Federal judge: Florida's 'anti-riot' bill violates First Amendment rights

BayNews9 ^ | 2:54 PM ET SEP. 09, 2021 | SPECTRUM NEWS STAFF

[rarestia]

Unreal

[escapefromboston]

Ignore the judge

[BenLurkin]

There’s a First Amendment right to riot?

Cool.

[JoSixChip]

On February 16, 2012, President Barack Obama nominated Walker to serve as District Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. I’m sure linda and mitch voted to confirm.

[PJBankard]

Sounds like it’s a good time to have a riot outside of the judges home.

[Fido969]

Obama appointment.

[Zathras]

So you can riot in CA, OR, WA, MN and now FL but not DC?
Liberal-Think is so confusing.

[backwoods-engineer]

DISTRICT Judge.

Appeal the SNOT out of this decision.

[Robert DeLong]

Not if you are conservative.

[Sirius Lee]

Chief Federal District Judge Mark Walker said the groups who brought the lawsuit demonstrated that the law chilled protest activities since it was enacted, because "the challenged law's confusing definition of 'riot' fails to give their members sufficient notice of what is prohibited or when they could be subject to arrest, such that their members do not wish to participate in future protests or have ceased organizing protests altogether."

You know, an enterprising defense attorney for the Jan 6th political prisoners could cite this now.

[Ingtar]

In that case, release the Jan 6 “rioters”.

[Little Ray]

Only for Left-wingers.

[Leep]

That could come in handy if you ever get bad service at some business establishment and you decide to burn said business to the ground.

[Leep]

Also,it depends what you were thinking at the time.
Or,at least what they think you are thinking.

[TigersEye]

"the challenged law's confusing definition of 'riot' ..."

What is the law's definition of 'riot?'

[Magnum44]

the challenged law's confusing definition of 'riot'

This is sea lawyering. (its not defined in the law, but Websters is pretty clear as to meaning in this case - protest with violence). Easy to fix one of two ways. Go back and define 'riot' in the law, or let it appeal up the chain where a more sane court will slap down this injunction.

[knarf]

Meanwhile in ALCATRALIA:

Amends: the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to:

introduce data disruption warrants to enable the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) to disrupt data by modifying, adding, copying or deleting data in order to frustrate the commission of serious offences online;

and make minor technical corrections; (INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS FIND THIS PARTIALLY TRUE)

the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 to introduce network activity warrants to enable the AFP and ACIC to collect intelligence on serious criminal activity by permitting access to the devices and networks used to facilitate criminal activity;

the Crimes Act 1914 to:

introduce account takeover warrants

to enable the AFP and ACIC to take over a person's online account for the purposes of gathering evidence to further a criminal investigation; and make minor amendments to the controlled operations regime to ensure controlled operations can be conducted effectively in the online environment; and 10 Acts to make consequential amendments.

[Fledermaus]

Let’s start a riot at the judges home, see what he thinks then.

[fwdude]

So, riots are legal now?

[NeverTyranny]

What a riot!