I’m seeing a lot of these takes so here is a short, oversimplified explanation.
1/5
1/5
Two points.
1. I do not protect actual rioting.
2. Today’s decision about Florida’s anti-riot law does not say you have the right to riot.
2/5
1. I do not protect actual rioting.
2. Today’s decision about Florida’s anti-riot law does not say you have the right to riot.
2/5
The court said that the Florida law defined “riot” in an overly broad way that criminalized protected speech (i.e., speech that is not rioting). The government can’t punish protected speech simply by calling it “rioting.”
3/5
3/5
Such an overly broad law chills protected speech and allows the government to criminalize dissent, which violates me.
4/5
4/5
But, no, a federal court did not say that you have a First Amendment right to engage in a riot. You’d think I wouldn’t have to say that, but I refer you to the screenshots in my first tweet.
5/5
5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
