A senator from Ohio has proposed legislation that would hold demonstrators civilly liable for property damage. The plan would extend accountability to include people who materially support the demonstration itself, rather than just the offender. Additionally, the accused would have to demonstrate that they did not cause any damage to the property.
The bill also forbids local government representatives from imposing limitations on the way their police forces handle demonstrations.
During his statement in committee on Wednesday, the sponsor, state senator Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, contended that broadening the definition of culpability is a suitable reaction to protests that result in vandalism and smashed glass. Additionally, he emphasized that the First Amendment right to protest of Ohioans is adequately protected.
GET THE HEADLINES FOR THE MORNING.
Senate Bill 53 is not the first idea Schaffer has linked to riots or protests. He presented a bill at the most recent general assembly that was essentially the same as SB 53. Prior to that, he had sponsored a bill that would have required anyone convicted of rioting and aggravated rioting to reimburse the cost of police response and property damage.
Schaffer explained the need for the adjustments by going back to roughly the same period as his initial proposal, citing reports from the Columbus Dispatch that stated that property damage from protests in 2020 after George Floyd’s murder cost at least $1.2 million.
He said that this had an impact on at least 115 companies, charitable organizations, and state government buildings. Whenever possible, this kind of action should be prosecuted and should not be allowed to continue.
Schaffer argues that pursuing people who physically harm others is insufficient. He claimed that under his plan, anyone who supply damaging items, such pallets of bricks or frozen water bottles, close to a disturbance could also face consequences.
He reassured the committee members that there is a safeguard in place that allows offenders to provide unambiguous and compelling proof that they were not the direct cause of the damage. Nevertheless, the bill creates a presumption that the individual who is accused of causing damage is actually accountable for it.
He told committee members, “I want to be very clear that nothing in this bill discourages or violates the First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and protest.” The sole purpose of this bill is to prohibit violent and destructive behavior by holding those responsible for it accountable.
The only immediate opposition Schaffer encountered in committee came from Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson, D-Toledo, who questioned restricting local governments’ authority to control their police enforcement forces.
Schaffer defended the clause, saying that the purpose of the clause is to ensure that police officers who have been hired and asked to take an oath on the spot are making the calls rather than politicians.
However, civil rights organizations have serious doubts about Schaffer’s measure.
Ohio Families Unite for Political Action and Change’s Emily Cole stated, “We vehemently oppose Senate Bill 53 and have opposed prior attempts by Sen. Schaffer to deny Ohioans their fundamental right to protest.”
“My group is against any attempt to weaponize law enforcement against communities while simultaneously placing law enforcement above supervision,” she continued, adding that the group is against limits on government officials leading local police agencies.
According to Joshua Katz, a member of the Ohio National Lawyers Guild’s executive committee, convicted protestors are already held liable for property damage under state criminal law. He claimed that by establishing a new civil liability standard, the proposal endangers community organizations.
He contended that its purpose is to cool people. It is meant to convey to individuals, organizations, and community groups the following message: Stay out of the way because you might be held accountable if something goes wrong.
Katz continued, “You can use a very broad brush when painting.” To use this as a weapon against community organization, all you need to do is think of a reason for damages.
Gary Daniels, head lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, raised similar issues.
He maintained that both the legislative definitions of material support and riot are incredibly broad.
He provided the hypothetical example of an anti-war organization disseminating information about a demonstration online. They might have to defend themselves in court if violence breaks out, questioning whether that promotion qualified as material assistance. Going to court is costly and time-consuming, even if they are successful in rebutting the charges.
According to Daniels, a person or organization may already be sued if they are genuinely accountable for causing another person to suffer losses or financial injury. Simply said, there is no reason to complicate matters by adding material support and its ambiguous meanings to this mixture.
Unless, of course, the ultimate objective is to suppress legitimate speech and behavior, he said.
He stated that the worst-case scenario for the policing constraints appears to be police willfully abusing people’s constitutional rights in reaction to a riot or vandalism.
According to the measure, police might intervene without warning, and the mayor of a city would have no power to stop them or tell them not to do so in the future. According to Daniels, it brings up a crucial issue: Are local elected authorities able to stop police from willfully infringing on people’s constitutional right to demonstrate?
“Under the language of the bill,” he said. It seems that the answer is no.
Follow Xoron Bluesky, a reporter for the Ohio Capital Journal.
OUR WORK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY YOU.
Eliot Pierce is a dedicated writer for ChiefsFocus.com, covering local crime and finance news. With a keen eye for detail and a passion for storytelling, Eliot aims to provide his readers with clear and insightful analysis, helping them navigate the complexities of their financial lives while staying informed about important local events. His commitment to delivering accurate and engaging content makes him a valuable resource for the community.