Ohio bill blurs protest rights, laws

SANDUSKY — Critics of a proposed Ohio law designed to broaden the definition of obstruction of justice say the legislation could hinder protests and free speech. If approved, House Bill 22 could make it a crime to interfere, even indirectly, with a police officer after a lawful order is given. The bill follows a year of civil unrest sparked by the murder of George Floyd by former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin. The legislation has had four hearings so far. "This bill was designed to protect not only our law enforcement officers but every Ohio citizen from any harm," said state Rep. Jeff LaRe, R-Violet Township, one of the bill's primary sponsors. "Individuals deserve their voice to be heard in a peaceful manner, and the safeguards I want to put in place will guarantee freedom of speech while protecting the thin blue line." LaRe is joined by Shane Wilkin, R-Hillsboro, and Rep. Gary Click, R-Vickery, in sponsoring the bill. Define the line Under current law, obstructing justice is defined as hindering the apprehension or prosecution of an alleged criminal, or assisting another in committing a crime, according to Ohio Revised Code. HB 22 would expand that to include indirect actions. "Those actions are already criminalized under Ohio law, and, for that reason, we don't really need HB 22," said Gary Daniels, the chief lobbyist of the ACLU of Ohio. "Instead of relieving the confusion, we keep adding to it." One of the ACLU's main concerns is the criminalization of the failure to follow a lawful order. For instance, if officers pursue a suspect who flees into a crowd, and if the members of that crowd act indifferent, whether they know an officer is pursuing a suspect or not, they could be considered guilty or in obstruction of justice. "Oftentimes, there is a disconnect between the legislators' intentions and what the bill's language actually says. House Bill 22 might very well be a prime example of that," he said. Lawmakers are listening to some of the concerns. For example, the original bill language included the prevention of taunting police, which was amended. "While speaking with the director of our local NAACP and a group of other African-American ladies, they expressed to me that the term 'taunting' was vague. They were concerned that this could be interpreted to mean a variety of things including video recording an incident," Click said. "I agreed that it was vague and spoke with the bill sponsor who advised me that they were already working to clarify that language." Click said the legislation is an opportunity for lawmakers to "say that we back the blue." "There has never been a more important time for us to stand behind those who run towards the danger rather than away," Click said. "HB 22 is both practical and necessary legislation designed to serve and protect those who serve and protect us." But critics are still concerned and confused. "By criminalizing the same behavior again in a different statute, this legislation will continue to make the criminal code over complex and ripe for error," said Niki Clum, legislative liaison for the Office of the Ohio Public Defender. "The provisions that are not already illegal will result in innocent people facing misdemeanor or felony convictions." Siobhan Boyd-Nelson, director of development and external relations for Equality Ohio, said the legislation could change laws relating to protest. "We believe that HB 22 will have a chilling effect on the fundamental right to protest, harming the ability of marginalized communities to seek justice and equal treatment, without providing any additional safety for police officers or citizens," she said. House Bill 109 Another piece of legislation in the house that's getting attention is House Bill 109. The bill, currently referred to the criminal justice committee, would increase penalties for certain assault, vandalism and riot offenses. It would also allow officers to bring civil suits against those participating in a riot. Daniels said the legislation uses language from anti-terrorism laws. "It's very concerning when legislatures are trying to equate people who protest or engage in civil disobedience with terrorists, but that is the language in House Bill 109," he said. "HB 109 is more complex, introducing new criminal laws, enhancing sentences under current criminal laws." Daniels said the bill has "serious free speech ramifications." The bill expands the definition of corrupt activity to include providing material support or resources used in the act of a riot. Think supplying water for rioters or making signs for protests that turn violent. These resources could include virtually anything from money and transportation to other items and services, except medicine or religious materials. The legislation would also allow peace officers who suffer harm to file a civil suit against a person committing riot or who filed a false complaint, or against a responsible party and organization that provided material support. "There are so many different ways that HB 109 can be read and interpreted, it's going to cause real problems if it passes and cause further problems in the free speech world," Daniels said. "If you are so afraid of the government that you do not engage in constitutionally protected free speech, your rights have been chilled. "Sometimes laws are written so broad and so vague that people feel that their rights to free speech have been chilled and as a result again they just stopped speaking."