[/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]

UNDER THE GOLD DOME: BILLS THAT COULD IMPACT GEORGIANS’ FREE SPEECH
RIGHTS  
[[link removed]]


 

Ryan Zickgraf
February 8, 2024
Atlanta Civic Circle
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Since the protests that broke out in Atlanta and elsewhere after
police killed George Floyd in 2020, the state of Georgia has decided
that the legislative priority is ensuring that people understand that
they just won’t be tolerated again. _

,

 

In a wave of legislative activity, Georgia lawmakers this session are
introducing a series of bills aimed at redefining the boundaries of
free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia says they’re alarmed
at a batch of new bills, especially ones that seem aimed at
criminalizing recent protest movements, including Atlanta’s “Stop
Cop City” movement.

“Basically, since the popular movements of 2020, the state of
Georgia has decided that the legislative priority is ensuring that
people understand that they just won’t be tolerated again in this
state,” said the Georgia ACLU’s policy counsel, Benjamin Lynde. He
was referring to the protests that broke out in Atlanta and elsewhere
after police killed George Floyd in Minneapolis. 

“I don’t have to read the tea leaves to say that, because
[Republican lawmakers] have been pretty candid about it,” Lynde
added.

Here’s a look at bills under consideration this session that are on
the radar of free-speech advocates.

RICO CHARGES FOR HANDING OUT FLYERS?

Could handing out political fliers be enough to prosecute someone
under Georgia’s RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations) law? That’s what’s in Senate Bill 359
[[link removed]], sponsored by Sen. John
Albers (R-Roswell).  The “Protecting Georgians Act” aims to
expand the state RICO statute by adding various  misdemeanors to be
considered as racketeering activity. 

The additional misdemeanors include littering, distributing posters,
signs, and leaflets in restricted areas, disrupting a funeral or
memorial service, loitering, and “prowling,” which is defined as
the “act of lurking around an area with the intent to commit a
criminal act.” Misdemeanor-level terroristic threats, disorderly
conduct, and harrassing communication would also be added to the list
of activities eligible for a RICO prosecution.

Prosecutors use the wide-ranging RICO law to make the case that a
variety of seemingly disparate actions are actually part of a criminal
enterprise–and RICO convictions carry higher penalties. Anyone
convicted of a misdemeanor RICO charge in Georgia faces six to twelve
months in jail, plus a fine of up to $5,000. 

A felony RICO conviction currently means two or more years in jail and
a fine of up to $5,000. SB 359 would increase the fine for a felony
RICO conviction by making $5,000 the minimum fine. It also adds
targeting a person or property because of political affiliation as a
factor for enhanced penalties.

Albers described the bill as “fairly simple in its desire to make
sure that people committing these heinous acts are held accountable
for their crimes.”

But Lynde says it opens up prosecution for Georgians who simply put a
political yard sign in the wrong place or pass out a leaflet. “In
terms of the chilling effect, I can’t think of anything that’s
more silly. If you do political advocacy but do it slightly wrong,
you’re subject to not only a crime but a crime that carries years in
prison.”

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last month–but 
after then members of both parties expressed reservations during the
Senate floor debate, so it was sent back to the Judiciary Committee.
“I don’t think [distributing fliers] is a RICO enterprise,” said
Sen. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth) during the debate. 

EXPANDING CASH BAIL CHARGES AND RESTRICTING BAIL FUND PROGRAMS

It’s now up to Gov. Brian Kemp to decide the fate of Senate Bill 63
[[link removed]], which sailed through both
the state Senate and House over the last week. The bill adds 30 new
misdemeanor charges
[[link removed]] –
[[link removed]]such
as trespassing, unlawful gathering, and failing to appear in court for
a traffic ticket–to those requiring a cash bond for release from
jail after an arrest.

The bill awaiting the governor’s signature also restricts
individuals and organizations’ ability to pay cash bail to release
others from jail.  It prohibits any individual or group from paying
more than three cash bonds for other people each year. Currently there
is no limit. 

Proponents argue that requiring people who’ve been arrested to pay a
cash bond to get out of jail will deter repeat offenses and
incentivize them to appear in court.

Critics such as Sen. Josh McLaurin (D-North Fulton) raised concerns
during the Senate floor debate before the vote and suggested that the
bill is a direct response to the protest movement against the
controversial Atlanta Public Safety Training Center, dubbed Cop City.
“It’s very thinly veiled targeting of the type of speech that the
majority [party] doesn’t like,” McLaurin said.

“We’re really worried about what that’s going to do to the
criminal legal system in Georgia. You’re going to have hundreds and
thousands of individuals who are trapped in Georgia’s jails and
can’t bond out,” Lynde said. ”The state doesn’t have a
recourse to let them out because of this new law.”

CRIMINALIZING ANTISEMITISM 

Last week, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed House Bill 30
[[link removed]],
which adds antisemitism to the state’s hate speech law for
crimes committed against Jewish people or places
[[link removed]].
The law uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s
working definition of antisemitism
[[link removed]],
which the IHRA notes is legally non-binding.  

The new Georgia law makes the IHRA definition the basis for
determining whether or not a targeted offense or discriminatory act 
is antisemitic and should be enhanced to a hate crime. Under the
enhancement, people face an additional 6 to 12 months in prison and a
fine of up to $5,000 for a misdemeanor classified as an antisemitic
hate crime. They face at least two additional years in prison for a
felony act.

Kemp said it’s essential to support Jewish Georgians, despite
concerns that the new law will chill the speech of people opposing the
actions of the state of Israel. The bill was co-sponsored by Rep.
Esther Panitch (D-Sandy Springs), the only Jewish member of the state
legislature. “For anybody that didn’t think that anti-Zionism
could cross into antisemitism, the rest of the world could see that it
had,” she said. 

Opponents of the bill–a coalition that includes Jewish Voice for
Peace and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), issued a
statement that the new law “falsely equates critiques of Israel and
Zionism with discrimination against Jewish people.”

A TRIO OF BILLS TARGETING LIBRARIANS AND LIBRARY BOOKS

A group of Senate Republicans are targeting educators, specifically
librarians, in two bills. 

Twenty-two GOP senators are supporting Senate Bill 390
[[link removed]], which both loosens
restrictions on librarian certification and cuts funding to programs
with ties to the American Library Association. Currently, the American
Library Association is the only group that can accredit librarians in
Georgia. So far the bill, filed Jan. 24, hasn’t progressed further
in the Senate.

Relatedly, Senate Bill 154
[[link removed]] eliminates the existing
protection for K-12 educators from criminal charges related to
distributing “harmful materials to minors.” That bill hasn’t
made any headway so far in the current session. It was filed last year
after Georgia’s so-called book-banning law
[[link removed]] passed
in the 2022 legislative session. 

Deciding what would be on the “harmful materials” list is the aim
of Senate Bill 394 [[link removed]], The
READER Act (Restricting Explicit and Adult-designated Educational
Resources), which was filed Jan. 24. The bill, sponsored by 21
Republicans, would require the  Georgia Board of Education to
establish a rating system for school materials and library books that
would be updated annually.  

SB 394 defines “harmful to minors”  as sexual content appealing
to the “prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors,” which
lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
for minors.” That is also the federal definition of obscenity,
dating back to a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case
[[link removed]]. 

* Civil Liberties
[[link removed]]
* Criminalization
[[link removed]]
* protest movement
[[link removed]]
* Georgia
[[link removed]]
* ACLU
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[/contact/submit_to_xxxxxx?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [/faq?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]
Manage subscription [/subscribe?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]
Visit xxxxxx.org [/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]