Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) proposed a new law yesterday, the details of which are below, and it totally doesn't restrict our right to protest peacefully. /s
Section 1 is fine, as long as "disorderly" already has a legal definition that means the hijinks you happy people are currently up to (arson, murder). None of those have to do with peaceful protest or freedom of speech. It's not someone's right to "get in the face" of restaurant customers, no matter how important the nasty little fascists might believe themselves to be.
**IF** disorderly means whatever the cops want it to mean, then your histrionics aren't as far fetched as I expect they are. Time will tell.
Section 2 I have some concerns with, mostly because once the State starts with mandatory sentencing there can be significant downsides.
Section 3 is like unto Section 2 - I understand what the law is intended for (prevention of Proggy fascist authorities letting their foot-soldiers out of jail to continue rioting, &c... but there's a lot of potential misuse under umbrella legislation.
Edit: Note the really important aspect of the legislation which turn all of these "crimes" into felonies, and people with felonies can't vote until their sentence/probation etc. is completed, this isn't a bug its a feature.
I think it's more relevant that the legislation is aimed at out-of-state
agent provocateurs. Obviously DeSantis knows that the real troublemakers are the Soros-funded goons, and he's trying to nip the potential collusion between his own Progressive contingent and the Soros recipients in the bud.
It won't stop fascists from voting in their home state, but it helps prevent their enablers from getting off scot-free.
Protests which come without some scum of mankind in their wake usually are about topics which are insignificant to most people.
Language barrier strikes again.
If something is regarded as important by a certain amount of people, then extremists, criminals or power-hungry schemers are going to try taking advantage of it and it can happen that they take over the movement. The question is, has it happened, but also which advantage would those gain who make such claims.
I *THINK* you're alluding to something that is often expressed as, "running to get in front of the parade". The TEA Party, which I was sympathetic with, are a famous example. The original movement was a legitimate 'grassroots' group - people who were upset at the overreach of Government (primarily Federal) and the corresponding, insatiable desire for taxation to fund it, while the results are lackluster at best and more generally would qualify as disgraceful.
Well, the original TEA Party was suddenly overlaid by at least two "professional" groups which were in no way 'grassroots' and seemed far more likely to be of the Progressive "right", while at the same time false charges of everything from racism to terrorism were brought by the Progressive Left. Apparently similar reactions had occurred with the early "hippie" movement; a desire for non-interventionist policy in Vietnam was suddenly seized upon by constituents of both political poles and the original group was essentially left in the dust.
