "#terrorism" charges for #NonviolentProtesters
Would create several new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent #MassAction,” is defined to include “violent protests” and “riots” that “appear intended” to coerce or intimidate groups, governments, or societies. The bill provides that participation in a “terrorist violent mass action” constitutes an “terrorist act,” and any entity that uses such actions “to advance its agenda” is a “terrorist group.” “Violent protest” is not defined in the bill or elsewhere in the law, nor does the bill require that a person individually commit any act of violence or property damage to be culpable of “terrorist violent mass action.” As such, someone who peacefully participates in a #nonviolent but #rowdy protest where a few individuals commit #PropertyDamage could conceivably face “terrorism” charges. Likewise, a #NonprofitGroup involved in organizing or supporting such a protest “to advance its agenda” could be deemed a “#TerroristOrganization” under the bill. Individuals and organizations not directly involved in such a protest could also face felony “terrorism” charges for providing protesters with “material support”—broadly defined by the bill as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” The bill also creates a new felony “terrorism” offense for “actions… taken for political reasons to bar other persons from exercising their freedom of movement, via foot or any other conveyance.” As written, that could cover a large, peaceful march that even temporarily stops traffic. Meanwhile, the bill provides complete immunity for people who “injure perpetrators or supporters of perpetrators” while attempting to “escape” such “terrorism.” This provision would seem to eliminate consequences for acts of violence against protesters by people whose movement has been blocked by a protest, including drivers who hit protesters with their cars. The bill also creates new felony “threatening terrorism” offenses for a person or group that "for political reasons blockades property containing critical infrastructure,” or that “trespasses for political reasons onto property containing critical infrastructure.” As such, nonviolent protesters who block a road to a pipeline or enter onto pipeline property could face “threatening terrorism” charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A nearly identical bill was proposed in 2024 (HB 4994) and 2023 (HB 2916).
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=2757&year=2025&sessiontype=RSStatus: pending
Introduced 21 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #DriverImmunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, #TrafficInterference, Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - Part 2
HB 3135: New penalties for #protesters who block #streets and #sidewalksWould create new penalties for protesters who block streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways. Under the bill, someone who obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk or “other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances,” whether alone or with others, commits a misdemeanor, punishable by at least $500 and one month in jail. A second or subsequent offense would be a felony, punishable by at least $1,000 and at least three months and up to three years in prison. The bill defines “obstruct” to include conduct that makes passage “unreasonably inconvenient.” As such, protesters on a sidewalk who were deemed to have made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for pedestrians to pass could face jail terms. A substantially similar bill was introduced as HB 5446 in 2024.
Full bill text:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=3135&year=2025&sessiontype=RSStatus: pending
Introduced 4 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
HB 2757: Potential "#terrorism" charges for #NonviolentProtesters
Would create several new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent #MassAction,” is defined to include “violent protests” and “riots” that “appear intended” to coerce or intimidate groups, governments, or societies. The bill provides that participation in a “terrorist violent mass action” constitutes an “terrorist act,” and any entity that uses such actions “to advance its agenda” is a “terrorist group.” “Violent protest” is not defined in the bill or elsewhere in the law, nor does the bill require that a person individually commit any act of violence or property damage to be culpable of “terrorist violent mass action.” As such, someone who peacefully participates in a #nonviolent but #rowdy protest where a few individuals commit #PropertyDamage could conceivably face “terrorism” charges. Likewise, a #NonprofitGroup involved in organizing or supporting such a protest “to advance its agenda” could be deemed a “#TerroristOrganization” under the bill. Individuals and organizations not directly involved in such a protest could also face felony “terrorism” charges for providing protesters with “material support”—broadly defined by the bill as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” The bill also creates a new felony “terrorism” offense for “actions… taken for political reasons to bar other persons from exercising their freedom of movement, via foot or any other conveyance.” As written, that could cover a large, peaceful march that even temporarily stops traffic. Meanwhile, the bill provides complete immunity for people who “injure perpetrators or supporters of perpetrators” while attempting to “escape” such “terrorism.” This provision would seem to eliminate consequences for acts of violence against protesters by people whose movement has been blocked by a protest, including drivers who hit protesters with their cars. The bill also creates new felony “threatening terrorism” offenses for a person or group that "for political reasons blockades property containing critical infrastructure,” or that “trespasses for political reasons onto property containing critical infrastructure.” As such, nonviolent protesters who block a road to a pipeline or enter onto pipeline property could face “threatening terrorism” charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A nearly identical bill was proposed in 2024 (HB 4994) and 2023 (HB 2916).
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=2757&year=2025&sessiontype=RSStatus: pending
Introduced 21 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #DriverImmunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, #TrafficInterference, Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - part 1
HB 5091: Heightened penalties for #protesters near #pipelines and other infrastructureIncreases the penalties and broaden offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure. The law amends West Virginia’s 2020 critical infrastructure law to remove the limitation that the law’s offenses could only occur on critical infrastructure property “if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that.. indicate that entry is forbidden.” As a result, many more infrastructure sites are covered by the 2020 law’s trespass and tampering offenses, which carry significant penalties. The law also makes convictions for second and subsequent offenses of either the trespassing or tampering offenses a felony punishable by at least 2 and up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000-$15,000. The law increases the fine for a person who “vandalizes, defaces, or tampers with” equipment in a critical infrastructure facility that causes damage of more than $2,500, from $1,000-$5,000 to $3,000-$10,000. (As introduced, the bill made second convictions punishable by a minimum of 5 years and a fine of $100,000-$250,000, and increased the fine for tampering or vandalizing from $1,000-$5,000 to $25,000-$100,000.)
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=5091&year=2024&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 25 Jan 2024; Approved by House 6 February 2024; Approved by Senate 4 March 2024; Signed by Governor Justice 26 March 2024
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 4615: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is punishable by a year in jail and a $500 fine. Criminal trespass on critical infrastructure property with intent to "vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment, or impede or inhibit operations" of the facility is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. Actually vandalizing, defacing, or tampering with the facility--regardless of actual damage--is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. An individual convicted of any of the offenses, and any entity that "compensates, provides consideration to or remunerates" a person for committing the offenses, is also civilly liable for any damage sustained. An organization or person found to have "conspired" to commit any of the offenses--regardless of whether they were committed--is subject to a criminal fine. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under West Virginia law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted with signs indicating that entry is prohibited.
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4615&year=2020&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 30 Jan 2020; Approved by House 13 February 2020; Approved by Senate 7 March 2020; Signed by Governor Justice 25 March 2020
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 4618: Eliminating #PoliceLiability for deaths while dispersing #riots and unlawful assemblies
Reaffirms West Virginia's problematic law on rioting, and adds the West Virginia Capitol Police to those authorities who cannot be held liable for the deaths and wounding of individuals in the course of dispersing riots and unlawful assemblies. Under prior West Virginia law, the State Police, sheriffs, and mayors had authority to use means such as curfews and warrantless searches to disperse riots and unlawful assemblies; the law reaffirms and extends this authority to the Capitol Police. According to the law, if a bystander is asked to assist in the dispersal and fails to do so, he or she "shall be deemed a rioter." The law also adds Capitol Police to existing provisions eliminating liability if anyone present, "as spectator or otherwise, be killed or wounded," while the authorities used "any means" to disperse riots or unlawful assemblies or arrest those involved. The law was passed during a statewide strike by #WestVirginiaTeachers, thousands of whom protested in February 2018 at the #StateCapitol.
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4618&year=2018&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 13 Feb 2018; Approved by House 22 February 2018; Approved by Senate 8 March 2018; Signed by Governor Justice 10 March 2018
Issue(s): Police Response, Riot
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #TeachersStrike #ACAB -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - part 1
HB 5091: Heightened penalties for #protesters near #pipelines and other infrastructureIncreases the penalties and broaden offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure. The law amends West Virginia’s 2020 critical infrastructure law to remove the limitation that the law’s offenses could only occur on critical infrastructure property “if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that.. indicate that entry is forbidden.” As a result, many more infrastructure sites are covered by the 2020 law’s trespass and tampering offenses, which carry significant penalties. The law also makes convictions for second and subsequent offenses of either the trespassing or tampering offenses a felony punishable by at least 2 and up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000-$15,000. The law increases the fine for a person who “vandalizes, defaces, or tampers with” equipment in a critical infrastructure facility that causes damage of more than $2,500, from $1,000-$5,000 to $3,000-$10,000. (As introduced, the bill made second convictions punishable by a minimum of 5 years and a fine of $100,000-$250,000, and increased the fine for tampering or vandalizing from $1,000-$5,000 to $25,000-$100,000.)
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=5091&year=2024&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 25 Jan 2024; Approved by House 6 February 2024; Approved by Senate 4 March 2024; Signed by Governor Justice 26 March 2024
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 4615: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is punishable by a year in jail and a $500 fine. Criminal trespass on critical infrastructure property with intent to "vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment, or impede or inhibit operations" of the facility is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. Actually vandalizing, defacing, or tampering with the facility--regardless of actual damage--is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. An individual convicted of any of the offenses, and any entity that "compensates, provides consideration to or remunerates" a person for committing the offenses, is also civilly liable for any damage sustained. An organization or person found to have "conspired" to commit any of the offenses--regardless of whether they were committed--is subject to a criminal fine. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under West Virginia law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted with signs indicating that entry is prohibited.
