Controversial Proposal Aims to Restrict Protests in Capitol
Numerous individuals and representatives of advocacy groups that frequently hold demonstrations at the Capitol pushed back against the proposal during a public hearing.
December 02, 2022 at 08:41 AM
4 minute read
State and Local Government
Citing a potential infringement of free-speech rights and other constitutional liberties, dozens of people gathered to challenge a rule proposed by Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration that would restrict the way protests can be conducted in Florida's Capitol Complex.
The state Department of Management Service's proposal, in part, seeks to prohibit actions or displays that are "harmful" to children from taking place in the Capitol.
"Because the Capitol Complex is often a destination for children learning about their state government, visual displays, sounds, and other actions that are harmful to minors" as defined in state law, "or which include gratuitous violence, or gore, are not permitted in any portion of the Capitol Complex that is not a traditional public forum," the proposed rule said.
Numerous individuals and representatives of advocacy groups that frequently hold demonstrations at the Capitol pushed back against the proposal during a public hearing Thursday.
Rich Templin, director of politics and public policy for the Florida AFL-CIO, said he has spent decades in and around the Capitol and sees "absolutely no reason for a change in this rule."
"In 20 years, I've never seen the process stopped or impeded for any significant amount of time — much to my chagrin, to be honest. I've never seen gore inside the Capitol Complex. I've never seen officers or staff hurt," Templin said.
Templin also said he has guided tours for elementary-school children of the Capitol building and never ran into the issues the proposed rule seeks to block.
Protests have long been commonplace inside the state Capitol. During the 2022 legislative session, for instance, student protesters filled the building's fourth floor rotunda — just outside of the doors to the House and Senate chambers — voicing loud objections to a controversial education measure.
The measure, which ultimately was signed by DeSantis, is designed to bar classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades. Republican lawmakers who supported the bill described it as a way to strengthen parents' control of what their children encounter in the classroom. The measure's detractors disparagingly labeled it the "don't say gay" bill.
The proposed rule could be used "to censor viewpoints in support of LGBTQ+ youth and families," Kara Gross, legislative director for the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement condemning the plan.
Representatives from other organizations similarly criticized the proposal as having the potential to allow state leaders to stifle political foes.
"Not only is the proposal itself outrageous, but the way they want to implement it will amount to nothing more than profiling by the State Capitol Police," Tessa Petit, co-executive director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, said in a statement. "They want to empower law enforcement to remove individuals they think may prove disruptive from traditional public forum arenas."
Another part of the proposal dealing with "disturbances" and "removal" from the Capitol lays out offenses that would cause violators to be removed from state buildings for trespassing.
"Public access does not permit anyone to enter or remain in or upon buildings in the Florida Facilities Pool while creating a disturbance that is impeding or disrupting the performance of official duties or functions of public employees or officers" or preventing access by members of the public, the proposed rule said.
NR Hines, a criminal justice policy strategist for the ACLU of Florida, said parts of the rule are unconstitutional.
"Protests are a crucial means of expressing disagreement with your government," Hines said.
Hines pointed to a portion of the proposal that laid out criteria for trespassing and removal by law enforcement such as the Capitol Police as being a violation of rights.
The proposal discussed Thursday included some changes from an earlier draft of the plan.
For example, the latest version of the proposed rule dropped a provision that would have prohibited conduct in state buildings that "creates loud or unusual" noise.
Another change walked back a part of the rule that would have allowed people to be removed from state buildings for conduct that would be "likely to impede or disrupt" public officials' duties.
The Department of Management Services is accepting written public comment on the proposal until Dec. 8.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMiami Firm Reaches $1.9M Settlement for Protester's Injuries, Pursues Class Action for Others
COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Trending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250