Jason Delgado
The House is considering legislation that would prohibit protests outside of an individual’s home, potentially even the Governor’s Mansion.
Sponsored by Dade City Republican Rep. Randy Maggard, the bill (HB 1571) seeks to ban residential protests that “harass” or “disturb” a person within their home.
It would also amplify penalties. Under the bill, a violation is a second-degree misdemeanor and carries penalties including 60 days in jail, a $500 fine and six months probation.
Police must first warn an individual of a potential violation. Lawmakers will vote on the bill later this week.
“The purpose of this bill is so you can have your castle, with your family and be left alone,” Maggard said. “There’s plenty of places in this state, in this country where you can protest. We’re eliminating the home.”
Critics of the bill, including the ACLU of Florida, decry the measure as overly broad and a potential violation of free speech.
Speaking on the floor, Maggard acknowledged the bill may outlaw protests outside of the Governor’s Mansion in Tallahassee — an area designated currently as a free speech zone.
Democratic lawmakers pitched several amendments to the bill. The Republican-controlled chamber, however, accepted none.
One would’ve added a provision requiring a homeowner to reasonably fear bodily harm before the residential protest becomes an offense.
Democratic Rep. Angie Nixon of Jacksonville sponsored the amendment. She argued the bill would criminalize someone’s “supposed intent,” rather than a person’s conduct.
“This is entirely up to discretion,” said Nixon, a Black lawmaker. “And folks know when people look like me, when it comes to discretion, things get a little shaky.”
Another amendment would’ve carved out an exception for the publicly funded home of an elected official.
“If your house is public, it’s not your house — it’s our house,” argued Brandon Democratic Rep. Andrew Learned, the amendment sponsor.
Orange County Sheriff John Mina is among the bill’s supporters.
In a previous committee, Mina said a statewide ordinance would offer clarity given the differing local regulations across the state.
Maggard disputes arguments suggesting the bill is an infringement upon free speech. He cites a 1988 Supreme Court case that involved two anti-abortion advocates leading others to protest outside of a Wisconsin doctor’s home.
The case — Frisby v. Schultz — led justices to side with the city of Brookfield, saying the government is within its right to prohibit protests outside of a person’s home.
If signed into law, the bill would take effect Oct. 1.