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4615&year=2020&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 30 Jan 2020; Approved by House 13 February 2020; Approved by Senate 7 March 2020; Signed by Governor Justice 25 March 2020
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 4618: Eliminating #PoliceLiability for deaths while dispersing #riots and unlawful assemblies
Reaffirms West Virginia's problematic law on rioting, and adds the West Virginia Capitol Police to those authorities who cannot be held liable for the deaths and wounding of individuals in the course of dispersing riots and unlawful assemblies. Under prior West Virginia law, the State Police, sheriffs, and mayors had authority to use means such as curfews and warrantless searches to disperse riots and unlawful assemblies; the law reaffirms and extends this authority to the Capitol Police. According to the law, if a bystander is asked to assist in the dispersal and fails to do so, he or she "shall be deemed a rioter." The law also adds Capitol Police to existing provisions eliminating liability if anyone present, "as spectator or otherwise, be killed or wounded," while the authorities used "any means" to disperse riots or unlawful assemblies or arrest those involved. The law was passed during a statewide strike by #WestVirginiaTeachers, thousands of whom protested in February 2018 at the #StateCapitol.
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4618&year=2018&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 13 Feb 2018; Approved by House 22 February 2018; Approved by Senate 8 March 2018; Signed by Governor Justice 10 March 2018
Issue(s): Police Response, Riot
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #TeachersStrike #ACAB -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - part 1
HB 5091: Heightened penalties for #protesters near #pipelines and other infrastructureIncreases the penalties and broaden offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure. The law amends West Virginia’s 2020 critical infrastructure law to remove the limitation that the law’s offenses could only occur on critical infrastructure property “if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that.. indicate that entry is forbidden.” As a result, many more infrastructure sites are covered by the 2020 law’s trespass and tampering offenses, which carry significant penalties. The law also makes convictions for second and subsequent offenses of either the trespassing or tampering offenses a felony punishable by at least 2 and up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000-$15,000. The law increases the fine for a person who “vandalizes, defaces, or tampers with” equipment in a critical infrastructure facility that causes damage of more than $2,500, from $1,000-$5,000 to $3,000-$10,000. (As introduced, the bill made second convictions punishable by a minimum of 5 years and a fine of $100,000-$250,000, and increased the fine for tampering or vandalizing from $1,000-$5,000 to $25,000-$100,000.)
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=5091&year=2024&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 25 Jan 2024; Approved by House 6 February 2024; Approved by Senate 4 March 2024; Signed by Governor Justice 26 March 2024
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 4615: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is punishable by a year in jail and a $500 fine. Criminal trespass on critical infrastructure property with intent to "vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment, or impede or inhibit operations" of the facility is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. Actually vandalizing, defacing, or tampering with the facility--regardless of actual damage--is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. An individual convicted of any of the offenses, and any entity that "compensates, provides consideration to or remunerates" a person for committing the offenses, is also civilly liable for any damage sustained. An organization or person found to have "conspired" to commit any of the offenses--regardless of whether they were committed--is subject to a criminal fine. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under West Virginia law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted with signs indicating that entry is prohibited.
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4615&year=2020&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 30 Jan 2020; Approved by House 13 February 2020; Approved by Senate 7 March 2020; Signed by Governor Justice 25 March 2020
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 4618: Eliminating #PoliceLiability for deaths while dispersing #riots and unlawful assemblies
Reaffirms West Virginia's problematic law on rioting, and adds the West Virginia Capitol Police to those authorities who cannot be held liable for the deaths and wounding of individuals in the course of dispersing riots and unlawful assemblies. Under prior West Virginia law, the State Police, sheriffs, and mayors had authority to use means such as curfews and warrantless searches to disperse riots and unlawful assemblies; the law reaffirms and extends this authority to the Capitol Police. According to the law, if a bystander is asked to assist in the dispersal and fails to do so, he or she "shall be deemed a rioter." The law also adds Capitol Police to existing provisions eliminating liability if anyone present, "as spectator or otherwise, be killed or wounded," while the authorities used "any means" to disperse riots or unlawful assemblies or arrest those involved. The law was passed during a statewide strike by #WestVirginiaTeachers, thousands of whom protested in February 2018 at the #StateCapitol.
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4618&year=2018&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 13 Feb 2018; Approved by House 22 February 2018; Approved by Senate 8 March 2018; Signed by Governor Justice 10 March 2018
Issue(s): Police Response, Riot
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #TeachersStrike #ACAB -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - part 1
HB 5091: Heightened penalties for #protesters near #pipelines and other infrastructureIncreases the penalties and broaden offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure. The law amends West Virginia’s 2020 critical infrastructure law to remove the limitation that the law’s offenses could only occur on critical infrastructure property “if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that.. indicate that entry is forbidden.” As a result, many more infrastructure sites are covered by the 2020 law’s trespass and tampering offenses, which carry significant penalties. The law also makes convictions for second and subsequent offenses of either the trespassing or tampering offenses a felony punishable by at least 2 and up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000-$15,000. The law increases the fine for a person who “vandalizes, defaces, or tampers with” equipment in a critical infrastructure facility that causes damage of more than $2,500, from $1,000-$5,000 to $3,000-$10,000. (As introduced, the bill made second convictions punishable by a minimum of 5 years and a fine of $100,000-$250,000, and increased the fine for tampering or vandalizing from $1,000-$5,000 to $25,000-$100,000.)
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=5091&year=2024&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 25 Jan 2024; Approved by House 6 February 2024; Approved by Senate 4 March 2024; Signed by Governor Justice 26 March 2024
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 4615: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is punishable by a year in jail and a $500 fine. Criminal trespass on critical infrastructure property with intent to "vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment, or impede or inhibit operations" of the facility is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. Actually vandalizing, defacing, or tampering with the facility--regardless of actual damage--is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. An individual convicted of any of the offenses, and any entity that "compensates, provides consideration to or remunerates" a person for committing the offenses, is also civilly liable for any damage sustained. An organization or person found to have "conspired" to commit any of the offenses--regardless of whether they were committed--is subject to a criminal fine. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under West Virginia law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted with signs indicating that entry is prohibited.
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4615&year=2020&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 30 Jan 2020; Approved by House 13 February 2020; Approved by Senate 7 March 2020; Signed by Governor Justice 25 March 2020
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 4618: Eliminating #PoliceLiability for deaths while dispersing #riots and unlawful assemblies
Reaffirms West Virginia's problematic law on rioting, and adds the West Virginia Capitol Police to those authorities who cannot be held liable for the deaths and wounding of individuals in the course of dispersing riots and unlawful assemblies. Under prior West Virginia law, the State Police, sheriffs, and mayors had authority to use means such as curfews and warrantless searches to disperse riots and unlawful assemblies; the law reaffirms and extends this authority to the Capitol Police. According to the law, if a bystander is asked to assist in the dispersal and fails to do so, he or she "shall be deemed a rioter." The law also adds Capitol Police to existing provisions eliminating liability if anyone present, "as spectator or otherwise, be killed or wounded," while the authorities used "any means" to disperse riots or unlawful assemblies or arrest those involved. The law was passed during a statewide strike by #WestVirginiaTeachers, thousands of whom protested in February 2018 at the #StateCapitol.
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4618&year=2018&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 13 Feb 2018; Approved by House 22 February 2018; Approved by Senate 8 March 2018; Signed by Governor Justice 10 March 2018
Issue(s): Police Response, Riot
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #TeachersStrike #ACAB -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - part 1
HB 5091: Heightened penalties for #protesters near #pipelines and other infrastructureIncreases the penalties and broaden offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure. The law amends West Virginia’s 2020 critical infrastructure law to remove the limitation that the law’s offenses could only occur on critical infrastructure property “if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that.. indicate that entry is forbidden.” As a result, many more infrastructure sites are covered by the 2020 law’s trespass and tampering offenses, which carry significant penalties. The law also makes convictions for second and subsequent offenses of either the trespassing or tampering offenses a felony punishable by at least 2 and up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000-$15,000. The law increases the fine for a person who “vandalizes, defaces, or tampers with” equipment in a critical infrastructure facility that causes damage of more than $2,500, from $1,000-$5,000 to $3,000-$10,000. (As introduced, the bill made second convictions punishable by a minimum of 5 years and a fine of $100,000-$250,000, and increased the fine for tampering or vandalizing from $1,000-$5,000 to $25,000-$100,000.)
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=5091&year=2024&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 25 Jan 2024; Approved by House 6 February 2024; Approved by Senate 4 March 2024; Signed by Governor Justice 26 March 2024
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 4615: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is punishable by a year in jail and a $500 fine. Criminal trespass on critical infrastructure property with intent to "vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment, or impede or inhibit operations" of the facility is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. Actually vandalizing, defacing, or tampering with the facility--regardless of actual damage--is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. An individual convicted of any of the offenses, and any entity that "compensates, provides consideration to or remunerates" a person for committing the offenses, is also civilly liable for any damage sustained. An organization or person found to have "conspired" to commit any of the offenses--regardless of whether they were committed--is subject to a criminal fine. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under West Virginia law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted with signs indicating that entry is prohibited.
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4615&year=2020&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 30 Jan 2020; Approved by House 13 February 2020; Approved by Senate 7 March 2020; Signed by Governor Justice 25 March 2020
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 4618: Eliminating #PoliceLiability for deaths while dispersing #riots and unlawful assemblies
Reaffirms West Virginia's problematic law on rioting, and adds the West Virginia Capitol Police to those authorities who cannot be held liable for the deaths and wounding of individuals in the course of dispersing riots and unlawful assemblies. Under prior West Virginia law, the State Police, sheriffs, and mayors had authority to use means such as curfews and warrantless searches to disperse riots and unlawful assemblies; the law reaffirms and extends this authority to the Capitol Police. According to the law, if a bystander is asked to assist in the dispersal and fails to do so, he or she "shall be deemed a rioter." The law also adds Capitol Police to existing provisions eliminating liability if anyone present, "as spectator or otherwise, be killed or wounded," while the authorities used "any means" to disperse riots or unlawful assemblies or arrest those involved. The law was passed during a statewide strike by #WestVirginiaTeachers, thousands of whom protested in February 2018 at the #StateCapitol.
Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4618&year=2018&sessiontype=RSStatus: enacted
Introduced 13 Feb 2018; Approved by House 22 February 2018; Approved by Senate 8 March 2018; Signed by Governor Justice 10 March 2018
Issue(s): Police Response, Riot
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #TeachersStrike #ACAB -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Utah
SB 173: Criminal penalties for protests that disturb legislative or other government meetings
Creates new potential penalties for individuals protesting convenings of the legislature or other meetings of government officials. The law expands "disorderly conduct" to include a person who recklessly causes public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by making "unreasonable noises" at an official meeting or in a private place that can be heard at an official meeting. "#DisorderlyConduct" also includes obstructing #PedestrianTraffic at an official meeting or refusing to leave an official meeting when asked by law enforcement. The law also increases the penalty for disorderly conduct, such that it is punishable by a $750 fine on the first offense (an infraction), up to 3 months in jail if a person was warned to cease prohibited conduct (Class C misdemeanor), up to 6 months for a second offense (Class B misdemeanor), and up to 1 year for a third offense (Class A misdemeanor). Accordingly, the law could, for example, be used to penalize silent protesters who refuse to leave a legislative committee meeting. An earlier version of the bill explicitly made it unlawful to commit even a "single, loud outburst, absent other disruptive conduct, that does not exceed five seconds in length."
Full text of bill:
https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0173.htmlStatus: enacted
Introduced 24 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Approved by House 12 March 2020; Signed by Governor 30 March 2020
HB 370: New Penalties for Protests Near #Pipelines, #Roadways, and other #Infrastructure
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage, and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created new potential criminal liability for protesters in many locations by criminalizing acts that "inhibit" or "impede" critical infrastructure facilities. The bill's original text had a sweeping definition of "critical infrastructure facility" that included highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, financial systems, and energy infrastructure including pipelines--whether under construction or operational. The bill created a new felony offense for "inhibiting," or "impeding" the facility, its equipment, or operation, such that protesters who intentionally inhibited or impeded the operation of a roadway or construction of a pipeline could have faced life in prison. Amendments to the bill substantially narrowed the offense, however. The enacted law criminalizes "substantially... inhibiting or impeding" the operation of critical infrastructure only if doing so "causes widespread injury or damage to persons or property." Amendments also narrowed the definition of "critical infrastructure facility," including by removing highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, and financial systems from the definition.
Full text here:
https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0370.htmlStatus: enacted with improvements
Introduced 3 Feb 2023; Approved by House 14 February 2023; Approved by Senate 28 February 2023; Signed by Governor Cox 14 March 2023
Issue(s): Infrastructure, #TrafficInterference
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Utah
SB 173: Criminal penalties for protests that disturb legislative or other government meetings
Creates new potential penalties for individuals protesting convenings of the legislature or other meetings of government officials. The law expands "disorderly conduct" to include a person who recklessly causes public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by making "unreasonable noises" at an official meeting or in a private place that can be heard at an official meeting. "#DisorderlyConduct" also includes obstructing #PedestrianTraffic at an official meeting or refusing to leave an official meeting when asked by law enforcement. The law also increases the penalty for disorderly conduct, such that it is punishable by a $750 fine on the first offense (an infraction), up to 3 months in jail if a person was warned to cease prohibited conduct (Class C misdemeanor), up to 6 months for a second offense (Class B misdemeanor), and up to 1 year for a third offense (Class A misdemeanor). Accordingly, the law could, for example, be used to penalize silent protesters who refuse to leave a legislative committee meeting. An earlier version of the bill explicitly made it unlawful to commit even a "single, loud outburst, absent other disruptive conduct, that does not exceed five seconds in length."
Full text of bill:
https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0173.htmlStatus: enacted
Introduced 24 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Approved by House 12 March 2020; Signed by Governor 30 March 2020
HB 370: New Penalties for Protests Near #Pipelines, #Roadways, and other #Infrastructure
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage, and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created new potential criminal liability for protesters in many locations by criminalizing acts that "inhibit" or "impede" critical infrastructure facilities. The bill's original text had a sweeping definition of "critical infrastructure facility" that included highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, financial systems, and energy infrastructure including pipelines--whether under construction or operational. The bill created a new felony offense for "inhibiting," or "impeding" the facility, its equipment, or operation, such that protesters who intentionally inhibited or impeded the operation of a roadway or construction of a pipeline could have faced life in prison. Amendments to the bill substantially narrowed the offense, however. The enacted law criminalizes "substantially... inhibiting or impeding" the operation of critical infrastructure only if doing so "causes widespread injury or damage to persons or property." Amendments also narrowed the definition of "critical infrastructure facility," including by removing highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, and financial systems from the definition.
Full text here:
https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0370.htmlStatus: enacted with improvements
Introduced 3 Feb 2023; Approved by House 14 February 2023; Approved by Senate 28 February 2023; Signed by Governor Cox 14 March 2023
Issue(s): Infrastructure, #TrafficInterference
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Utah
SB 173: Criminal penalties for protests that disturb legislative or other government meetings
Creates new potential penalties for individuals protesting convenings of the legislature or other meetings of government officials. The law expands "disorderly conduct" to include a person who recklessly causes public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by making "unreasonable noises" at an official meeting or in a private place that can be heard at an official meeting. "#DisorderlyConduct" also includes obstructing #PedestrianTraffic at an official meeting or refusing to leave an official meeting when asked by law enforcement. The law also increases the penalty for disorderly conduct, such that it is punishable by a $750 fine on the first offense (an infraction), up to 3 months in jail if a person was warned to cease prohibited conduct (Class C misdemeanor), up to 6 months for a second offense (Class B misdemeanor), and up to 1 year for a third offense (Class A misdemeanor). Accordingly, the law could, for example, be used to penalize silent protesters who refuse to leave a legislative committee meeting. An earlier version of the bill explicitly made it unlawful to commit even a "single, loud outburst, absent other disruptive conduct, that does not exceed five seconds in length."
Full text of bill:
https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0173.htmlStatus: enacted
Introduced 24 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Approved by House 12 March 2020; Signed by Governor 30 March 2020
HB 370: New Penalties for Protests Near #Pipelines, #Roadways, and other #Infrastructure
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage, and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created new potential criminal liability for protesters in many locations by criminalizing acts that "inhibit" or "impede" critical infrastructure facilities. The bill's original text had a sweeping definition of "critical infrastructure facility" that included highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, financial systems, and energy infrastructure including pipelines--whether under construction or operational. The bill created a new felony offense for "inhibiting," or "impeding" the facility, its equipment, or operation, such that protesters who intentionally inhibited or impeded the operation of a roadway or construction of a pipeline could have faced life in prison. Amendments to the bill substantially narrowed the offense, however. The enacted law criminalizes "substantially... inhibiting or impeding" the operation of critical infrastructure only if doing so "causes widespread injury or damage to persons or property." Amendments also narrowed the definition of "critical infrastructure facility," including by removing highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, and financial systems from the definition.
Full text here:
https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0370.htmlStatus: enacted with improvements
Introduced 3 Feb 2023; Approved by House 14 February 2023; Approved by Senate 28 February 2023; Signed by Governor Cox 14 March 2023
Issue(s): Infrastructure, #TrafficInterference
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Utah
SB 173: Criminal penalties for protests that disturb legislative or other government meetings
Creates new potential penalties for individuals protesting convenings of the legislature or other meetings of government officials. The law expands "disorderly conduct" to include a person who recklessly causes public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by making "unreasonable noises" at an official meeting or in a private place that can be heard at an official meeting. "#DisorderlyConduct" also includes obstructing #PedestrianTraffic at an official meeting or refusing to leave an official meeting when asked by law enforcement. The law also increases the penalty for disorderly conduct, such that it is punishable by a $750 fine on the first offense (an infraction), up to 3 months in jail if a person was warned to cease prohibited conduct (Class C misdemeanor), up to 6 months for a second offense (Class B misdemeanor), and up to 1 year for a third offense (Class A misdemeanor). Accordingly, the law could, for example, be used to penalize silent protesters who refuse to leave a legislative committee meeting. An earlier version of the bill explicitly made it unlawful to commit even a "single, loud outburst, absent other disruptive conduct, that does not exceed five seconds in length."
Full text of bill:
https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0173.htmlStatus: enacted
Introduced 24 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Approved by House 12 March 2020; Signed by Governor 30 March 2020
HB 370: New Penalties for Protests Near #Pipelines, #Roadways, and other #Infrastructure
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage, and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created new potential criminal liability for protesters in many locations by criminalizing acts that "inhibit" or "impede" critical infrastructure facilities. The bill's original text had a sweeping definition of "critical infrastructure facility" that included highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, financial systems, and energy infrastructure including pipelines--whether under construction or operational. The bill created a new felony offense for "inhibiting," or "impeding" the facility, its equipment, or operation, such that protesters who intentionally inhibited or impeded the operation of a roadway or construction of a pipeline could have faced life in prison. Amendments to the bill substantially narrowed the offense, however. The enacted law criminalizes "substantially... inhibiting or impeding" the operation of critical infrastructure only if doing so "causes widespread injury or damage to persons or property." Amendments also narrowed the definition of "critical infrastructure facility," including by removing highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, and financial systems from the definition.
