Three #AntiProtestLaws recently passed in #Arizona, #Kentucky and #Texas

Source: https://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/

Arizona
HB 2880: Banning #protest #encampments on #campus

Bars protest encampments on the campuses of state colleges and universities. Under the new law, individuals or groups that establish an “encampment” are no longer lawfully present on campus for the purpose of speech protections under Arizona law; they are criminally liable to prosecution for trespass; and they are liable for any damage they cause, including the "direct and indirect costs" of removing the encampment and "restoring" campus. The new law defines “encampment” as “temporary shelter” installed on campus and used to stay overnight or “for a prolonged period of time.” The law requires colleges and universities to order individuals to dismantle and vacate any encampment; if the individuals refuse to comply, the institution is required to take disciplinary action and report the individuals to local law enforcement for trespassing. The sponsor of the new law said that it was motivated by #ProPalestine protests on college campuses.
Full bill text:
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/83353

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Feb 2025; Approved by House 3 March 2025; Approved by Senate 30 April 2025; Signed by Governor Hobbs 7 May 2025

Issue(s): #CampusProtests, #Trespass, Camping

Kentucky
HB 399: New penalties for protesters at the capitol

Creates serious new criminal offenses that can cover #PeacefulProtesters at the state capitol, as well as anyone who “conspires” with or otherwise supports them. The first new offense applies to someone who enters the capitol, or impedes access to the capitol by a legislator or legislative staff, with intent to disrupt or impede legislative business—regardless of whether legislative business was in fact “impeded.” “Conspir[ing]” to engage in such conduct or “facilitat[ing]” another person to engage in the conduct is subject to the same penalties as actually engaging in it. It is a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by up to 3 months in jail) for a first incident, and a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail) for subsequent incident. The law creates a second, more serious offense for someone who engages in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” inside the Capitol with intent to disrupt or impede legislative business, if their conduct in fact “disrupts” or “impedes” the legislature’s business—even momentarily. As written, the offense could cover a demonstrator who shouts a single chant during a legislative hearing. “Conspir[ing]” to engage in such conduct or “facilitat[ing]” another person to engage in the conduct is subject to the same penalties as actually engaging in it. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail) for the first incident, and a Class D felony (up to 5 years in prison) for third and subsequent incident. Prior to passing the bill, lawmakers added an amendment which provides that the law will not be construed "to prohibit... [a]ssembly in traditional public forums, including but not limited to the Capitol rotunda and outdoor areas of the Capitol grounds." While helpful, the amendment does not immunize all peaceful protest activity that the law could potentially punish, including protest organizing. When he vetoed the bill (later overridden), Governor Beshear noted the risks it poses to lawful #FirstAmendment activity.
Full bill text:
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/25rs/hb399.html

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Feb 2025; Approved by House 7 March 2025; Approved by Senate 13 March 2025; Vetoed by Governor Beshear 25 March 2025; Veto overridden 27 March 2025

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response

Texas
#SB2972: New restrictions on #CampusProtests

Requires public colleges and universities to adopt new limitations on campus protests that among other things would ban protest encampments, limit protesters’ ability to wear a mask, and restrict vigils and other demonstrations at night. Under the law—which revises Texas’s 2019 law on campus speech—all public colleges and universities in the state must have policies that among other things prohibit: a) erecting tents or otherwise “camping” on campus; b) wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in “expressive activities” on campus with certain intent, including intent to “intimidate others;” c) engaging in “expressive activities” between 10pm and 8am; d) engaging in “expressive activities” in the last two weeks of a school term by inviting speakers or using sound amplification or drums; and e) using sound amplification while engaging in “expressive activities” during class hours if it “intimidate[s] others.” Preexisting provisions of the law define “expressive activities” broadly as “any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment,” including but not limited to assemblies, protests, speeches, carrying signs, or distributing written material. As such, colleges and universities would seemingly be required to ban all kinds of expression between 10pm and 8am, from conversations in the dining hall to someone sending a text or wearing expressive clothing. The law repeals a provision in the 2019 law that established all common outdoor areas of campus as traditional public forums where anyone could engage in First Amendment activity, and replaced it with a provision authorizing the governing boards of schools to designate select areas as public forums.
Full bill text: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB2972

Status: enacted

Introduced 14 Mar 2025; Approved by Senate 14 May 2025; Approved by House 28 May 2025; Signed by Governor Abbott 20 June 2025

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Camping

#USPol #CriminalizingProtest #CriminalizingDissent #AntiProtestLaws #TexasProtestLaws #KentuckyProtestLaws #ArizonaProtestLaws #ClothingBans #CollegeCampusProtests #MaskBans #EncampmentBans

#VictoriaAustralia’s draconian new #AntiProtest laws will have a chilling effect on #FreeSpeech — and won’t keep anyone safe

Far-reaching anti-protest measures and giving police more repressive powers only serve to increase the risk of escalating violence.

by Sarah Schwartz, Jul 9, 2025

"In response to the weekend’s attack on the East Melbourne Hebrew Congregation, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has announced she will forge ahead with new anti-protest measures and more #police powers.

