In early June, a self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi was seen hanging banners with swastikas and other antisemitic and hate-filled material on a bridge near Orlando, Florida. Such displays have become increasingly prevalent over the past few years, but thanks to a new bill, supported by Agudath Israel, that makes anti-religious or -ethnic actions illegal, the police were now able to arrest the perpetrator.
HB 269 expanded the definition of hate crimes to include distributing flyers, stalking, and displaying images on others’ property, if any of the above shows religious or ethnic enmity and increased the penalty for such actions. Agudath Israel supported the bill in all stages, in March, Rabbi Avrohom Luban, associate director of Agudath Israel’s Florida Office, testified before the Criminal Justice Committee in support of the bill. He stressed the impact antisemitic imagery and actions has on young children.
“When the Bill was proposed, we immediately showed our support. We need to protect our communities; we need to protect our children,” said Rabbi Luban. “We are grateful that the State of Florida is exercising a zero-tolerance policy and that they took tangible action to help ensure our safety.”
“We are grateful for everyone who made this a reality,” said Rabbi Moshe Matz, executive director of Agudath Israel’s Florida Office. “To State Representatives Mike Caruso and Randy Fine and State Senator Alexis Calatayud who proposed the bill, to the Legislature who passed it unanimously, to Governor Ron DeSantis who championed and signed the bill, and especially to our law enforcement officers who are dedicated to keeping us safe.”
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
I hope these charges stick but suspect this law is an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights.
Unlikely that flying a banner or flag, even one of a de jure former enemy of the United States, e.g Nazis or Confederates, whose advocacy in wartime would be treason), or even one associated with a cause many find offensive: “pride”, “BLM”, opposition to “pride”, “All lives matter” – even advocating Trump, Biden or (heaven forbid) an election limited to Trump and Biden will be illegal since it is CLEARLY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (hint: the “First amendment” is what makes America great).
In Russia they would send him to the gulag and that’s it same as Iran
“The state’s public nuisance law, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis in April, prohibits individuals from intentionally displaying or projecting messages on any property without the written consent of its owner.”
This sounded reasonable at first until later in the article it becomes clear that it applies to public property. It’s hard to see how this would be constitutional.
How is it a public nuisance if it is on private property? That’s trespassing, which is illegal. Based on YWN picture, if the owner of the ground wants to have flag poles with WWII German flags on it, it is protected constitutionally. If the owner objects, its trespassing and the police will arrest the people regardless of whose flag they are displaying.
thanks to a new bill, supported by Agudath Israel, that makes anti-religious or -ethnic actions illegal,
This is just an outright lie. The bill does no such thing, because it can’t. “Hate crime” laws can’t create new offenses, they can only increase the penalties for actions that are already criminal. To be arrested under this law the person must have been doing something that is already illegal. Hanging banners on a bridge is not and can’t be illegal; it’s core speech, protected by the first amendment. So he must have been doing something else.
HB 269 expanded the definition of hate crimes to include distributing flyers, stalking, and displaying images on others’ property,
Stalking is already illegal, so the penalty can be increased. Trespassing is also illegal, but only if the owner gives adequate notice that the person is not welcome, and he is given time to leave. Vandalism is illegal, but merely “displaying images” is not vandalism. And distributing flyers in public is a core protected activity which can’t be made illegal.
Here’s the relevant text: “A person may not knowingly and intentionally display or project, using any medium, an image onto a building, structure, or other property without the written consent of the owner of the building, structure, or property. For purposes of this subsection, the term “image” means a visual representation or likeness of a person or object, including text, graphics, logos, other artwork, or any combination thereof”.
As applied to a public bridge from which banners are often hung without any response by law enforcement (if that is indeed the case, as I suspect) this would not be constitutional.
The law has no reference to flyers as such, but it makes an amendment to the littering law by increasing the penalty for “intentionally dumping litter onto private property for the purpose of intimidating or threatening the owner, resident, or invitee of such property”. Dumping flyers is littering, but handing them out to people is not. If they then drop the flyers, that is their littering, not the distributor’s.