Full text here:
https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0370.htmlStatus: enacted with improvements
Introduced 3 Feb 2023; Approved by House 14 February 2023; Approved by Senate 28 February 2023; Signed by Governor Cox 14 March 2023
Issue(s): Infrastructure, #TrafficInterference
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Utah
SB 173: Criminal penalties for protests that disturb legislative or other government meetings
Creates new potential penalties for individuals protesting convenings of the legislature or other meetings of government officials. The law expands "disorderly conduct" to include a person who recklessly causes public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by making "unreasonable noises" at an official meeting or in a private place that can be heard at an official meeting. "#DisorderlyConduct" also includes obstructing #PedestrianTraffic at an official meeting or refusing to leave an official meeting when asked by law enforcement. The law also increases the penalty for disorderly conduct, such that it is punishable by a $750 fine on the first offense (an infraction), up to 3 months in jail if a person was warned to cease prohibited conduct (Class C misdemeanor), up to 6 months for a second offense (Class B misdemeanor), and up to 1 year for a third offense (Class A misdemeanor). Accordingly, the law could, for example, be used to penalize silent protesters who refuse to leave a legislative committee meeting. An earlier version of the bill explicitly made it unlawful to commit even a "single, loud outburst, absent other disruptive conduct, that does not exceed five seconds in length."
Full text of bill:
https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0173.htmlStatus: enacted
Introduced 24 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Approved by House 12 March 2020; Signed by Governor 30 March 2020
HB 370: New Penalties for Protests Near #Pipelines, #Roadways, and other #Infrastructure
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage, and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created new potential criminal liability for protesters in many locations by criminalizing acts that "inhibit" or "impede" critical infrastructure facilities. The bill's original text had a sweeping definition of "critical infrastructure facility" that included highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, financial systems, and energy infrastructure including pipelines--whether under construction or operational. The bill created a new felony offense for "inhibiting," or "impeding" the facility, its equipment, or operation, such that protesters who intentionally inhibited or impeded the operation of a roadway or construction of a pipeline could have faced life in prison. Amendments to the bill substantially narrowed the offense, however. The enacted law criminalizes "substantially... inhibiting or impeding" the operation of critical infrastructure only if doing so "causes widespread injury or damage to persons or property." Amendments also narrowed the definition of "critical infrastructure facility," including by removing highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, and financial systems from the definition.
Full text here:
https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0370.htmlStatus: enacted with improvements
Introduced 3 Feb 2023; Approved by House 14 February 2023; Approved by Senate 28 February 2023; Signed by Governor Cox 14 March 2023
Issue(s): Infrastructure, #TrafficInterference
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Texas
HB 3557: New criminal and civil penalties for protests around #CriticalInfrastructure
Creates new criminal sanctions and expansive civil liability for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law provides for four new criminal offenses. One, "impairing or interrupting operation of critical infrastructure facility," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property and intentionally or knowingly "impair[ing] or interrupt[ing] the operation of" the facility. The act is a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine. This provision could target peaceful protests that, e.g., hinder access to #pipelines or #pipeline construction sites. A second offense, "intent to impair or interrupt critical infrastructure," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property "with the intent to impair or interrupt the operation of the facility." The act is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. This provision could capture peaceful protests that take place near a pipeline or other infrastructure facility, regardless of whether they actually impair or interrupt the facility's operations. The law also creates two new felony offenses for "damage" and "intent to damage" critical infrastructure. Under the law, an association that is found guilty of any of the offenses around critical infrastructure is subject to a $500,000 fine. The law also creates new civil and vicarious liability for individuals and organizations related to the criminal offenses: A defendant who engages in conduct covered by any of the criminal offenses is civilly liable to the property owner, as is an organization that "knowingly compensates" a person for engaging in the conduct. The property owner may sue for and claim actual damages, court costs, and exemplary damages.
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB3557Status: enacted
Introduced 6 Mar 2019; Approved by House 7 May 2019; Approved by Senate 20 May 2019; Signed by Governor Abbott 14 June 2019
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure
SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity
Would increase criminal penalties that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. Under the bill, a protesters charged with “riot” would face more serious penalties if they were wearing a mask or other face covering with intent to conceal their identity, as compared to someone without a mask. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $4,000, instead of a Class B misdemeanor. The crime of “riot” under Texas law is defined broadly and does not require violence or other unlawful conduct: The offense covers a group of seven demonstrators whose conduct “substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function or services,” or whose “physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.” Under the bill, a protester who chose to wear a mask to avoid #retaliation for their political views could face significant jail time if their #NonviolentProtest was deemed a “#riot.”
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB2876Status: pending
Introduced 14 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot
HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters
Would increase the penalty for protest-related offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity while “congregating with other individuals who were disguised or masked.” Under the bill, the penalty for trespass, “disorderly conduct,” and “riot” would be one degree more severe if committed by a group in which some individuals wore masks. The bill provides an exemption to the penalty enhancement for masks worn during Halloween, a masquerade ball, or “similar celebration,” but not for avoiding retaliation for political speech. “Disorderly conduct” and “riot” are broadly defined under Texas law. Protesters who make “unreasonable noise” in public, for instance, may be charged with “disorderly conduct”; under the bill, such protesters could face significant jail time rather than a fine if they were masked. “Trespass” in Texas also carries significant penalties if committed on #CollegeCampuses, "critical infrastructure," or other select locations, such that peaceful protesters who trespassed on a college campus could face felony rather than misdemeanor penalties if they were masked to avoid retaliation.
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3061Status: pending
Introduced 19 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #MaskedProtesters #AntiMaskLaws -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Texas
HB 3557: New criminal and civil penalties for protests around #CriticalInfrastructure
Creates new criminal sanctions and expansive civil liability for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law provides for four new criminal offenses. One, "impairing or interrupting operation of critical infrastructure facility," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property and intentionally or knowingly "impair[ing] or interrupt[ing] the operation of" the facility. The act is a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine. This provision could target peaceful protests that, e.g., hinder access to #pipelines or #pipeline construction sites. A second offense, "intent to impair or interrupt critical infrastructure," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property "with the intent to impair or interrupt the operation of the facility." The act is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. This provision could capture peaceful protests that take place near a pipeline or other infrastructure facility, regardless of whether they actually impair or interrupt the facility's operations. The law also creates two new felony offenses for "damage" and "intent to damage" critical infrastructure. Under the law, an association that is found guilty of any of the offenses around critical infrastructure is subject to a $500,000 fine. The law also creates new civil and vicarious liability for individuals and organizations related to the criminal offenses: A defendant who engages in conduct covered by any of the criminal offenses is civilly liable to the property owner, as is an organization that "knowingly compensates" a person for engaging in the conduct. The property owner may sue for and claim actual damages, court costs, and exemplary damages.
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB3557Status: enacted
Introduced 6 Mar 2019; Approved by House 7 May 2019; Approved by Senate 20 May 2019; Signed by Governor Abbott 14 June 2019
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure
SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity
Would increase criminal penalties that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. Under the bill, a protesters charged with “riot” would face more serious penalties if they were wearing a mask or other face covering with intent to conceal their identity, as compared to someone without a mask. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $4,000, instead of a Class B misdemeanor. The crime of “riot” under Texas law is defined broadly and does not require violence or other unlawful conduct: The offense covers a group of seven demonstrators whose conduct “substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function or services,” or whose “physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.” Under the bill, a protester who chose to wear a mask to avoid #retaliation for their political views could face significant jail time if their #NonviolentProtest was deemed a “#riot.”
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB2876Status: pending
Introduced 14 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot
HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters
Would increase the penalty for protest-related offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity while “congregating with other individuals who were disguised or masked.” Under the bill, the penalty for trespass, “disorderly conduct,” and “riot” would be one degree more severe if committed by a group in which some individuals wore masks. The bill provides an exemption to the penalty enhancement for masks worn during Halloween, a masquerade ball, or “similar celebration,” but not for avoiding retaliation for political speech. “Disorderly conduct” and “riot” are broadly defined under Texas law. Protesters who make “unreasonable noise” in public, for instance, may be charged with “disorderly conduct”; under the bill, such protesters could face significant jail time rather than a fine if they were masked. “Trespass” in Texas also carries significant penalties if committed on #CollegeCampuses, "critical infrastructure," or other select locations, such that peaceful protesters who trespassed on a college campus could face felony rather than misdemeanor penalties if they were masked to avoid retaliation.
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3061Status: pending
Introduced 19 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #MaskedProtesters #AntiMaskLaws -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Texas
HB 3557: New criminal and civil penalties for protests around #CriticalInfrastructure
Creates new criminal sanctions and expansive civil liability for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law provides for four new criminal offenses. One, "impairing or interrupting operation of critical infrastructure facility," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property and intentionally or knowingly "impair[ing] or interrupt[ing] the operation of" the facility. The act is a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine. This provision could target peaceful protests that, e.g., hinder access to #pipelines or #pipeline construction sites. A second offense, "intent to impair or interrupt critical infrastructure," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property "with the intent to impair or interrupt the operation of the facility." The act is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. This provision could capture peaceful protests that take place near a pipeline or other infrastructure facility, regardless of whether they actually impair or interrupt the facility's operations. The law also creates two new felony offenses for "damage" and "intent to damage" critical infrastructure. Under the law, an association that is found guilty of any of the offenses around critical infrastructure is subject to a $500,000 fine. The law also creates new civil and vicarious liability for individuals and organizations related to the criminal offenses: A defendant who engages in conduct covered by any of the criminal offenses is civilly liable to the property owner, as is an organization that "knowingly compensates" a person for engaging in the conduct. The property owner may sue for and claim actual damages, court costs, and exemplary damages.