"In doing so, she is following what has become the new normal for state governments across the country: using acts of racism and violence as a pretext to #ClampDown on unrelated democratic rights.

"Taking to the streets in peaceful protest is one of the main ways for people to come together and express our political views when our representatives aren’t listening to us. But this right is not without limits. Every person has a right to worship in safety. The attack on East Melbourne Synagogue was not a protest; it was an act of antisemitism. The suspect has been apprehended and charged with a multitude of criminal offences.

"Two other incidents over the weekend, the targeting of a business with ties to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation — a US-backed #Israeli organisation linked to the massacres of unarmed #Palestinians seeking aid — and a weapons company with links to the Israeli military, are also being referred to as justifying new laws. It is important not to conflate these actions against Israel with an attack against a Jewish place of worship. International human rights law, as well as our current laws, already place limits on protests that involve intimidation and violence.

"So what is actually being proposed in response? The Allan government is suggesting the creation of a new criminal offence for wearing a #FaceCovering at peaceful protests, banning 'dangerous attachment devices' (e.g. a #chain, a #BikeLock) — which have long been used in non-violent civil disobedience — and #criminalising peaceful protests around places of religious worship.

"The ban on face coverings would be a first in #Australia. It would mirror measures used in #authoritarian states that force people to submit themselves to various forms of #StateSurveillance.

" #VictoriaPolice has been using facial recognition software for years without any regulatory or legislative framework to prevent breaches of privacy. This technology, combined with a ban on face coverings at protests, would essentially amount to an obligation on behalf of individuals to submit to surveillance by the state, corporations and other groups that surveil protesters.

"Unless you’re a #MiningCompany spending hundreds of millions buying politicians’ favour or can wine and dine decision-makers, peaceful protest is one of the main ways for people to hold governments and corporations to account. Protests for the eight-hour workday, #WomensRights, #FirstNationsRights and the #AntiWar movement have led to significant improvements in all of our lives.
Know something?

"Many people attending protests wear face coverings to protect their privacy and anonymity. For temporary migrants, the consequences of identification can include visa cancellation and detention. #FarRight groups, abusers of gender-based violence and other political groups have all been documented as engaging in doxing, surveillance and retaliatory violence against people identified at peaceful protests.

"Even with exemptions, a ban would mean that people who wear facemasks for reasons of health, disability status, or religious or cultural reasons would be at risk of police targeting and made to justify their use of a face mask.

"Adding new repressive police powers against peaceful protesters only serves to increase the risk of escalating violence at already heightened public demonstrations. People will not stop taking to the streets on issues they care about, even if the state tries to stifle their voices. Donald #Trump’s deployment of the #NationalGuard in response to protests in LA shows us how deploying more state force at protests increases rather than decreases the risk of violence.

"A ban on protests outside or within a certain proximity to places of worship would mean police could arrest those engaging in peaceful protests for a genuine, non-discriminatory purpose — for example, protests by survivors of #ClergySexualAbuse or by congregants against the political activities of their own religious institutions.

"It would also have the unintended consequence of rendering large areas of the state no-go zones for peaceful protest, due to the high number of places of worship. Similar laws in #NSW are already being challenged for their #unconstitutionality.

"Taken together, this suite of laws, which would provide police with extraordinary powers against people peacefully raising their voices against #injustice, would have a chilling effect, deterring #MarginalisedGroups from attending protests and exercising their rights to freedom of expression, which the Victorian government has sought to protect.

"Ultimately, banning face coverings at peaceful protests and banning protests outside places of worship would not have done anything to prevent what occurred over the weekend. Premier Allan knows this. Yet she is stuck in the same reactive law-and-order merry-go-round that saw NSW Premier Chris Minns enact fear-based, repressive anti-protest measures in response to what we now know was an opportunistic criminal conspiracy.

"Encouraging people to express their political views peacefully is the antidote to non-peaceful forms of protest and is something that all governments should be encouraging and facilitating. At times like this, we should be able to trust our politicians not to fuel division and panic through misguided and knee-jerk responses, but to take measures to address the root causes of racism and hatred."

https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/07/09/victoria-anti-protest-laws-police-powers-jacinta-allan-miznon-east-melbourne-synagogue/

#AntiProtestLaws #ProtestLawsAustralia #ACAB #SilencingFreeSpeech #SilencingDissent #CriminalizingProtest #Authoritarianism