Lawmaker supports 'Law and Order Act' - Sandusky Register
NORWALK — A local lawmaker is dismissing criticism of a proposed law that critics say puts a chill on First Amendment rights of free speech and protest.
“Yes, I voted for House Bill 109 and was a co-sponsor of the bill," said Rep. Dick Stein, R-Norwalk. "HB 109 supports law enforcement, our first responders, small businesses and law-abiding Ohioans while holding those who break the law accountable. I support peaceful protests by people standing up for what they believe.”
Opponents of the proposal, however, say it "equates civil disobedience to terrorism."
State Rep. D.J. Swearingen, R-Huron, who also co-sponsored the legislation, and state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, a candidate for Congress who listed a Huron address in her FEC filing to run for the Ohio House 9th District Congressional seat but hails from Bowling Green, both declined to respond to questions about the proposed law, which Republicans are calling the "Law and Order Act."
House Bill 109 was voted forward by the Ohio House earlier this month and is awaiting a state Senate vote. If approved, it will be with a partisan vote from the gerrymandered Ohio House and Senate Republican majorities.
Bad legislation?
The Ohio American Civil Liberties Union has railed against House Bill 109 — cookie-cutter legislation being pushed by conservative groups in Ohio and other states — since it was first introduced in 2020 in reaction to violence that occurred during protests after George Floyd, a Black man, was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer.
The protests after Floyd was killed were mostly non-violent, including one in Sandusky attended by hundreds of demonstrators.
"House Bill 109 is by far the worst free speech-related bill I have ever seen in the Ohio General Assembly after 23 years working on civil liberties issues," said Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for the Ohio ACLU. "This legislation includes extreme penalties — among them the seizing of assets and shutting down organizations — who engage in constitutionally protected speech."
The proposed law also would allow police officers to sue individuals who make "false complaints" against them, Daniels said, "but the bill provides no detail as to the type of 'complaint' or who decides what is 'false.'"
"At its core, HB 109 equates people who engage in civil disobedience — at almost all levels — with domestic terrorists," he said. "This bill is terrible for our democracy, terrible for Ohioans, and is meant to intimidate individuals who exercise their First Amendment Rights."
The proposal, if it is enacted, would create new felonies: riot assault and riot vandalism. Penalties for existing misdemeanor crimes — disorderly conduct that occurred during a riot — also would be increased. The state's corrupt activity laws also would be expanded to include people who knowingly helped plan a riot, leaving organizers open to civil lawsuits following events that turned violent.
If it does become law it could face a challenge in court at taxpayer expense.
"There are interesting constitutional issues underlying this," said Michael Gentithes, a professor at the University of Akron and constitutional law expert. "There are potential challenges that could be raised as to the vagueness of the new crimes created by it."
Ohio Citizen Action, an advocacy group that lobbies in the interest of public health, the environment and protecting democracy and creating a sustainable future, also opposes House Bill 109.
"Public protest is baked-in to our history, rights and character as Americans. But our ability to protest in Ohio is under attack. House Bill 109 equates civil disobedience with terrorism and seeks to shut down and bankrupt organizations exercising free speech," the group said in a news release.
"The so-called Ohio Law and Order Act degrades the ability of Ohioans to peacefully protest and even creates higher fines and prison time for individuals involved in and organizations supporting a protest where action is subjectively deemed a 'riot.'"
"The goal of HB 109 is not protection, but suppression," according to Ohio Citizen Action.
But that's not correct, according to Stein.
"This legislation targets the bad actors, not the good actors," he said.
Below are questions that were sent to Stein, to Rep. Swearingen and to Gavarone. A staff member for the House majority provided the following answers on Stein's behalf.
Questions for lawmakers
Do you support House Bill 109? Why or why not? Please explain?
Stein: I support House Bill 109 and I was a co-sponsor because I do not condemn violent protests of any kind. The reckless or irresponsible actions, from a small number of bad actors, such as looting, vandalism and violence among largely peaceful protesters detract from the core message of those lawfully demonstrating their first amendment rights while protesting.
Swearingen: No answer
Gavarone: No answer
Do you support the Canadian trucker protest and would you like to see it extended to the United States? Please explain?
Stein: I support the Canadian truckers protesting for their medical freedoms and have supported numerous bills in the Ohio House that support the medical freedom of Ohioans. That being said, I do condemn the Canadian truckers blocking roads resulting in commerce being negatively affected and House Bill 109 would give prosecutors the tools to charge those who are breaking the law.
Swearingen: No answer
Gavarone: No answer
Did you support the protestors who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, or do you think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? Please explain.
Stein: I support and embrace peaceful protest as an expression of every American's First Amendment right, however, when those protests turn violent and break laws those accountable should face the consequences. As a result of House Bill 109 legal ramifications for violent destructive protests are now accessible to prosecutors.
Swearingen: No answer
Gavarone: No answer
Did President Trump inspire the violence on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to stop the duly elected government from being able to take office, and if he did, should he face criminal charges for that? Why or why not? Please explain.
Stein: No answer
Swearingen: No answer
Gavarone: No answer
Are you concerned that this bill is a political statement or an over-reaction to the small percentage of violence that occurred during the Floyd protests as critics contend? Why or why not? Please explain.
Stein: No, this legislation targets the bad actors, not the good actors and in large part, House Bill 109 found its genesis from the riots that occurred on our Ohio State Capital in 2020. House Bill 109 supports law-abiding Ohioans.
Swearingen: No answer
Gavarone: No answer
Could you help us understand how the Floyd protests and the insurrection protests and the trucker protests are different, or similar if they are one or the other? Please explain.
Stein: The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states that all Americans are granted equal protection under the law. I encourage and acknowledge the right all Americans have to peaceful protest. Those who break the law by looting, vandalizing, or committing violent acts should be held accountable for their actions and will under House Bill 109.
Swearingen: No answer
Gavarone: No answer
Why are current laws that prohibit violence, riots and inciting riots inadequate? In other words, why, in your view, is this law necessary. Please explain.
Stein: This law is necessary because we saw, particularly at our state capital in 2020, that although a majority of protesters are peaceful. That being House Bill 109 gives prosecutors further tools to hold accountable the bad actors.
Swearingen: No answer
Gavarone: No answer
Will this law make it more difficult to peacefully protest or make it easier for peaceful protestors to be arrested and charged with a crime? Why or why not?
Stein: No, I encourage peaceful protest and the expression of one’s First Amendment Right. Vandalism, looting and violence are not free speech and those committing such acts must be held accountable. This bill is about giving prosecutors and law enforcement more tools to go after individuals whose actions are violent and destructive.
Swearingen: No answer
Gavarone: No answer
source: https://sanduskyregister.com/news/372235/lawmaker-supports-law-and-order-act/
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.