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB3557Status: enacted
Introduced 6 Mar 2019; Approved by House 7 May 2019; Approved by Senate 20 May 2019; Signed by Governor Abbott 14 June 2019
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure
SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity
Would increase criminal penalties that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. Under the bill, a protesters charged with “riot” would face more serious penalties if they were wearing a mask or other face covering with intent to conceal their identity, as compared to someone without a mask. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $4,000, instead of a Class B misdemeanor. The crime of “riot” under Texas law is defined broadly and does not require violence or other unlawful conduct: The offense covers a group of seven demonstrators whose conduct “substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function or services,” or whose “physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.” Under the bill, a protester who chose to wear a mask to avoid #retaliation for their political views could face significant jail time if their #NonviolentProtest was deemed a “#riot.”
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB2876Status: pending
Introduced 14 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot
HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters
Would increase the penalty for protest-related offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity while “congregating with other individuals who were disguised or masked.” Under the bill, the penalty for trespass, “disorderly conduct,” and “riot” would be one degree more severe if committed by a group in which some individuals wore masks. The bill provides an exemption to the penalty enhancement for masks worn during Halloween, a masquerade ball, or “similar celebration,” but not for avoiding retaliation for political speech. “Disorderly conduct” and “riot” are broadly defined under Texas law. Protesters who make “unreasonable noise” in public, for instance, may be charged with “disorderly conduct”; under the bill, such protesters could face significant jail time rather than a fine if they were masked. “Trespass” in Texas also carries significant penalties if committed on #CollegeCampuses, "critical infrastructure," or other select locations, such that peaceful protesters who trespassed on a college campus could face felony rather than misdemeanor penalties if they were masked to avoid retaliation.
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3061Status: pending
Introduced 19 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #MaskedProtesters #AntiMaskLaws -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Texas
HB 3557: New criminal and civil penalties for protests around #CriticalInfrastructure
Creates new criminal sanctions and expansive civil liability for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law provides for four new criminal offenses. One, "impairing or interrupting operation of critical infrastructure facility," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property and intentionally or knowingly "impair[ing] or interrupt[ing] the operation of" the facility. The act is a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine. This provision could target peaceful protests that, e.g., hinder access to #pipelines or #pipeline construction sites. A second offense, "intent to impair or interrupt critical infrastructure," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property "with the intent to impair or interrupt the operation of the facility." The act is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. This provision could capture peaceful protests that take place near a pipeline or other infrastructure facility, regardless of whether they actually impair or interrupt the facility's operations. The law also creates two new felony offenses for "damage" and "intent to damage" critical infrastructure. Under the law, an association that is found guilty of any of the offenses around critical infrastructure is subject to a $500,000 fine. The law also creates new civil and vicarious liability for individuals and organizations related to the criminal offenses: A defendant who engages in conduct covered by any of the criminal offenses is civilly liable to the property owner, as is an organization that "knowingly compensates" a person for engaging in the conduct. The property owner may sue for and claim actual damages, court costs, and exemplary damages.
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB3557Status: enacted
Introduced 6 Mar 2019; Approved by House 7 May 2019; Approved by Senate 20 May 2019; Signed by Governor Abbott 14 June 2019
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure
SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity
Would increase criminal penalties that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. Under the bill, a protesters charged with “riot” would face more serious penalties if they were wearing a mask or other face covering with intent to conceal their identity, as compared to someone without a mask. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $4,000, instead of a Class B misdemeanor. The crime of “riot” under Texas law is defined broadly and does not require violence or other unlawful conduct: The offense covers a group of seven demonstrators whose conduct “substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function or services,” or whose “physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.” Under the bill, a protester who chose to wear a mask to avoid #retaliation for their political views could face significant jail time if their #NonviolentProtest was deemed a “#riot.”
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB2876Status: pending
Introduced 14 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot
HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters
Would increase the penalty for protest-related offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity while “congregating with other individuals who were disguised or masked.” Under the bill, the penalty for trespass, “disorderly conduct,” and “riot” would be one degree more severe if committed by a group in which some individuals wore masks. The bill provides an exemption to the penalty enhancement for masks worn during Halloween, a masquerade ball, or “similar celebration,” but not for avoiding retaliation for political speech. “Disorderly conduct” and “riot” are broadly defined under Texas law. Protesters who make “unreasonable noise” in public, for instance, may be charged with “disorderly conduct”; under the bill, such protesters could face significant jail time rather than a fine if they were masked. “Trespass” in Texas also carries significant penalties if committed on #CollegeCampuses, "critical infrastructure," or other select locations, such that peaceful protesters who trespassed on a college campus could face felony rather than misdemeanor penalties if they were masked to avoid retaliation.
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3061Status: pending
Introduced 19 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #MaskedProtesters #AntiMaskLaws -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Texas
HB 3557: New criminal and civil penalties for protests around #CriticalInfrastructure
Creates new criminal sanctions and expansive civil liability for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law provides for four new criminal offenses. One, "impairing or interrupting operation of critical infrastructure facility," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property and intentionally or knowingly "impair[ing] or interrupt[ing] the operation of" the facility. The act is a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine. This provision could target peaceful protests that, e.g., hinder access to #pipelines or #pipeline construction sites. A second offense, "intent to impair or interrupt critical infrastructure," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property "with the intent to impair or interrupt the operation of the facility." The act is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. This provision could capture peaceful protests that take place near a pipeline or other infrastructure facility, regardless of whether they actually impair or interrupt the facility's operations. The law also creates two new felony offenses for "damage" and "intent to damage" critical infrastructure. Under the law, an association that is found guilty of any of the offenses around critical infrastructure is subject to a $500,000 fine. The law also creates new civil and vicarious liability for individuals and organizations related to the criminal offenses: A defendant who engages in conduct covered by any of the criminal offenses is civilly liable to the property owner, as is an organization that "knowingly compensates" a person for engaging in the conduct. The property owner may sue for and claim actual damages, court costs, and exemplary damages.
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB3557Status: enacted
Introduced 6 Mar 2019; Approved by House 7 May 2019; Approved by Senate 20 May 2019; Signed by Governor Abbott 14 June 2019
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure
SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity
Would increase criminal penalties that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. Under the bill, a protesters charged with “riot” would face more serious penalties if they were wearing a mask or other face covering with intent to conceal their identity, as compared to someone without a mask. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $4,000, instead of a Class B misdemeanor. The crime of “riot” under Texas law is defined broadly and does not require violence or other unlawful conduct: The offense covers a group of seven demonstrators whose conduct “substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function or services,” or whose “physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.” Under the bill, a protester who chose to wear a mask to avoid #retaliation for their political views could face significant jail time if their #NonviolentProtest was deemed a “#riot.”
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB2876Status: pending
Introduced 14 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot
HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters
Would increase the penalty for protest-related offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity while “congregating with other individuals who were disguised or masked.” Under the bill, the penalty for trespass, “disorderly conduct,” and “riot” would be one degree more severe if committed by a group in which some individuals wore masks. The bill provides an exemption to the penalty enhancement for masks worn during Halloween, a masquerade ball, or “similar celebration,” but not for avoiding retaliation for political speech. “Disorderly conduct” and “riot” are broadly defined under Texas law. Protesters who make “unreasonable noise” in public, for instance, may be charged with “disorderly conduct”; under the bill, such protesters could face significant jail time rather than a fine if they were masked. “Trespass” in Texas also carries significant penalties if committed on #CollegeCampuses, "critical infrastructure," or other select locations, such that peaceful protesters who trespassed on a college campus could face felony rather than misdemeanor penalties if they were masked to avoid retaliation.
Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3061Status: pending
Introduced 19 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #MaskedProtesters #AntiMaskLaws -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #SouthDakota
SB 151: New penalties for #protests near #pipelines and other infrastructure
Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Knowingly tampering with any property and as a direct result interfering, inhibiting, or impeding the maintenance or construction of a critical infrastructure facility is a felony punishable by two years in prison and/or a $4,000 fine. A person or organization found to be a "conspirator" in any of the above offenses faces a range of criminal fines. Any owner, lessee, or operator of any critical infrastructure facility where a crime is committed under one of the above provisions is designated a "victim" under South Dakota law, which entitles them to restitution and other victims' rights. As such, a company that owns a critical infrastructure facility can seek restitution from an individual protester convicted of any of the above provisions, as well as from any person or entity found to be a "conspirator."
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/12001Status: enacted
Introduced 4 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 27 February 2020; Approved by House 9 March 2020; Signed by Governor March 18 2020
Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 1117: New criminal and civil liability for "incitement to riot"
Revises the state's laws on rioting and replaces a "riot-boosting" law that was passed in 2019 but later blocked by a federal court as unconstitutional. The law revises the definition of "riot" under South Dakota law to be "any intentional use of force or violence by three or more persons, acting together and without authority of law, to cause any injury to any person or any damage to property." Under the law, "incitement to riot" is a new felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines, and defined as conduct that "urges" three or more people to use force or violence to cause personal injury or property damage, if the force or violence is "imminent" and the urging is likely to "incite or produce" the force or violence. The law defines "urging" to include "instigating, inciting, or directing," but excludes "oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief that does not urge" imminent force or violence. Under the law, individuals may additionally be civilly liable for riot and incitement to riot, enabling lawsuits against protesters by the state, counties, or municipalities. Both 2019's "riot-boosting" law and HB 1117 appear to target protests against construction of the #KeystoneXL and other pipelines.
