Oklahoma lawmakers had passed a new measure that toughens penalties for protesters who block roads and grants immunity to drivers who unintentionally hit them. The state`s NAACP, which said the bill was passed in response to protests against racial justice and could slow down the exercise of First Amendment rights, filed a federal lawsuit challenging parts of it. But the new law was only weeks away from coming into effect. The injunction includes a provision that penalizes protest organizers if they are found to have conspired with someone to commit certain crimes. The state said the provision only applied to violations of insurgency laws, but plaintiffs argued it was unconstitutionally vague and it was unclear what would trigger liability. The injunction also affected the section establishing new penalties for obstructing a road. The judge noted that it was not clear that the traffic obstruction provision applied only to riot-related activities. The state is attractive. Eight states have passed laws cracking down on protest activity since Black Lives Matter protests erupted in the United States last summer, according to the International Center for Nonprofit Law, which is pursuing the laws. Similar bills are pending in 21 states, according to the Washington, D.C.-based center.

In November, Bennett and some of his lawyers and supporters appeared before city council at a public meeting, saying they had received no response to the letter and reiterating their concerns. Bennett described the new law as “the embodiment of the hostility and contempt faced by protesters in Florence.” One council member said she would try to address her concerns through a committee of council. However, experts and advocates question the need for new laws. would create a new offence, “swarming,” defined as one or more persons participating in a demonstration or demonstration who “approach, surround, block” or “unlawfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the pursuit of a vehicle on a highway, highway or parking lot.” The criminal offence of “swarming” applies regardless of whether the demonstration in which the persons participated is authorized by a permit. This is a serious offence punishable by up to one year in prison and a $3,000 fine. A subsequent offence is a Class C felon, punishable by up to 40 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. The bill also provides that a driver who injures someone while trying to avoid or flee those involved in “swarming,” “disorderly behavior” or “criminal mischief” is immune from civil prosecution as long as the injury was unintentional. (See the full text of the law here) Some of the proposed new laws and statutes provide for tailored penalties for deprivation of public rights or benefits, which could have long-term consequences on the lives of protesters. A Tennessee law responded to protesters camping on Capitol Hill by making it a crime; A conviction means the loss of the right to vote. The law also requires that those arrested on this or other related charges be held without bail for at least 12 hours. A Michigan bill died last year in committee, but would have deprived anyone accused of looting or vandalism related to civil unrest, even without conviction. Would have expanded the scope of the state`s anti-protest laws.

The bill would increase penalties for those who engage in “unlawful assembly” after being “legally warned to disperse,” from a Class 3 offence that carries a maximum fine of $500 to a Class 1 offence that could carry up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. (See the full text of the law here) Yet recent climate protests, especially those featuring famous works of art, have sparked a heated debate within the climate movement about the “right” and “wrong” way to protest. While there is ample research suggesting that civil disobedience and confrontational protests are very effective in raising awareness of the causes of social movements, blocking certain projects, and even normalizing social movements in the public eye – a phenomenon sociologists call the “radical flank effect” – recent research also suggests that disruptive protests can be counterproductive. Arkansas` law also elevates “incitement to insurrection”—knowingly exhorting others by word or behavior to participate in a riot where there is “a clear and present danger” that they will participate in a riot or give orders or instructions to promote an insurrection — to a Class D felony if a person is physically injured or property is damaged by incitement. Neither the “insistence” nor the extent of the “clear and present danger” is defined. Among the most extensive and punitive anti-protest laws, Florida`s riot law now defines a riot as three or more individuals who “act with the common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly behavior that results in injury to another person, property damage, or imminent threat of injury to another person. or property damage.” A riot is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Incitement to a riot, defined as “intentionally inciting another person to participate in a riot resulting in a riot or imminent threat of sedition,” is also a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Incitement is not defined in the law.

In addition, a riot involving 25 or more people or “endangering the safe operation of a vehicle” is classified as “severe sedition,” a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.