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bills/43Status: enacted
Introduced 29 Jan 2020; Approved by House 18 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Noem 23 March 2020
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot
SB 189: Expanded civil liability for protesters and protest funders
**Note: According to an October 24, 2019 settlement agreement that resulted from a constitutional challenge to SB189, the state will not enforce many of the provisions of the law that could be applied to peaceful protesters and organizations that support them.** SB189 created new civil liability for "riot boosters." South Dakota criminal law defines "riot" broadly such that it can cover some forms of peaceful protest; as originally enacted, SB189 created civil liability for a person or organization that "does not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages, or solicits other persons participating in the riot to acts of force or violence." It was unclear what might have constituted "advice" or "encouragement" to carry out an act of force, such that an individual who shouted encouragement on the sidelines of a disruptive protest, or organizations that provided advice about conducting a peaceful but disruptive protest, might have been implicated. Following the October 24, 2019 settlement, the state will not enforce this provision. Nonetheless, enforceable provisions of the law still establish civil liability for any person or organization that is advised or encouraged by another, and that "makes any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution" in a group of three or more persons. The state or a third party may sue the person or organization for extensive civil damages, including punitive damages. Further, enforceable provisions of the law provide that a person or organization is liable for "riot boosting" if they engage in it personally "or through any employee, agent, or subsidiary." Accordingly, individuals, organizations, and funders may still be held civilly liable for substantial amounts of money for any involvement in a disruptive protest. Damages recovered by the state shall, according to the law, be deposited in a "riot boosting recovery fund," which may be used to pay for the state's response to disruptive protests. The law was introduced in response to pipeline protests in other states and ahead of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in South Dakota.
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/10176Status: enacted
Introduced 4 Mar 2019; Approved by Senate 7 March 2019; Approved by House 7 March 2019; Signed by Governor Noem 27 March 2019
Issue(s): #CivilLiability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Riot
SB 176: Expanding governor's power to restrict certain protests
Expands the governor's authority to curtail protest activities on public lands and restricts protests that interfere with highway traffic. The law enables the governor and sheriff to prohibit gatherings of 20 or more people on public land, if the gathering might damage the land or interfere with the renter's use of the land. The law enables South Dakota's Department of Transportation to prohibit or otherwise restrict an individual or vehicle from stopping, standing, parking, or being present on any highway if it interferes with traffic. The law also expands the crime of trespass, providing that an individual who defies a posted order not to enter a zone where assembling has been prohibited would be guilty of criminal trespass. Obstructing traffic or committing criminal trespass are classified as Class 1 misdemeanors, punishable by one year in jail or a $2,000 fine, or both. The law was proposed by Governor Daugaard to address potential pipeline protests.
Full text of bill:
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/284178.pdfStatus: enacted
Introduced 3 Mar 2017; Signed by Governor Daugaard 14 March 2017
Issue(s): #TrafficInterference, #Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #NoKXL #WaterDefenders -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #SouthDakota
SB 151: New penalties for #protests near #pipelines and other infrastructure
Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Knowingly tampering with any property and as a direct result interfering, inhibiting, or impeding the maintenance or construction of a critical infrastructure facility is a felony punishable by two years in prison and/or a $4,000 fine. A person or organization found to be a "conspirator" in any of the above offenses faces a range of criminal fines. Any owner, lessee, or operator of any critical infrastructure facility where a crime is committed under one of the above provisions is designated a "victim" under South Dakota law, which entitles them to restitution and other victims' rights. As such, a company that owns a critical infrastructure facility can seek restitution from an individual protester convicted of any of the above provisions, as well as from any person or entity found to be a "conspirator."
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/12001Status: enacted
Introduced 4 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 27 February 2020; Approved by House 9 March 2020; Signed by Governor March 18 2020
Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 1117: New criminal and civil liability for "incitement to riot"
Revises the state's laws on rioting and replaces a "riot-boosting" law that was passed in 2019 but later blocked by a federal court as unconstitutional. The law revises the definition of "riot" under South Dakota law to be "any intentional use of force or violence by three or more persons, acting together and without authority of law, to cause any injury to any person or any damage to property." Under the law, "incitement to riot" is a new felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines, and defined as conduct that "urges" three or more people to use force or violence to cause personal injury or property damage, if the force or violence is "imminent" and the urging is likely to "incite or produce" the force or violence. The law defines "urging" to include "instigating, inciting, or directing," but excludes "oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief that does not urge" imminent force or violence. Under the law, individuals may additionally be civilly liable for riot and incitement to riot, enabling lawsuits against protesters by the state, counties, or municipalities. Both 2019's "riot-boosting" law and HB 1117 appear to target protests against construction of the #KeystoneXL and other pipelines.
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bills/43Status: enacted
Introduced 29 Jan 2020; Approved by House 18 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Noem 23 March 2020
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot
SB 189: Expanded civil liability for protesters and protest funders
**Note: According to an October 24, 2019 settlement agreement that resulted from a constitutional challenge to SB189, the state will not enforce many of the provisions of the law that could be applied to peaceful protesters and organizations that support them.** SB189 created new civil liability for "riot boosters." South Dakota criminal law defines "riot" broadly such that it can cover some forms of peaceful protest; as originally enacted, SB189 created civil liability for a person or organization that "does not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages, or solicits other persons participating in the riot to acts of force or violence." It was unclear what might have constituted "advice" or "encouragement" to carry out an act of force, such that an individual who shouted encouragement on the sidelines of a disruptive protest, or organizations that provided advice about conducting a peaceful but disruptive protest, might have been implicated. Following the October 24, 2019 settlement, the state will not enforce this provision. Nonetheless, enforceable provisions of the law still establish civil liability for any person or organization that is advised or encouraged by another, and that "makes any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution" in a group of three or more persons. The state or a third party may sue the person or organization for extensive civil damages, including punitive damages. Further, enforceable provisions of the law provide that a person or organization is liable for "riot boosting" if they engage in it personally "or through any employee, agent, or subsidiary." Accordingly, individuals, organizations, and funders may still be held civilly liable for substantial amounts of money for any involvement in a disruptive protest. Damages recovered by the state shall, according to the law, be deposited in a "riot boosting recovery fund," which may be used to pay for the state's response to disruptive protests. The law was introduced in response to pipeline protests in other states and ahead of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in South Dakota.
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/10176Status: enacted
Introduced 4 Mar 2019; Approved by Senate 7 March 2019; Approved by House 7 March 2019; Signed by Governor Noem 27 March 2019
Issue(s): #CivilLiability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Riot
SB 176: Expanding governor's power to restrict certain protests
Expands the governor's authority to curtail protest activities on public lands and restricts protests that interfere with highway traffic. The law enables the governor and sheriff to prohibit gatherings of 20 or more people on public land, if the gathering might damage the land or interfere with the renter's use of the land. The law enables South Dakota's Department of Transportation to prohibit or otherwise restrict an individual or vehicle from stopping, standing, parking, or being present on any highway if it interferes with traffic. The law also expands the crime of trespass, providing that an individual who defies a posted order not to enter a zone where assembling has been prohibited would be guilty of criminal trespass. Obstructing traffic or committing criminal trespass are classified as Class 1 misdemeanors, punishable by one year in jail or a $2,000 fine, or both. The law was proposed by Governor Daugaard to address potential pipeline protests.
Full text of bill:
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/284178.pdfStatus: enacted
Introduced 3 Mar 2017; Signed by Governor Daugaard 14 March 2017
Issue(s): #TrafficInterference, #Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #NoKXL #WaterDefenders -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #SouthDakota
SB 151: New penalties for #protests near #pipelines and other infrastructure
Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Knowingly tampering with any property and as a direct result interfering, inhibiting, or impeding the maintenance or construction of a critical infrastructure facility is a felony punishable by two years in prison and/or a $4,000 fine. A person or organization found to be a "conspirator" in any of the above offenses faces a range of criminal fines. Any owner, lessee, or operator of any critical infrastructure facility where a crime is committed under one of the above provisions is designated a "victim" under South Dakota law, which entitles them to restitution and other victims' rights. As such, a company that owns a critical infrastructure facility can seek restitution from an individual protester convicted of any of the above provisions, as well as from any person or entity found to be a "conspirator."
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/12001Status: enacted
Introduced 4 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 27 February 2020; Approved by House 9 March 2020; Signed by Governor March 18 2020
Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 1117: New criminal and civil liability for "incitement to riot"
Revises the state's laws on rioting and replaces a "riot-boosting" law that was passed in 2019 but later blocked by a federal court as unconstitutional. The law revises the definition of "riot" under South Dakota law to be "any intentional use of force or violence by three or more persons, acting together and without authority of law, to cause any injury to any person or any damage to property." Under the law, "incitement to riot" is a new felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines, and defined as conduct that "urges" three or more people to use force or violence to cause personal injury or property damage, if the force or violence is "imminent" and the urging is likely to "incite or produce" the force or violence. The law defines "urging" to include "instigating, inciting, or directing," but excludes "oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief that does not urge" imminent force or violence. Under the law, individuals may additionally be civilly liable for riot and incitement to riot, enabling lawsuits against protesters by the state, counties, or municipalities. Both 2019's "riot-boosting" law and HB 1117 appear to target protests against construction of the #KeystoneXL and other pipelines.
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bills/43Status: enacted
Introduced 29 Jan 2020; Approved by House 18 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Noem 23 March 2020
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot
SB 189: Expanded civil liability for protesters and protest funders
**Note: According to an October 24, 2019 settlement agreement that resulted from a constitutional challenge to SB189, the state will not enforce many of the provisions of the law that could be applied to peaceful protesters and organizations that support them.** SB189 created new civil liability for "riot boosters." South Dakota criminal law defines "riot" broadly such that it can cover some forms of peaceful protest; as originally enacted, SB189 created civil liability for a person or organization that "does not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages, or solicits other persons participating in the riot to acts of force or violence." It was unclear what might have constituted "advice" or "encouragement" to carry out an act of force, such that an individual who shouted encouragement on the sidelines of a disruptive protest, or organizations that provided advice about conducting a peaceful but disruptive protest, might have been implicated. Following the October 24, 2019 settlement, the state will not enforce this provision. Nonetheless, enforceable provisions of the law still establish civil liability for any person or organization that is advised or encouraged by another, and that "makes any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution" in a group of three or more persons. The state or a third party may sue the person or organization for extensive civil damages, including punitive damages. Further, enforceable provisions of the law provide that a person or organization is liable for "riot boosting" if they engage in it personally "or through any employee, agent, or subsidiary." Accordingly, individuals, organizations, and funders may still be held civilly liable for substantial amounts of money for any involvement in a disruptive protest. Damages recovered by the state shall, according to the law, be deposited in a "riot boosting recovery fund," which may be used to pay for the state's response to disruptive protests. The law was introduced in response to pipeline protests in other states and ahead of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in South Dakota.
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/10176Status: enacted
Introduced 4 Mar 2019; Approved by Senate 7 March 2019; Approved by House 7 March 2019; Signed by Governor Noem 27 March 2019
Issue(s): #CivilLiability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Riot
SB 176: Expanding governor's power to restrict certain protests
Expands the governor's authority to curtail protest activities on public lands and restricts protests that interfere with highway traffic. The law enables the governor and sheriff to prohibit gatherings of 20 or more people on public land, if the gathering might damage the land or interfere with the renter's use of the land. The law enables South Dakota's Department of Transportation to prohibit or otherwise restrict an individual or vehicle from stopping, standing, parking, or being present on any highway if it interferes with traffic. The law also expands the crime of trespass, providing that an individual who defies a posted order not to enter a zone where assembling has been prohibited would be guilty of criminal trespass. Obstructing traffic or committing criminal trespass are classified as Class 1 misdemeanors, punishable by one year in jail or a $2,000 fine, or both. The law was proposed by Governor Daugaard to address potential pipeline protests.
Full text of bill:
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/284178.pdfStatus: enacted
Introduced 3 Mar 2017; Signed by Governor Daugaard 14 March 2017
Issue(s): #TrafficInterference, #Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #NoKXL #WaterDefenders -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #SouthDakota
SB 151: New penalties for #protests near #pipelines and other infrastructure
Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Knowingly tampering with any property and as a direct result interfering, inhibiting, or impeding the maintenance or construction of a critical infrastructure facility is a felony punishable by two years in prison and/or a $4,000 fine. A person or organization found to be a "conspirator" in any of the above offenses faces a range of criminal fines. Any owner, lessee, or operator of any critical infrastructure facility where a crime is committed under one of the above provisions is designated a "victim" under South Dakota law, which entitles them to restitution and other victims' rights. As such, a company that owns a critical infrastructure facility can seek restitution from an individual protester convicted of any of the above provisions, as well as from any person or entity found to be a "conspirator."
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/12001Status: enacted
Introduced 4 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 27 February 2020; Approved by House 9 March 2020; Signed by Governor March 18 2020
Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 1117: New criminal and civil liability for "incitement to riot"
Revises the state's laws on rioting and replaces a "riot-boosting" law that was passed in 2019 but later blocked by a federal court as unconstitutional. The law revises the definition of "riot" under South Dakota law to be "any intentional use of force or violence by three or more persons, acting together and without authority of law, to cause any injury to any person or any damage to property." Under the law, "incitement to riot" is a new felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines, and defined as conduct that "urges" three or more people to use force or violence to cause personal injury or property damage, if the force or violence is "imminent" and the urging is likely to "incite or produce" the force or violence. The law defines "urging" to include "instigating, inciting, or directing," but excludes "oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief that does not urge" imminent force or violence. Under the law, individuals may additionally be civilly liable for riot and incitement to riot, enabling lawsuits against protesters by the state, counties, or municipalities. Both 2019's "riot-boosting" law and HB 1117 appear to target protests against construction of the #KeystoneXL and other pipelines.
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bills/43Status: enacted
Introduced 29 Jan 2020; Approved by House 18 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Noem 23 March 2020
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot
SB 189: Expanded civil liability for protesters and protest funders
**Note: According to an October 24, 2019 settlement agreement that resulted from a constitutional challenge to SB189, the state will not enforce many of the provisions of the law that could be applied to peaceful protesters and organizations that support them.** SB189 created new civil liability for "riot boosters." South Dakota criminal law defines "riot" broadly such that it can cover some forms of peaceful protest; as originally enacted, SB189 created civil liability for a person or organization that "does not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages, or solicits other persons participating in the riot to acts of force or violence." It was unclear what might have constituted "advice" or "encouragement" to carry out an act of force, such that an individual who shouted encouragement on the sidelines of a disruptive protest, or organizations that provided advice about conducting a peaceful but disruptive protest, might have been implicated. Following the October 24, 2019 settlement, the state will not enforce this provision. Nonetheless, enforceable provisions of the law still establish civil liability for any person or organization that is advised or encouraged by another, and that "makes any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution" in a group of three or more persons. The state or a third party may sue the person or organization for extensive civil damages, including punitive damages. Further, enforceable provisions of the law provide that a person or organization is liable for "riot boosting" if they engage in it personally "or through any employee, agent, or subsidiary." Accordingly, individuals, organizations, and funders may still be held civilly liable for substantial amounts of money for any involvement in a disruptive protest. Damages recovered by the state shall, according to the law, be deposited in a "riot boosting recovery fund," which may be used to pay for the state's response to disruptive protests. The law was introduced in response to pipeline protests in other states and ahead of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in South Dakota.
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/10176Status: enacted
Introduced 4 Mar 2019; Approved by Senate 7 March 2019; Approved by House 7 March 2019; Signed by Governor Noem 27 March 2019
Issue(s): #CivilLiability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Riot
SB 176: Expanding governor's power to restrict certain protests
Expands the governor's authority to curtail protest activities on public lands and restricts protests that interfere with highway traffic. The law enables the governor and sheriff to prohibit gatherings of 20 or more people on public land, if the gathering might damage the land or interfere with the renter's use of the land. The law enables South Dakota's Department of Transportation to prohibit or otherwise restrict an individual or vehicle from stopping, standing, parking, or being present on any highway if it interferes with traffic. The law also expands the crime of trespass, providing that an individual who defies a posted order not to enter a zone where assembling has been prohibited would be guilty of criminal trespass. Obstructing traffic or committing criminal trespass are classified as Class 1 misdemeanors, punishable by one year in jail or a $2,000 fine, or both. The law was proposed by Governor Daugaard to address potential pipeline protests.
Full text of bill:
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/284178.pdfStatus: enacted
Introduced 3 Mar 2017; Signed by Governor Daugaard 14 March 2017
Issue(s): #TrafficInterference, #Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #NoKXL #WaterDefenders -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #SouthDakota
SB 151: New penalties for #protests near #pipelines and other infrastructure
Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Knowingly tampering with any property and as a direct result interfering, inhibiting, or impeding the maintenance or construction of a critical infrastructure facility is a felony punishable by two years in prison and/or a $4,000 fine. A person or organization found to be a "conspirator" in any of the above offenses faces a range of criminal fines. Any owner, lessee, or operator of any critical infrastructure facility where a crime is committed under one of the above provisions is designated a "victim" under South Dakota law, which entitles them to restitution and other victims' rights. As such, a company that owns a critical infrastructure facility can seek restitution from an individual protester convicted of any of the above provisions, as well as from any person or entity found to be a "conspirator."
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/12001Status: enacted
Introduced 4 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 27 February 2020; Approved by House 9 March 2020; Signed by Governor March 18 2020
Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
HB 1117: New criminal and civil liability for "incitement to riot"
Revises the state's laws on rioting and replaces a "riot-boosting" law that was passed in 2019 but later blocked by a federal court as unconstitutional. The law revises the definition of "riot" under South Dakota law to be "any intentional use of force or violence by three or more persons, acting together and without authority of law, to cause any injury to any person or any damage to property." Under the law, "incitement to riot" is a new felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines, and defined as conduct that "urges" three or more people to use force or violence to cause personal injury or property damage, if the force or violence is "imminent" and the urging is likely to "incite or produce" the force or violence. The law defines "urging" to include "instigating, inciting, or directing," but excludes "oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief that does not urge" imminent force or violence. Under the law, individuals may additionally be civilly liable for riot and incitement to riot, enabling lawsuits against protesters by the state, counties, or municipalities. Both 2019's "riot-boosting" law and HB 1117 appear to target protests against construction of the #KeystoneXL and other pipelines.
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bills/43Status: enacted
Introduced 29 Jan 2020; Approved by House 18 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Noem 23 March 2020
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot
SB 189: Expanded civil liability for protesters and protest funders
**Note: According to an October 24, 2019 settlement agreement that resulted from a constitutional challenge to SB189, the state will not enforce many of the provisions of the law that could be applied to peaceful protesters and organizations that support them.** SB189 created new civil liability for "riot boosters." South Dakota criminal law defines "riot" broadly such that it can cover some forms of peaceful protest; as originally enacted, SB189 created civil liability for a person or organization that "does not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages, or solicits other persons participating in the riot to acts of force or violence." It was unclear what might have constituted "advice" or "encouragement" to carry out an act of force, such that an individual who shouted encouragement on the sidelines of a disruptive protest, or organizations that provided advice about conducting a peaceful but disruptive protest, might have been implicated. Following the October 24, 2019 settlement, the state will not enforce this provision. Nonetheless, enforceable provisions of the law still establish civil liability for any person or organization that is advised or encouraged by another, and that "makes any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution" in a group of three or more persons. The state or a third party may sue the person or organization for extensive civil damages, including punitive damages. Further, enforceable provisions of the law provide that a person or organization is liable for "riot boosting" if they engage in it personally "or through any employee, agent, or subsidiary." Accordingly, individuals, organizations, and funders may still be held civilly liable for substantial amounts of money for any involvement in a disruptive protest. Damages recovered by the state shall, according to the law, be deposited in a "riot boosting recovery fund," which may be used to pay for the state's response to disruptive protests. The law was introduced in response to pipeline protests in other states and ahead of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in South Dakota.
Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/10176Status: enacted
Introduced 4 Mar 2019; Approved by Senate 7 March 2019; Approved by House 7 March 2019; Signed by Governor Noem 27 March 2019
Issue(s): #CivilLiability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Riot
SB 176: Expanding governor's power to restrict certain protests
Expands the governor's authority to curtail protest activities on public lands and restricts protests that interfere with highway traffic. The law enables the governor and sheriff to prohibit gatherings of 20 or more people on public land, if the gathering might damage the land or interfere with the renter's use of the land. The law enables South Dakota's Department of Transportation to prohibit or otherwise restrict an individual or vehicle from stopping, standing, parking, or being present on any highway if it interferes with traffic. The law also expands the crime of trespass, providing that an individual who defies a posted order not to enter a zone where assembling has been prohibited would be guilty of criminal trespass. Obstructing traffic or committing criminal trespass are classified as Class 1 misdemeanors, punishable by one year in jail or a $2,000 fine, or both. The law was proposed by Governor Daugaard to address potential pipeline protests.
Full text of bill:
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/284178.pdfStatus: enacted
Introduced 3 Mar 2017; Signed by Governor Daugaard 14 March 2017
Issue(s): #TrafficInterference, #Trespass
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #NoKXL #WaterDefenders -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Oregon
HB 2534: Felony penalties for protesters who impede traffic
Would expand the definition of “riot” such that the felony offense could cover demonstrators who peacefully protest in the street. Oregon law defines “riot” as engaging in “tumultuous and violent conduct” with a group of five or more other people in a way that “intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.” The offense is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $125,000. The bill would define “tumultuous and violent conduct” to include “imped[ing] traffic,” creating a “traffic hazard,” or “block[ing] the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” As such, a large sidewalk protest that even momentarily overflowed onto a street in a way that could be considered a “traffic hazard” could be deemed a “riot,” and demonstrators could face felony penalties regardless of whether their conduct was “tumultuous” or “violent.”
Full text of bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/HB2534Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): #Riot, #TrafficInterference
HB 2772: Criminalizing Certain Protests as #DomesticTerrorism
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created a sweeping new crime of "domestic terrorism" that would include if a person intentionally attempted to cause "disruption of daily life" that "severely affects the population, infrastructure, environment, or government functioning of this state." Under this definition, a peaceful protest that blocked traffic in a major commercial district could be defined as domestic terrorism, a Class B felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Lawmakers substantially amended the bill prior to its enactment, however rights groups argue that it could still cover certain acts of civil disobedience. Under the enacted law, “domestic terrorism” in the first degree is a Class B felony and includes intentionally destroying or substantially damaging “critical infrastructure,” with the intent to disrupt the services provided by critical infrastructure. Attempting to destroy or substantially damage critical infrastructure is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $125,000. “#CriticalInfrastructure” is broadly defined to include #pipelines and #roads.
Full text of bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/HB2772Status: enacted with improvements
Introduced 9 Jan 2023; Approved by House 8 June 2023; Approved by Senate 23 June 2023; Signed by Governor Kotek 4 August 2023
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism, Traffic Interference
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Oregon
HB 2534: Felony penalties for protesters who impede traffic
Would expand the definition of “riot” such that the felony offense could cover demonstrators who peacefully protest in the street. Oregon law defines “riot” as engaging in “tumultuous and violent conduct” with a group of five or more other people in a way that “intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.” The offense is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $125,000. The bill would define “tumultuous and violent conduct” to include “imped[ing] traffic,” creating a “traffic hazard,” or “block[ing] the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” As such, a large sidewalk protest that even momentarily overflowed onto a street in a way that could be considered a “traffic hazard” could be deemed a “riot,” and demonstrators could face felony penalties regardless of whether their conduct was “tumultuous” or “violent.”
Full text of bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/HB2534Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): #Riot, #TrafficInterference
HB 2772: Criminalizing Certain Protests as #DomesticTerrorism
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created a sweeping new crime of "domestic terrorism" that would include if a person intentionally attempted to cause "disruption of daily life" that "severely affects the population, infrastructure, environment, or government functioning of this state." Under this definition, a peaceful protest that blocked traffic in a major commercial district could be defined as domestic terrorism, a Class B felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Lawmakers substantially amended the bill prior to its enactment, however rights groups argue that it could still cover certain acts of civil disobedience. Under the enacted law, “domestic terrorism” in the first degree is a Class B felony and includes intentionally destroying or substantially damaging “critical infrastructure,” with the intent to disrupt the services provided by critical infrastructure. Attempting to destroy or substantially damage critical infrastructure is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $125,000. “#CriticalInfrastructure” is broadly defined to include #pipelines and #roads.
Full text of bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/HB2772Status: enacted with improvements
Introduced 9 Jan 2023; Approved by House 8 June 2023; Approved by Senate 23 June 2023; Signed by Governor Kotek 4 August 2023
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism, Traffic Interference
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Oregon
HB 2534: Felony penalties for protesters who impede traffic
Would expand the definition of “riot” such that the felony offense could cover demonstrators who peacefully protest in the street. Oregon law defines “riot” as engaging in “tumultuous and violent conduct” with a group of five or more other people in a way that “intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.” The offense is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $125,000. The bill would define “tumultuous and violent conduct” to include “imped[ing] traffic,” creating a “traffic hazard,” or “block[ing] the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” As such, a large sidewalk protest that even momentarily overflowed onto a street in a way that could be considered a “traffic hazard” could be deemed a “riot,” and demonstrators could face felony penalties regardless of whether their conduct was “tumultuous” or “violent.”
Full text of bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/HB2534Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): #Riot, #TrafficInterference
HB 2772: Criminalizing Certain Protests as #DomesticTerrorism
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created a sweeping new crime of "domestic terrorism" that would include if a person intentionally attempted to cause "disruption of daily life" that "severely affects the population, infrastructure, environment, or government functioning of this state." Under this definition, a peaceful protest that blocked traffic in a major commercial district could be defined as domestic terrorism, a Class B felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Lawmakers substantially amended the bill prior to its enactment, however rights groups argue that it could still cover certain acts of civil disobedience. Under the enacted law, “domestic terrorism” in the first degree is a Class B felony and includes intentionally destroying or substantially damaging “critical infrastructure,” with the intent to disrupt the services provided by critical infrastructure. Attempting to destroy or substantially damage critical infrastructure is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $125,000. “#CriticalInfrastructure” is broadly defined to include #pipelines and #roads.
Full text of bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/HB2772Status: enacted with improvements
Introduced 9 Jan 2023; Approved by House 8 June 2023; Approved by Senate 23 June 2023; Signed by Governor Kotek 4 August 2023
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism, Traffic Interference
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests -
State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Oregon
HB 2534: Felony penalties for protesters who impede traffic
Would expand the definition of “riot” such that the felony offense could cover demonstrators who peacefully protest in the street. Oregon law defines “riot” as engaging in “tumultuous and violent conduct” with a group of five or more other people in a way that “intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.” The offense is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $125,000. The bill would define “tumultuous and violent conduct” to include “imped[ing] traffic,” creating a “traffic hazard,” or “block[ing] the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” As such, a large sidewalk protest that even momentarily overflowed onto a street in a way that could be considered a “traffic hazard” could be deemed a “riot,” and demonstrators could face felony penalties regardless of whether their conduct was “tumultuous” or “violent.”
Full text of bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/HB2534Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): #Riot, #TrafficInterference
HB 2772: Criminalizing Certain Protests as #DomesticTerrorism
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created a sweeping new crime of "domestic terrorism" that would include if a person intentionally attempted to cause "disruption of daily life" that "severely affects the population, infrastructure, environment, or government functioning of this state." Under this definition, a peaceful protest that blocked traffic in a major commercial district could be defined as domestic terrorism, a Class B felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Lawmakers substantially amended the bill prior to its enactment, however rights groups argue that it could still cover certain acts of civil disobedience. Under the enacted law, “domestic terrorism” in the first degree is a Class B felony and includes intentionally destroying or substantially damaging “critical infrastructure,” with the intent to disrupt the services provided by critical infrastructure. Attempting to destroy or substantially damage critical infrastructure is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $125,000. “#CriticalInfrastructure” is broadly defined to include #pipelines and #roads.
Full text of bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/HB2772Status: enacted with improvements
Introduced 9 Jan 2023; Approved by House 8 June 2023; Approved by Senate 23 June 2023; Signed by Governor Kotek 4 August 2023
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism, Traffic Interference
#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests